These laws need no "interpretion" because they aren't complex. You just read what they say and follow it. You, on the other hand, have judged John XXIII to be a "destroyer of the liturgy" and have rejected his 62 laws. You might as well be a sedevacant because that's the only logical reason one could use make in using a pre-62 missal. (And, to be honest, I have no problem with this view, as John XXIII probably was a freemason and therefore his spiritual office was impaired. But you can't say he was really the pope and then reject his 62 law. Makes YOU the interpreter of laws and it makes YOU the master of the liturgy. See the irony?
Your mind is cluttered. You have constructed an entire argument grounded upon the assertion from Benedict XVI's SP that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal was never "outlawed" while at the same time rejecting nearly everything else he says regarding this Missal. The unstated implication is that this Missal can be "outlawed." He affirms that this Missal shares a common provenance with the 1969 Bugnini Missal and constitutes two forms of one 'lex orandi, lex credendi.' He imposes conditions for the use of this Missal requiring the unconditional acceptance of Vatican II and all the Bugnini liturgical renovations in principle and in application. You reject what you do not like from Benedict and grasp what is useful. You then use what you grasp to declare that JPII was guilty of "trickery" by establishing the Indult and affirm that the
ad hoc commission of 9 cardinals "proves" your claims on the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is the "received and approved" Roman rite when they said nothing about this Missal whatsoever. This is what you call using "logic"? This is what you consider sound legal analysis.
The entire construction of your argument is juvenile. It presupposes that liturgy is a matter of mere discipline subject to the independent will of the legislator. It presupposes the pope as the rule of faith and absolute 'master of the liturgy.' It proposes a liturgical foundation of Resistance to the abuse of authority that would be blown away in a gently breeze. It makes traditional Catholics look stupid. What is worse, it ignores the dogmatic foundations of true worship that constitute the only argument that can be offered to an abuse of authority.
Msgr. Klaus Gamber in his book expresses his disgust with unnamed defender's of traditional Catholic worship. I do not doubt he was referring to the SSPX. What is clear from Gamber is that to accept these defenders gross legalistic reductionism of liturgy is to enter into the Bugnini concept of worship, and therefore, will never lead to any correction of the problem.
What must someday happen is for another St. Pius V to make a complete "restoration" of the liturgy after it had been corrupted by her enemies, and when that is done, everything of the work of Bugnini and his Pian commission will be trashed. And as long as Rome legally treats the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as an object mere ecclesiastical faith, as an object of mere discipline that can be reduced to an Indult and grant of legal privilege under positive law, it must be rejected on those grounds. This constitutes
prima facie evidence that the 1962 Bugnini Missal is not the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite, and until this evidence is overturned, which can only be done by competent authority, the only option is to embrace what is most certainly the "received and approved" Roman rite grounded in Truth and protected by the rights of immemorial tradition.
Drew