There is a historical example of a pope declaring a “received and approved” rite illegal and this “law” was overturned and declared to have been unjust, that is, it was declared to not have been a law at all.  Therefore, should the pope attempt this act he need not be obeyed.   He does not possess the authority to overturn the dogmatically established rites or the authority to enact laws that are contrary to right reason and against the common good.  This is fully consistent with what Msgr. Gamber said which I previously posted, and it is fully consistent with Catholic moral theology, which I also previously posted.

The only historical evidence here is that, consistent to the teachings of the Catholic Church, "the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification" (Mediator Dei,58 ).

A pope wanted to suppress a rite (Ambrosian) and passed a law to that effect. During his pontificate, the law remained valid. The next pope overturned it. That is a historical example of popes having equal authority on matters of discipline such liturgical rites. You want to see here an encouraging example for "resistance" on the part of the laity, but there is nothing really to it. Ultimately, it was the decision of a pope alone which did away with the "unjust" law of the previous pope. A pope is not superior to the other.

The question is still of no interest and it has nothing to do with the consequences of the argument.  It is not possible for the “received and approved” immemorial Roman rite to be reduced to the status of an Indult or grant of legal privilege regardless of the conditions.  It becomes even more unpalatable when the conditions are morally and doctrinally repugnant.  

What I think you're saying is that you think the 1949 missal is the "received and approved" rite, so any attempt to give it as an indult would be void. If so, how is that different than Pax's argument about the 1962 missal - that 1962 is "received and approved" and the later attempt to give it as an indult is void? The 1962 missal, like the missals before, included Quo Primum and the constitutions of Urban VIII and Clement VIII; it is prima facie in the line of revisions of the missal of St. Pius V. This is unlike the missal of Paul VI which only has the constitution of Paul VI - it clearly started a new line.

However, if you're saying that 1949 has the capacity to be "received and approved" because as far as you know it hasn't been given as an indult, that is a question of fact. Indults have been given for things other than 1962. I recalled one for a church to use 1949, but unfortunately can't find verification any more, so something may have changed, 

Nevertheless, as you must know, the FSSP has an indult to use the old holy week (from before 1952). According to the way you apply your argument to 1962, because the old holy week has been given as an indult, and an indult is not compatible with the received and approved rite, the old holy week cannot be the received and approved rite.

I could see someone object that this FSSP indult is for only the FSSP, and it has one prayer different (and I'm sure you can guess which one if you didn't already know). If so, then consider that the SSPX (and probably many other priests using 1962 missals) do some details different, too

That article is garbage.  The FSSP accepts the 62 as a “gift”/indult and the heresies of the new mass/V2 along with it, in exchange for this “gift”.

Traditionalists, of which the SSPX still claims to be, view the 62 missal as a “legal right” and reject the V2 novelties, which arent required or imposed on any catholic.

Drew says the use of the 62 missal is always an indult/gift.  But the facts show that the use of the 62 while still rejecting V2 is legal and can be used outside of the indult requirements.  Rome has said that to attend an sspx mass (ie any trad mass) is illicit, BUT NOT BECAUSE THE MASS/missal IS ILLICIT only because the priests have no jurisdiction (which is technically true, though canon law supplies this jurisdiction).  

If the 62 missal was only legal IF ONE ACCEPTS V2 then the sspx’s masses THEMSELVES would be illegal, all the time, everyday and Rome could condemn the entire Trad movement with one simple, legal docuмent and excommunicate every Trad catholic in a split-second.  Yet Rome has never said this because they can’t.  Because the 62 missal IS NOT ILLEGAL, and THE INDULT LAWS ARE NOT BINDING.    

The only generalized statement of “condemnation” against Trads that new-Rome can say is that we're “not in full communion” with new-rome.  But this “full communion” phrase is a novel term, only in existence since the 50s.  So new-rome is just saying that we’re not “in communion” with their heresies and their indults (and we don’t want to be); it has nothing to do with doctrine or law, which new-rome seeks to avoid debating because they know that their modernism is both heretical and illegal, therefore immoral. 

That article is garbage.  The FSSP accepts the 62 as a “gift”/indult and the heresies of the new mass/V2 along with it, in exchange for this “gift”.

