Hmmmm.....maybe someone else can explain how replacing the Mass of 2,000 years origin - beginning with the Apostles themselves -- with a Mass devised by mere handful of conniving prelates (after consulting with a team of Protestants) who hastily composed one of the Eucharistic Prayers at the local Café to meet a 24-hour deadline is not a complete and criminal rupture with 2,000 years of Tradition.

Let’s examine this glaringly erroneous Neo-Con claim that what followed Vatican II was not destruction of Tradition and is only a subjective characterization akin to that of the rebellion of Luther (!), and that truly faithful Catholic prelates charged with safeguarding the Church’s Patrimony should simply have stood by and allowed it to be done in the name of a false obedience

[N.B. for a better understanding of true and false obedience, see link provided. Also, a talk given by the incomparable Michael Davies on true and false obedience can be found here]

Excerpt from a much more informed, honest and Catholic article on this topic:

I didn’t know that Bugnini allegedly used “subterfuge” to obtain what his “handlers” passed through him, to quote Fr. Louis Bouyer’s Memoirs. Notably, as secretary of Vatican II’s preparatory commission on the liturgy, Bugnini explained to some peers that they needed to strategically say things “in embryo” to foment postconciliar changes. As he put it:

“It would be most inconvenient for the articles of our Constitution to be rejected by the Central Commission or by the Council itself. That is why we must tread carefully and discreetly. Carefully, so that proposals be…formulated in such a way that much is said without seeming to say anything: let many things be said in embryo and in this way let the door remain open to legitimate and possible postconciliar deductions and applications: let nothing be said that suggests excessive novelty and might invalidate all the rest …”
______________________

A little more about Bugnini, excerpts from this same article:

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Prostestants.” Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, main author of the New Mass, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965

Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand expressed himself in even more forthright terms: ‘Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better.’” [N.B. Dietrich von Hildebrand was referred to by Pope Pius XII as “the twentieth-century Doctor of the Church”]

The liturgical heritage of the Roman Rite may well be the most precious treasure of our entire Western civilisation, something to be cherished and preserved for future generations. The Liturgy Constitution of the Second Vatican Council stated that: "In faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognised rites to be of equal right and dignity, that she wishes to preserve them in future and foster them in every way."

How has this command of the Council been obeyed? The answer can be obtained from Father Joseph Gelineau SJ, a Council peritus, and an enthusiastic proponent of the postconciliar revolution. In his book Demain la liturgie, he stated with commendable honesty, concerning the Mass as most Catholics know it today:

"To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed." Even Archbishop Bugnini would have found it difficult to explain how something can be preserved and fostered by destroying it.
____________________

And for more enlightenment on just one of the ways the New Mass was a complete rupture and disposal of Tradition, an excerpt from one of the above linked article explains:

“For one and a half millennium, the Canon of the Roman Mass had been almost completely unchanged (which is why it was called a Canon, a rule, unchanged and unique). Now, after the Council, and without a single mention in Sacrosanctum Concilium (the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy), the Consilium decided to offer new Anaphoras as if they were ice cream flavors.

“The new "Eucharistic Prayers" were released in the fateful month of May 1968, while Western youth was on worldwide revolt (therefore, theoretically, for the 1965-1967 maimed version of the ancient Ordo Missae, but in truth preparing the way for the New Mass introduced in 1969).

“Why the rush? As with everything in the liturgical revolution, Bugnini and his minions knew they had to get everything done as fast as possible before they could be stopped by a dangerous wave of common sense. They won. And the Church got an aggressively-imposed new multiple-choice rite stuck in 1968.”
_____________________________

Any other Neo-Con Catholics here who consider Martin Luther a suitable analogy for Archbishop Lefebvre and those who stood their ground as faithful and true “Guardians of Tradition”, as opposed to the imposters – both then and now -- who pretend to be so in Traditionis Custodes, while essentially relegating the entire liturgical legacy of the Church to non-relevance in this matter of survival after over 60 years of “auto-demolition” since jettisoning it?

Clearly a desperate, baseless analogy…

“I award you no points, and everyone here is dumber for having listened to you.”

"Some people actually think you're supposed to obey a Pope when..." Nobody stated that, stop playing psychic, @Ave Crux :D

Nice to see you switched off your Modernist Cheerleading for Francis in favor of the usual SSPX "Defending Tradition Justifies Schism" routine.

"...even when he destroys. dismantles and suppresses Tradition"

...as determined by you? Abp. Lefebvre? Fr. Martin Luther? Every other jumped-up self-appointed critic?

No. Disobeying the The Pope speaking as the head of the Church, on your own authority based on your own opinion is schism. In Luther's case, it was schism and heresy.

"...just so you can feel validated in agreeing with him."

..which is exactly what the SSPX did and keeps doing when when Francis spread a few more errors around in the apostolic letter Misericordia et Misera.

See? Francis granted us a dispensation from schism and some faculties! That means we're Catholics. :P

It's funny, hard to figure some people out.... Some people actually think you're supposed to obey a Pope even when he destroys. dismantles and suppresses Tradition -- even though it's his duty to preserve and protect it -- just so you can feel validated in agreeing with him when he finally does what he is bound by his Papal Office to do: like, safeguard and enable the Church's Patrimony which was entrusted to him. Can you imagine....!

Hmmmmm.... Let's see....how exactly (?) is it "hypocritical" to resist Modernist destruction when a Pope suppresses and cancels out Tradition, but then happily welcome Papal support for Tradition when a Pope actually -- and finally!-- does what he's supposed to do....protect Tradition!

Gee, this is confusing. How exactly does that work? I thought they were one and the same thing: i.e. furthering the preservation of Tradition, yes?

I've been thinking that was all the same thing....because it is.

Fortunately, we have Priests who remind us that "Tradition has the binding force of Divine Precept" and "the Magisterium can never suppress Tradition"...indeed, that it's sinful to do so.

And -- along with this -- we have prelates like Archbishop Lefebvre who actually made sure Tradition did not die an untimely death after Vatican II...!

He will be canonized one day for having done so.

Long live Tradition! Viva Cristo Rey!