John XXIII did not come up with the New Mass, he only made some minor changes before Vatican II. ie. adding the name of St. Joseph and removing "perfidious" from Good Friday. Paul VI changed the Mass entirely and promulgated the heretical New Mass, the one we know today, not John XXIII. John called for Vatican II, but died shortly after, before any changes resulted.

I, however, disagree with the above theoretical (Major), and two factual (Minores), premises, but the refutation of the above three arguments requires argumentation for non-Thomists even to see, let alone understand.

Freiherr, also, every pope (at least the canonists advising him) since John XXIII inclusively has taken the position that 1) no pope, including Pope St. Pius V, can bind his successors to an object of *merely ecclesiastical (liturgical); 2) Popes since St. Pius V did change the Roman Missal more than once between 1570 and 1962, ergo so could John XXIII; and 3) since Quo Primum is not an object of *Faith, it can be modified by a successive pope. So go the arguments against qualifying Quo primum tempore as binding all successive popes to the Roman Missal of 1570.