Traditionalists, of which the SSPX still claims to be, view the 62 missal as a “legal right” and reject the V2 novelties, which arent required or imposed on any catholic.

Drew says the use of the 62 missal is always an indult/gift.  But the facts show that the use of the 62 while still rejecting V2 is legal and can be used outside of the indult requirements.  Rome has said that to attend an sspx mass (ie any trad mass) is illicit, BUT NOT BECAUSE THE MASS/missal IS ILLICIT only because the priests have no jurisdiction (which is technically true, though canon law supplies this jurisdiction).  

If the 62 missal was only legal IF ONE ACCEPTS V2 then the sspx’s masses THEMSELVES would be illegal, all the time, everyday and Rome could condemn the entire Trad movement with one simple, legal docuмent and excommunicate every Trad catholic in a split-second. Yet Rome has never said this because they can’t.  Because the 62 missal IS NOT ILLEGAL, and THE INDULT LAWS ARE NOT BINDING.    

The only generalized statement of “condemnation” against Trads that new-Rome can say is that we're “not in full communion” with new-rome.  But this “full communion” phrase is a novel term, only in existence since the 50s.  So new-rome is just saying that we’re not “in communion” with their heresies and their indults (and we don’t want to be); it has nothing to do with doctrine or law, which new-rome seeks to avoid debating because they know that their modernism is both heretical and illegal, therefore immoral.

PAX,

Benedict explains in the Letter to all the Bishops also 7/7/07 accompanying Summorum Pontificuм:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html

As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.  At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal.  Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level.  Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood..."

And in Summorum Pontificuм he issues the new norms:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html

 "...the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful."
  
 "...For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.  The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage.  The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.
 I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church."

Summorum Pontificuм is just "updating" the previous indult of 1988. In fact, all 4 indults quote Quattuor abhinnc annos, issued as the first indult by the Congregation for Divine Worship under JPII in 1984 "granting" the use of the 1962 missal. Like it or not, this is what the legislators say in S.P. and its related docuмents.

The writing is on the wall for those with eyes to see it.

You are the one ignoring the obvious. It was not abrogated because: "At the time...it did not seem necessary...". Which means that it could have. If it was the "received and approved" Roman rite, it could not. Time will tell and I don't think it will be long. That ONLY the 1962 is the subject of indults, should be a concern to all. I don't think ABL would have kept it after Summorum Pontificuм.

PAX:

Benedict is saying the modernists didn't think it was necessary to allow the latin mass (i.e. force the heretic bishops to admit that the latin mass was legal) from 1969 til 1988 because (they hoped) all catholics would've accepted the new mass and the old mass would be forgotten.  He was speaking practically, not legally.
 

OH, excuse me! He was talking about the Modernists! And Benedict is not one? When did you see him offer even ONE public Mass according to the 1962 Missal after Summorum Pontificuм?


PAX:

Notice, he never said that those who used/attended the latin mass from 1969 til 1988 (i.e. BEFORE THE INDULT) were illegally attending this mass, because they weren't.  And they still aren't, indult or not.

Of course not. It wasn't abrogated. They hadn't thought it necessary until 1984 (First indult). Not until Summorum Pontificuм some really saw the direction the 1962 missal was going. Do you think AB Lefebvre would have kept the 1962 missal after Summorum Pontificuм? You didn't answer. Would he have accepted the 1962 missal as the "Extraordinary Form" and the Novus Ordo as the "Ordinary Form"? Or would he have been appalled and adopted another missal?

PAX:

The indult only applies if you want to attend a diocesan church which is "in communion with" new-rome.  No one is prevented legally/morally from the 1962 missal by new-rome.  The only consequence is that you'll be considered "not in full communion" (i.e. not a heretic).  Which is a badge of honor and a sign you're a True Catholic.

The "badge of honor" will go to those who saw clearly after S.P. and did not wait until it was juridically abrogated, which has to happen after the new missal according to the "new norms" is out.

I see the spreaders of disinformation have done their job well.

There are none so dangerous to the traditionalist cause than those who write voluminous amounts of words that confuse the unwary.