CathInfo.com

What is first in intention is last in execution. The revolution that trads oppose happened in 1969 when a very different missal was published.

Cardinal Ottaviani like others did not see the crime for what it was until everything was in ruins and the dead body was on the floor.  Hind sight is much clearer.  We know that Bugnini envisioned the Novus Ordo from the beginning.  Every liturgical innovation was directed to overcome all opposition and achieve the overthrow of the “received and approved” rite of Mass.  Fr. Anscar Chupungco, a strong admirer of Bugnini, said:

Bugnini himself, then secretary to the Congregation of Divine Worship, was not spared. He was a systematic person who programmed the liturgical reform and courageously pushed its implementation against all opposition. I remember that in one of his visits to the Pontifical Liturgical Institute he declared, “I am the liturgical reform!” In more ways than one his self-assessment was correct. The postconciliar reform would not have progressed with giant steps had it not been for his dauntless spirit and tenacity.
Fr. Anscar Chupungco OSB, former president of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute in Rome, from his book, What, Then, Is Liturgy? Musings and Memoir

There is also the famous quote from Bugnini’s collaborator, Fr. Josef Jungmann, S.J., commenting on the success of Bugnini:

“The Roman Rite is dead.”
Fr. Josef Andreas Jungmann, S.J., member of the Concilium, one of the chief liturgical revolutionaries, author of the 2-volume set, The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development, in 1969

Bugnini was able to overcome because he had the support of the popes and he always argued from the perspective of false charity of human respect, such as, when he changed the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of “heretics and schismatics”, to “unity with our separated brethren,” he said:

“And yet it is the love of souls and the desire to help in any way the road to union of the separated brethren, by removing every stone that could even remotely constitute an obstacle or difficulty, that has driven the Church to make even these painful sacrifices.”
Rev. Annibale Bugnini, March 19, 1965 edition of L’Osservatore Romano, on changing the Good Friday prayer for heretics and schismatics.

By the time the 1969 Bugnini Missal was published it was more clear as to what was going on.  It is easy to see the 1969 Missal and say it is not the “received and approved” Roman rite but it is not easy to say exactly at what point in Bugnini reform that this happened.  We know that Popes JPII, Benedict XVI, and Francis have all treated the 1962 Bugnini Missal as if it is not the “received and approved” rite by reducing it to an indult and then, a grant of legal privilege conditionally tied to accepting that the 1969 and the 1962 Missals are two forms of worship constituting one identical ‘lex orandi, lex credenda.’  The use of the 1962 Missal also is tied to unconditional acceptance of Vatican II being without error.   So it has become clear since 1983 that the 1962 Bugnini Missal is not the “received and approved” rite because there is something about it which constitutes an essential break in liturgical tradition.  

St. Pius X in Pascendi referenced Nicaea II which condemned the heresy of Iconoclasm which is the destruction of the images of our faith.  He reaffirmed its condemnations.

“Those therefore who after the manner of wicked heretics dare to set aside Ecclesiastical Traditions, and to invent any kind of novelty, or to reject any of those things entrusted to the Church, or who wrongfully and outrageously devise the destruction of any of those Traditions enshrined in the Catholic Church, are to be punished thus:
 “IF THEY ARE BISHOPS, WE ORDER THEM TO BE DEPOSED; BUT IF THEY ARE MONKS OR LAY PERSONS, WE COMMAND THEM TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COMMUNITY.”   Second Council of Nicaea 787 A.D.

Bugnini “wrongfully and outrageously devised the destruction” the greatest of all of “those Traditions enshrined in the Catholic Church.”   It is ruinous to the Resistance to argue how much of Bugnini’s reforms can be digested without sickening true worship.  No one would tolerate any black water contaminating the potable water.  Why would any faithful Catholic be complacent in defending the true worship of God?  

St. Pius X in Pascendi referenced Nicaea II which condemned the heresy of Iconoclasm which is the destruction of the images of our faith.  He reaffirmed its condemnations.

I think you've come up with what looks like a simple answer to a difficult problem, but from my viewpoint, your answer just doesn't match reality.

For example, in the breviary before 1911 there was a tradition of reciting the "laudete" psalms every morning at lauds. This practice was one of the most ancient traditions in the prayer of the Church. Our Lord may very well have said these same psalms in morning prayer.

Nevertheless, St. Pius X's reform of the breviary did away with this.

If I understand your argument correctly, you must reject the breviary reform of Pope St. Pius X as "iconoclast" for daring to set aside ecclesiastical traditions.

The liturgy is not "purely discipline" and no one here thinks that. We all agree the divine elements can't be changed. But human elements can and have changed, as evidenced by history such as the Pius X breviary reform.

You have an erroneous understanding of the term "new rite" in pre VII docuмents. There is no contradiction between Canon XIII and Pius XII quotes.

There is no contradiction simply because Canon XIII does not include the Supreme Pontiff, of course!.

You insist that Pius V started a new rite.

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.