What is known is that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal shares a common provenance with the 1969 Bugnini Missal expressing a singular 'lex orandi, lex credendi,' and thus, both are matters of mere discipline subject to the free and independent will of the legislator. This is not speculation; this is the current state of Church liturgical law.
1. You continue to peddle the ASSUMPTION that the 62 missal was Bugnini’s by ignoring the fact that Pope John took Bugnini off the liturgical commission. Therefore you don’t know which changes in 62 are from Bugnini and which aren’t. To assert an assumption as fact is dishonest. At least admit your error.
I do not "ignore" this fact but recognize that it is immaterial and has already been addressed to you. In fact, to suggest that this
IS material, is an attempt to obfuscate the essential historical development of the liturgical reform.
Bugnini directed the liturgical reform as secretary of the Pian commission beginning in 1948. This commission envisioned the Novus Ordo as its end from the beginning of its deliberations. This fact is confirmed in Bugnini's book. On June 6, 1960, Bugnini was named Secretary of the Pontifical Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy for the Council by John XXIII which established the agenda for Vatican II on the liturgy. John XXIII's Motu Proprio,
Rubricarum Instructum, approving the new Roman Breviary and Missal was published July 25, 1960 in which he says directly that he is anticipating the Council and introducing the liturgical changes from the Bugnini Pian Commission. The Council began in October 1962 at which time the Preparatory Commission changed its name to the Council Commission on the Sacred Liturgy. Bugnini was replaced as secretary at that time in October 1962 and then restored by Paul VI as its secretary. Nothing of Bugnini's preparatory work for the Council was ever changed. Bugnini took full credit for the liturgical changes implemented before the Council.
Historically your complaint is bogus. The removal has nothing to do with the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal which was actually implemented by a succession of acts by the Sacred Congregation on the Liturgy.
It might not have occurred to you that the removal of Bugnini by John XXIII may not have been motivated by any opposition to his plans of liturgical reform, but rather by the hope of John XXIII that a less controversial figure might be more successful in actualizing Bugnini's preparatory agenda?
In summary, your #1 complaint is historically wrong and intellectually baseless and to point out this fact is not "dishonest."
2. The 62 missal (previous to the 80s indult laws) DID NOT HAVE ANY CONNECTION to the new mass. So for 20+ years, the 62 missal was NOT a “grant of privilege” or a “mere discipline”.
This is absurd. "No Connection"? Bugnini is the acknowledged author of both works. Bugnini's own book is entitled,
The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975. It may surprise you but 1962 and 1969 are included in the years 1948 to 1975. I have a copy of this book and it might do you some good to buy one. For "20+ years" the 1962 Missal was regarded as on obrogated Bugnini transitional Missal. It has been relegated to the status of an Indult and then a grant of legal privilege with specific conditions legally stipulated for its use. Those using this Missal willingly or unwillingly have accepted these conditions.
3. The indult laws of the 80s only apply to priests who are “in communion with” new-Rome. Those traditionalists who reject V2, the novus ordo and new-Rome’s heresies aren’t obligated to follow the indult laws and there is no penalty for ignoring them.
Traditionalists can/should continue to use the 62 missal UNDER THE LAW PREVIOUS TO THE 80s, before the indult existed. The law of Pope John which created/allowed the 62 missal is still valid, still applicable and still in force. No indult law changed Pope John’s law, therefore the indults are unnecessary, unenforceable and can/should be ignored.
"The indult laws of the 80s only apply to priests who are 'in communion with' new-Rome." So, when John XXIII makes a liturgical law, it must be accepted but when John Paul II or Benedict XVI make a liturgical law it only applies to those "in communion with new-Rome." And who are you to render this legal determination? And this is just your opinion and nothing more, and an opinion based on what? You appeal to
Summorum Pontificuм to "prove" that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is "legal" and yet you pretend that the legal stipulations for its use do not apple to you. You pick and choose the evidence that suits your ideology. You may have convinced yourself but your argument could not get you a passing mark in a high school civics class.
Bugnini was an enemy of the Catholic faith with the intent to destroy the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite of Mass. Those who accept his earlier steps in the implementation of this mutilation of the liturgical calendar which began well before 1962, as well as his overturning of the apostolic tradition of only including martyrs in the canon of the Mass, are liturgical philistines. Those who would permit the crown Jєωel of the Catholic Faith to be mutilated by Bugnini deserve what they will get.
You hold the pope as your proximate rule of faith and the liturgy as a matter of mere discipline. You therefore recognize in the pope the arbitrary authority to do whatever he wills with regard to the worship of God as long as it does not offend your personal sensibilities. Your concept of liturgy is crude, legalistic with a gross mechanical understanding of divine worship. Your theology is evidently a product of the SSPX who have a conception that the substance of the Mass involves only the words of consecration and nothing more. It is from this conception that the SSPX actually believes the ridiculous idea that a priest can simply say "this is my body" and consecrate all the bread in a bakery or "this is my blood" and consecrate all the wine in a wine cellar. You are in the same mold, the same liturgical tradition.
You can whine all you want but in accepting the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal you have accepted all its legal conditions and have no grounds to argue with anyone about anything. Imagine making your argument before the Roman Rota. They would laugh you out the door.
Drew