"However, the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, particularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition (several popes are then quoted in the footnote).  For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of 'discipline and rule of the Church.'  To this we can add that there is not a single docuмent, including the Codex Iuris Canonici, in which there is a specific statement that the pope, in his function as the supreme pastor of the Church, has the authority to abolish the traditional rite.  In fact, nowhere is it mentioned that the pope has the authority to change even a single local liturgical tradition.  The fact that there is no mention of such authority strengthens our case considerably.
    "There are clearly defined limits to the plena et suprema potestas (full and highest powers) of the pope.  For example, there is no question that, even in matters of dogma, he still has to follow the tradition of the universal Church-that is, as St. Vincent of Lerins says, what has been believed (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab ominibus).  In fact, there are several authors who state quite explicitly that it is clearly outside the pope's scope of authority to abolish the traditional rite."

Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy

   "Liturgy and faith are interdependent.  That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology”.  
Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy

The Tridentine Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV, Iniunctum Nobis, prescribes adherence to the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the sacraments.”  The “received and approved rites” are the rites established by custom, and hence the Council of Trent refers to them as the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments (Sess. VII, can XIII).  Adherence to the customary rites received and approved by the Church is an infallible defined doctrine: The Council of Florence defined that “priests…. must confect the body of the Lord, each one according to the custom of his Church” (Decretum pro Graecis), and therefore the Council of Trent solemnly condemned as heresy the proposition that “ the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be changed into other new rites by any ecclesiastical pastor whosoever.”  
Fr. Paul Kramer, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy

“They wander entirely away from the true and full notion and understanding of the Sacred Liturgy, who consider it only as an external part of divine worship, and presented to the senses; or as a kind of apparatus of ceremonial properties; and they no less err who think of it as a mere compendium of laws and precepts, by which the ecclesiastical Hierarchy bids the sacred rites to be arranged and ordered."
Pope Piux XII, Mediator Dei

AND:
 
"Lex orandi, lex credendi’ -- the law for prayer is the law for faith”, and, “In the sacred liturgy we profess the Catholic faith explicitly and openly”….. “The entire liturgy, therefore, has the Catholic faith for its content, inasmuch as it bears public witness to the faith of the Church.”  
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei
 

St. Pius X, in his condemnation of Modernists in Pascendi Dominid Gregis;

They (the Modernists) exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of Tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority.  But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those “who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind.... or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church”; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: “We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by every one of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.” Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: “I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church”

 The Liturgy cannot be compared to a piece of equipment, something made, but rather to a plant, something organic that grows and whose laws of growth determine the possibilities of further development.  In the West there has been, of course, another factor involved.  This was the Papal authority, the Pope took ever more clearly the responsibility upon himself for the liturgical legislation, and so doing foresaw in a juridical authority for the forth setting of the liturgical development.  The stronger the papal primacy was exercised, the more the question arose, just what the limits of this authority were, which of course, no-one had ever before thought about.  After the Second Vatican Council, the impression has been made that the Pope, as far as the Liturgy goes, can actually do everything he wishes to do, certainly when he was acting with the mandate of an Ecuмenical Council.  Finally, the idea that the Liturgy is a predetermined ''given'', the fact that nobody can simply do what he wishes with her, disappeared out of the public conscience of the Western [Church].  In fact, the First Vatican Council did not in any way define that the Pope was an absolute monarch!  Au contraire, the first Vatican Council sketched his role as that of a guarantee for the obedience to the Revealed Word.  The papal authority is limited by the Holy Tradition of the Faith, and that regards also the Liturgy.  The Liturgy is no ''creation'' of the authorities.  Even the Pope can be nothing other than a humble servant of the Liturgy's legitimate development and of her everlasting integrity and identity.

Pope Benedict XVI, Spirit of the Liturgy

All of the Eastern rites of Mass of long prescription can ultimately be shown to be developments of either the Antiochene or Alexandrian rites, and both of those rites can be shown to be developments of apostolic rites. Can those who deny this point to one single example, pre-Vatican II, of an Eastern rite of Mass of long prescription that could truthfully be referred to as a “banal fabrication” or an “on-the-spot product?” In what century did this “banal fabrication” or “on-the-spot production” of an Eastern rite occur? I doubt we will ever receive an answer.  

Cantarella,

So does Michael Davis. In the link to Short History of the Roman Mass by Michael Davis you can also click any chapter.

Short History of the Roman Mass
https://unavocecanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Short-History-of-the-Roman-Mass.pdf

In 1955 Pope Pius XII authorized a rubrical revision, chiefly concerned with the calendar. In 1951 he restored the Easter Vigil from the morning to the evening of Holy Saturday, and, on 16 November 1955, he approved the Decree Maxima redemptionis, reforming the Holy Week ceremonies. These reforms were welcomed and have been highly praised by some of the traditionalists, who implacably opposed to the reform of Pope Paul VI. Pope John XXIII also made an extensive rubrical reform which was promulgated on 25 July 1960 and took effect from 1 January 1961. Once again this was concerned principally with the calendar. In none of these reforms was any significant change made to the Ordinary of the Mass. It is thus unscholarly, dishonest even, to attempt to refute traditionalist criticisms of the New Mass by citing changes made in the Missal by the popes just named.

Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a sovereignty of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, which is truly Episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatsoever rite and dignity, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor, through the preservation of unity, both of communion and of profession of the same faith, with the Roman pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation.

There is no contradiction simply because Canon XIII does not include the Supreme Pontiff, of course!.
Where do I insist so?

He could have simply modified it, and the end result is the same. Revisions were made to the pre-Tridentine Liturgy. (Not the Divine core, or substance of the Mass which comes from Christ, of course). The Tridentine Mass is the Roman Rite Mass which appears in the Missals published from 1570 to 1962. All of the editions approved by the Church are safe for the faithful to use. If the last one is harmful, then the only possibility is that the Authority who promulgated it is false.  I don't oppose you using a pre-1962 Missal. I do so myself, but I think you do it for the wrong reasons, lacking the proper obedience due to the one you consider Pope, in all matters liturgical, as stipulated in Vatican I Council.  

Here and at least in one other post.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg639201/#msg639201

And my husband reasponded to this one.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg639268/#msg639268