CathInfo.com

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.

No Stanley, you do not understand the argument correctly.  I am not familiar with the changes in the breviary but the breviary is not the “received and approved” rite and even if it were, my argument is NOT grounded upon making formal judgments that are reserved to properly constituted authority.  My argument is grounded upon drawing conclusions from a few simple facts:

1)      Bugnini began in 1948 as head of the Pian commission with the intent of overturning the “received and approved” rite of Mass.  This was accomplished with certainty by in his Missal 1969 by both sides of this question.
2)      Exactly when the “received and approved” rite ended and the new rite began is a matter of speculation but we know for fact that:
a)      The “received and approved” rite was ended before 1962 because Rome under three popes has legally relegated this Missal to an Indult and to a grant of legal privilege attached to unacceptable conditions for faithful Catholics.  This fact is absolutely incompatible with a “received and approved” rite.
b)      There must be a presumption in favor of the legislator as to the correctness and meaning of their laws.  That is, until proven otherwise by competent authority, 1962 rite must be regarded as sharing a common provenance with the 1969 Bugnini Missal expressing one ‘lex orandi, lex credenda.’
3)      That the “received and approved” rites cannot be changed into other new rites by any pastor of the churches whomsoever is dogma, that is, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith that has been incorporated into the Tridentine profession of faith.
4)      Therefore, every Catholic faithful to tradition must, whenever possible, attend a Mass that is without question the “received and approved” Roman rite of Mass.
5)      My argument is not based upon determining exactly what is and what is not of divine origin, OR what is and what is not of discipline.  Those that affirm that they can on their own authority determine what Bugnini corruptions are compatible and what are not have usurped to themselves an authority they do not possess.  What is worse, they cannot structure an intelligible argument against an abusive authority that is grounded upon dogmatic truth.

CIC 1917, Canon 1257:

The Holy See alone has the right to enact the form of the sacred liturgy, as well as to approve the liturgical books.

Until you can demonstrate that the form of the Sacred Liturgy was indeed altered in the 1962 revision of the Tridentine Rite, you have no grounds to resist anything.