liceity of the form—at the latest, stemming from Pius XI—with the legitimacy of its spread from the cloister to the local diocese to virtually the entire Latin Rite Church. Legitimacy ranges somewhere between (a) dubious and (b) certainly unfounded. Liceity involves no dubiety whatsoever.

.

liceity refers to the moral or doctrinal dimension of a practice and legitimacy refers to the regularity of its authorization, proclamation, or use

Ok, so putting your 2 quotes together, so I can understand, then your argument is that certain popes, with the most recent being Pius XI, said that a DM mass was "licit in form" (i.e. not immoral and not contrary to doctrine), which is referring to validity, not the legal aspect.  But still, I agree.  A DM mass is not invalid, nor immoral, as it is.
.
You then said a DM mass' "legitimacy" (it's permission/authorization to be used) is "somewhere between (a) dubious and (b) certainly unfounded."  Again...we agree.  This is my whole argument!  A DM mass is NOT authorized by the 1962 missal, nor any of the previous missals, all the way back to...the Apostles.  
.
I am using the term "licit" in regards to Quo Primum's legal aspect, while you are using the term "licit form" which refers to it's sacramental/validity aspect.  Both uses are correct, but I'm saying that since a DM mass is illegal from a legitimacy perspective, so it is immoral because it's a sin of disobedience.

You then said a DM mass's "legitimacy" (its permission/authorization to be used) is "somewhere between (a) dubious and (b) certainly unfounded."

Perhaps I was insufficiently clear as to what I mean; so let me try again. The argument about legitimacy concerns whether its propagation throughout the Latin Rite church was authorized. I myself think, as I wrote earlier, that the "pro" case ranges from dubious to unfounded. Alas, many thousands of others disagree, and by no means all of them are conciliarists!

The fact remains that, like it or not—and to repeat, I decidely don't like it—there was never a formal attempt by Rome to put a brake on the spread of the Dialogue Mass. That alone has been taken by many of its supporters to represent tacit approval of its propagation, irrespective of the absence of any direct Vatican action in its favor. As there can be no doubt that a great many devotions and cultuses of the saints and the BVM have developed in precisely the same way—that is, via tacit Roman acceptance or at least grudging tolerance—I deem it pointless to declare the Dialogue Mass invalid or illegal or anything else of the sort, precisely because the sincere, well-intentioned people who prize it are going to pay "anti" arguments based on technical legality no heed at all.

As I suggested earlier, my considered opinion is that persuasion alone is likely to change minds in this matter, persuasion founded upon a carefully put case that the Dialogue Mass is distinctly less pleasing to God, for the reasons I outlined and linked to earlier, than the strictly traditional Latin Mass is.

I have nothing more to add.

The argument about legitimacy concerns whether its propagation throughout the Latin Rite church was authorized. I myself think, as I wrote earlier, that the "pro" case ranges from dubious to unfounded.

Agree.  Authorized relates to law.
.

there was never a formal attempt by Rome to put a brake on the spread of the Dialogue Mass. That alone has been taken by many of its supporters to represent tacit approval of its propagation, irrespective of the absence of any direct Vatican action in its favor.

Those who use this type of "permission" are promoting novelties.  Private devotion to future-saints is certainly different from public worship at Mass.  The DM was pushed by the Modernists, who wrongly interpreted St Pius X's and Pius XI's term "active participation" as meaning the laity should pray aloud during mass.  But one can easily interpret "active participation" to simply mean following/praying the prayers in the missal.  The whole point of these pope's calling for "active participation" was to tell the faithful to "not just sit there" in the pew; to follow along - by using the missal.  There's no evidence they meant for the faithful to pray out loud...or else they would have said so.
.
The Vatican was FILLED with Modernists all the way back in the early 1900s (St Pius X's day).  And they were mostly in the liturgical areas, which is where St Pius X put them, to keep them away from doctrine and other essential areas.  So these Modernists used the liturgy to Modernize the Church (as, 50 years later, Pius XII warned).
.
I'm sure you know all of this, just typing it for others' sake.

