While I am indeed interested in learning more about the liturgical revisions of the past century, I thought I strike back more firmly toward the meat of the original post, which seems to have misconceptions of obedience.
First, as the last paragraph shows, obedience is conflated with approval. It makes no sense whatsoever to take a leap from a Catholic obeying ecclesiastical authority to that Catholic agreeing with the decision of authority. There’s a reason obedience and agreement are two separate categories. Ever hear of a religious vowing to obey his superior when and only when he agrees with that superior? St. Pio obviously disagreed with his superiors regarding their sanctions on his activity, yet he still obeyed (often the difference between saints and the rest of us). I believe the Pian missal contains a far superior rite to the Pauline missal, yet when there is no 1962 Mass available I fulfill my obligation at the 2002 Mass.
Still, obedience does allow for legitimate exceptions. One exception would be if authority commanded something contrary to faith and morals. The Church cannot, however, do this, unless someone would like to take issue with the disciplinary infallibility of the Church (note, this does not infer superlative discipline, just, to use a negative, non-impious discipline).
The other exception to obedience, since the first is off the table, seems to be when a superior commands something outside his authority. A bishop can’t stipulate which candidate to vote for under pain of sin, nor can a priest forbid reception of the Eucharist on the tongue. This seems to be the exception Alex is referring to by stating that no pope has the authority to eliminate so much tradition. (Oddly he notes in his criticism the fact that no “official document” mandates Paul VI’s changes, which seems somewhat irrelevant unless we’re still caught up in 15th century conciliarism.) Without discussing the Tradition-al merits of the argument that the pope cannot eliminate traditional elements, which I don’t really feel well-researched enough to tackle, I’m more interested in the consequences of holding two views which Alex claims to hold: 1) Paul VI did not have the authority to promulgate a new rite, and 2) the new rite is a valid Mass.
These two beliefs seem to create quite a bit of tension because they begin from the premise that no one whatsoever is allowed to invent a new rite. If no is able to do this legitimately, how is it that this illegitimate rite can confect a valid Eucharist? I suppose one might say that form, matter, and intent are enough even outside of Mass, but such a consecration is, according to our canons, gravely sinful. Thus that would leave us with the conclusion that a pope had commanded the faithful to impiety, at which point papal infallibility surely sets in. What, then, is one to do? Claim that, since he had no authority to do so, Paul VI did not actually promulgate a new Mass? I just don’t see how to resolve this.
