"Bringing up to date" ... "bringing into line" ... these phrases don't just leave me cold: they fill me with horror.
What he said:
On a personal note, as soon as I realized that I could not both hold the Novus Ordo as illegitimate and defend Pius XII's Holy Week rites (not to mention the mass suppression of octaves and vigils ad nauseam), I slowly began to move away from the notion of Liturgy as a legislated matter under the authority of the pope to the position of immemorial Liturgical Tradition, abolishing the false distinction of "T" and "t" Tradition in the process. One cannot logically both argue against the NO and defend the 1962 books at the same time; to do so is to concede the argument to the defenders of the NO. The years 1945-1969 are one clear, consistent continuum of the same, papally legislated liturgical
destructionrevolution, and to acknowledge this reality has not or should not have anything to do with sedevacantism - a red herring to this discussion. This is what I have been trying to convey in my posts earlier this year about the Holy Week rites. This is how I have approached the question of why the NO is problematic, away from earlier, immature, and facile reasons such as "it's banal and bland" or the somewhat more serious, yet still facile "it's not good for me spiritually". As soon as one busts the myth of ultramontanism in matters doctrinal and magisterial (e.g. Vatican II documents, a recent synod), it follows to deflate this same unfounded papal "authority" over matters liturgical.
Some of the very first posts on this blog concerned similar questions -- in which, as usual, some people simply confused quotation with advocacy. Here, it's all a question.