Those who use this type of "permission" are promoting novelties.

That's the bottom line of the "spirit of Vatican II", vague "permission" to do whatever you want. divorce and remarriage (annulments),  Catholic birth control (natural family planning), Novus Ordo "mass" (new mass, facing people, in vernacular, communion in the hand.....), World day of prayer in Assisi......

Yes, this is part of the rubrics.  It is also part of Tradition.  But, basically, the laity follow what the servers do.  In cases like the Offertory, where the servers have duties, then it's part of Tradition that the laity sit.  All of this may not be in the LAY MISSALS, but these rules are part of the priest's missal.

from the 1937 Lasance Missal   http://archive.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/13/07/17/15-38-26_0.pdf see page 72 for a chart of the postures for low mass, missa Cantata, High mass according to the American custom.

High Mass: that which is celebrated by a priest, assisted by deacon and subdeacon, with all the solemnity of chant, incense and full ceremonial. 
Low Mass: is said by a priest alone, with one or two servers, and is a shortened or simplified form of the High Mass. 
Missa Cantata: The so-called sung Mass, or Missa Cantata, is a modem compromise between a Low and a High Mass. At a Missa Cantata the ceremonies are somewhat abbreviated because of the absence of the sacred ministers; incense is not permitted, and the celebrant himself sings the Gospel in the deacon's stead.
Outside of the US:

Low Mass- When the celebrant enters the sanctuary. the laity rise and remain standing till he descends to the foot of the altar to begin Mass. They then kneel and remain so throughout the Mass, except during the two Gospels, during which they stand. (Rubricre Generales Missalis, Tit. 17, n. 2.) De Herdt (Vol.I, n. 146) says that this rubric is not preceptive but directive only. Note.-When the last Gospel is that of St. John they make a simple genuflection with the priest at the words "Et Verbum," etc., then rise and remain standing until the priest reaches the foot of the altar.

High Mass-  The rubrics give no direction. Gavantus (Pars I, Tit. 17) and Pouget (Institutiones Catholicre in modum Catecheseos, Pars 3, Sect. 2, cap 7, § 20) say that the people may conform to the rules given for those who are in choir. Hence thb people- . 1. Stand-from the time the celebrant enters the sanctuary to the beginning of the Mass. 2. Kneel-from the beginning of the Mass until the celebrant ascends the altar after the Confiteor. 3. Stand-from the time the celebrant ascends the altai until he goes to the bench after the intonation of the Gloria. During the singing of the Kyrie eleison the people sit if the celebrant sits. 4. Sit-while the choir sings the Gloria. 5. Stantf,-from the time the celebrant rises from the bench to the end of the Orations. 6. Sit-from the beginning of the Epistle to the Dominus vobiscuм before the Gospel. 7. Stand-during the Gospel and the recitation of the Credo; during the latter they make a genuflection on one knee at Et incarnaws est. 8. Sit· when the celebrant takes his seat, and whilst the Credo is being sung by the choir, except at the Et incarnatus est...et homo factus est, when they kneel on both knees. 9. Stand· when the celebrant rises to return to the altar and remain standing whilst he sings Dominus vobiscuм and Oremus. 10. Sit. from the Oremus to the beginning ofthe Preface· Per omnia saecula saeculorum. NOTE.• During solemn Mass when incense is used the people stand during the incensing of the congregation. Remain standing for the Preface. 11. Stand . From the beginning of the Preface until the celebrant begins the Sanctus. 12. Kneel· from the Hosanna, etc., until the Peromniasaecula saeculorum before the Pater Noster. NOTE. - The S. C. Indulg. issued a decree June 12, 1907, according to which all who look at the Sacred Host when it is elevated at Mass or when the Blessed Sacrament is solemnly e}.l'0sed and recite the ejaculation "My Lord and My God." may gain an indulgence ofseven years and seven times forty days, besides a plenary indulgence once a week ifthis is done dailyand the sacraments are received. Hence the laity shouldbow when the celebrant genutlects, look at theSacredHost when the celebrant elevates it, and bow again when the celebrant genutlects after elevating it. 13. Stand· from the Pater Noster until the Agnus Dei. 14. Kneel· from the Agnus Dei until the Dominus vobiscuм before the Postcommunion. 15. Stand· during the Postcommunion and remain standing until the celebrant gives the Blessing. 16. Kneel· during the Blessing. 17. Stand· during the Last Gospel and remain standing until the celebrant has left the sanctuary. NOTE.• When the Last Gospelis that ofSt. John, the people should make a simple geJ;lutlection with the priest.at the words ''Et Verbum," etc., then rise and remain stanrlhg until the celebrant has left the sanctuary.

