I was very pleased last night to see the SSPX finally reject the Hermeneutics of Continuity. I went to bed wondering what took them so long!!! Faithful Catholics had been warning about it since BXVI and specially since Summorum Pontificuм. The answer came this morning from Rorate Caeli.

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

I have heard sermons by SSPX priests about the absurdity of "hermeneutic of continuity".

Why should they reject the 1962 missal? +Lefebvre accepted that and they are just continuing the usage. Many SSPX priests I spoke to did say the pre-55 is better but 62 is the last acceptable TLM missal widely used. The term transitional is best applied to the 1965 missal, which +Lefebvre did use but ultimately settled for 1962 (until the Nine made a banner out of it to justify their rêbêllïon).

http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm
   
Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, an alleged Mason, directed the liturgical reform from 1948 until 1976.  The 1962 Missal, issued at the mid-point of his liturgical tenure, existed only about 2½ years.  It was regarded by Bugnini, who took credit for its authorship, as only a transitional Missal toward his ultimate goal of the Novus Ordo.  Pope Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificuм said that the relationship of the 1962 Missal to the Novus Ordo is one of organic development, that “They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.”
   This is true statement for Bugnini said in his book, The Reform of the Liturgy, 1948-1976, that the first principles of liturgical reform adopted by his commission, first principles that were novel, artificial ideological constructs, guided his work and remained absolutely consistent throughout his entire tenure.  The first principles guiding the formation of the 1962 Missal are the same principles that would give us the Novus Ordo.  When Bugnini was asked if the 1962 Missal represented the end of his liturgical innovations he said, “Not by any stretch of the imagination. Every good builder begins by removing the gross accretions, the evident distortions; then with more delicacy and attention he sets out to revise particulars.  The latter remains to be achieved for the Liturgy so that the fullness, dignity and harmony may shine forth once again” (The Organic Development of the Liturgy by Fr. Alcuin Reid).  Thus such feasts as the Solemnity of St. Joseph, the Chair of St. Peter at Rome, the Finding of the True Cross, St. John before the Latin Gate, and many, many other liturgical changes, considered “gross accretions and evident distortions” by those who would eventually give the Church the liturgical “fullness, dignity and harmony” of the Novus Ordo, were done away with in the 1962 Missal.
   It is a fact that the 1962 Missal has never been afforded the standing of Immemorial Tradition by Rome.  Every papal docuмent touching upon this Missal treats it entirely as a subject of Church discipline governed entirely by human positive law first under the norms of Ecclesia Dei as an Indult and now under the restrictive legal stipulations of Summorum Pontificuм as a grant of privilege by positive law.  At no time in the history of the Church has an immemorial liturgical tradition been reduced to the status of an Indult, which is the permission to do something that is not permitted by the positive law of the Church.  This constitutes presumptive proof that Rome does not regard the 1962 Missal as the Immemorial Roman Rite.  
   The 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal was adopted by the SSPX in 1983 as their liturgical standard.