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.

You have read nothing.  Your entire reason is subjected to a perverse will.

This is just uncalled for.  We’re trying to have a discussion and you’re calling people perverse?  Bad will?  Maybe you’re right and we’re totally wrong but did you ever stop to think that your EXPLANATIONS are lacking or aren’t perfect?  Is there ANY way, in ANY SMALL degree, you could be wrong, or are you infallible?  Or is everyone perverse who disagrees with you?  It’s not like we’re making fun of you’re view; we’re asking intelligent questions. Golly whiz, take a chill pill.  

I don't have more time but I remember obvious errors. Listen to Fr. de Pauw.

Pope Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Liturgy in 1570. It was used in the Latin West until 1962. The Pope himself calls it a "new" rite in Quo Primum bull, even though the intention was restoring the Roman Missal "to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers". The fact that there exists a pre-Tridentine Mass before the Tridentine Mass is evidence that changes, modifications, and revisions of the original Mass in Aramaic and Greek, indeed occurred. You can blind yourself to historical realities; but when you deny reality, it automatically works against you.

Quo Primum, 4:

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom.

Did the Pope make a complete liturgical innovation out of thin air? of course not. Undeniably, the substance of the Eucharist cannot ever be changed because Christ Himself instituted the Sacrament. That part alone is what is unchangeable until the end of time and what you can call "immemorial" because it is of Divine origin.

Pope Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Liturgy in 1570. It was used in the Latin West until 1962. The Pope himself calls it a "new" rite in Quo Primum bull, even though the intention was restoring the Roman Missal "to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers". The fact that there exists a pre-Tridentine Mass before the Tridentine Mass is evidence that changes, modifications, and revisions of the original Mass in Aramaic and Greek, indeed occurred. You can blind yourself to historical realities; but when you deny reality, it automatically works against you.

Quo Primum, 4:
Did the Pope make a complete liturgical innovation out of thin air? of course not. Undeniably, the substance of the Eucharist cannot ever be changed because Christ Himself instituted the Sacrament. That part alone is what is unchangeable until the end of time and what you can call "immemorial" because it is of Divine origin.

You still have not listened to Fr. de Pauw. It will do you good. About him: http://www.latinmass-ctm.org/about/ourleader/leader.htm

Video link:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg641598/#msg641598

The problem is that you have constructed an entire reason for "resistance" based upon a massive, unbelievable, misinterpretation of that particular Tridentine canon, which is addressed to the Catholic clergy to simply stop them from using the pre-Tridentine liturgies that were common at the time and varied from one region to another, making it chaotic and subject to liturgical abuse. It was an effort of Pius V to regulate and codify an uniform Latin Rite of Mass to be used by everyone, which he in fact did shortly after, in Quo Primum.

You are hopelessly wrong on this, and I think you have spent entire decades of your life following this single error, so I can understand why you would not want to admit it. The "approved and received" rites of the Catholic Church are simply the ones which the Pope (the Holy See) "approves and receives". Once the Roman Pontiff promulgates a liturgical rite, such rite becomes part of the "approved and received".

We are in the company of Fr. Gommar de Pauw who ONLY did the Missal he was given at his ordination in 1942 until his death, so when he speaks about the changes in the Missal he includes the 1962 although not specifically. But again, you have either not watched it or didn't like what he says.
At be beginning of the thread you said:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg638830/#msg638830

And you still don't have a clue. Read Tradition and the Church.

The problem is that you have constructed an entire reason for "resistance" based upon a massive, unbelievable, misinterpretation of that particular Tridentine canon, which is addressed to the Catholic clergy to simply stop them from using the pre-Tridentine liturgies that were common at the time and varied from one region to another, making it chaotic and subject to liturgical abuse. It was an effort of Pius V to regulate and codify an uniform Latin Rite of Mass to be used by everyone, which he in fact did shortly after, in Quo Primum.

You are hopelessly wrong on this, and I think you have spent entire decades of your life following this single error, so I can understand why you would not want to admit it. The "approved and received" rites of the Catholic Church are simply the ones which the Pope (the Holy See) "approves and receives". Once the Roman Pontiff promulgates a liturgical rite, such rite becomes part of the "approved and received".

I didn't have time for a full reply earlier.

Yes, again. You do not hold Dogma as your proximate rule of faith and this post may help explain why.  This is evidence that you do not know what Dogma is.  You say, that the dogmatic canon XIII “is addressed to the Catholic clergy to simply stop them from using the pre-Tridentine liturgies that were common at the time and varied from one region to another, making it chaotic and subject to liturgical abuse.”

You are claiming that the Dogma is a preceptive norm in the category of authority/obedience commanding the clergy to “stop… using the pre-Tridentine liturgies” because they “varied from one region to another, making it chaotic and subject to liturgical abuse.”  

You have been told this many, many times before but you continue doing it.  So I will tell you again. Dogmas are, as St. Pius X taught, “truths fallen from heaven.”  They are not preceptive norms.  In fact, it is a condemned error of Modernism to treat dogmas as preceptive norms.

Canon XIII is, like all dogmas, a revealed doctrine formally defined.  It is a universal truth that is a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  You have been provided the reference to the lecture of Fr. Hesse multiple times who specifically addresses this dogma and its correct Latin translation. So does Fr. Kramer. Still you continue to corrupt it.  

Pax is offended that bad will is attributed to your posts but when intellectual rectitude has been eliminated as a possible explanation. That only leaves bad will unless there is some unknown physiological or psychological explanation in which case I would certainly apologize.