Everything is a novelty the first time it appears.

Stanley, I highly encourage you to read the book, "How Christ said the First Mass".  It's very detailed and I've not finished it, but even if you only read a few chapters, it gives you a breathless and super-comprehensive look at the Catholic Mass.  The author lays out, in excruciating detail (i.e. it's so detailed that one might think the author was autistic before this was even a term), how even the sanctuary of a church is so designed as to be a continuation of the Jєωιѕн law.  As Christ said, "I came not to destroy, but to fulfill."  Truly, the Mass is a continuation of the Jєωιѕн rites...which rites came directly from God the Father in the Old Testament.
.
The point being, when it comes to the Mass, only very few, and very minor things are novelties.  The Mass is the epitome of ancient, of Tradition, of timelessness, because it is of Divine origin.  Novelty is to the Liturgy, as Communism is to Catholicism.

I asked you a simple, objective question - where exactly in the priest's missal does it direct how the people (the non-choir congregation) stand, sit or kneel. In response, you tell me to read a fairly thick book that you haven't even finished.

LastTrad answered your question about how the laity are to act in mass.  There was no need for me to add anything further.  It's clearly part of the rubrics.
.
The comment about the book (which can be found free, on archive sites) is related to your false assumption that novelties are normal.
.

Of course there are parallels between the liturgy and the old temple service, and pontifical liturgies have remarkable similarities across all rites.

You miss the point.  1) Yes, there are parallels between the Jєωιѕн service and the Mass.  2) But how Christ said the first mass was in addition to the Jєωιѕн service.  He completed the catholic liturgy. 
.

But equally clearly, how Christ said the first mass was not identical to the Roman rite of 1900.

It is absolutely identical in substantial areas.
.

All those differences were at one time novelties.

True, but there is a difference between 1) "organic development" of the liturgy which is allowed, 2) "organic development" which is NOT allowed, 3) and simply, novelty & experimentation.  #1 is allowed by the pope/bishop.  #2 and #3 are done without Church approval.
.
From the period of the 500s to the 1500s, the Church allowed, to some extent, for the Latin Rite to develop organically.  And mostly, God used saints and religious to improve, beautify and solemnize this rite.  But...with Quo Primum, Pope St Pius V said that this improvement is OVER.  The mass is complete; it is codified.  In other words, from now on, no more changes unless the pope approves such.  Novelties and developments served their purpose.
.
The DM is a novelty which falls into category #2 and #3 above.  It has never been approved by a pope/bishop, of orthodox credentials.

Can anyone point out to us a place where this gentleman Stanley N has contributed anything but questions, always throwing the burden of proof on others? The writer reminds me of the typical  Catholic today that still goes to mass (in Latin America and Europe 93% of Catholics do not even go to mass), they are "go ask Father" Catholics, same as those that left the Church. That is what got us where we are today, Catholics know nothing, they just go ask Father and forget about it 2 days later. This Stanley N just asks questions, never contributing anything he knows, because he knows nothing, and never will because he is not interested in learning the truth, just interested in doing what he likes.