I'm not Catholic because I don't like the 1955 and 1962 changes?
Of course, one wonders how the Church could have had the authority to revise the missal in 1563 but not afterward.
The revisions of 1563 were to excise useless accretions in the Propers, and eliminate abuses not covered by the rubrics. The Ordinary stayed the same, as did most rubrics, which in general were clarified to eliminate absues. And the revised Missal was not mandatory except on those who had been changing their Missals willy nilly, or where the Roman Missal was already used.
The Church has always had the authority to change the "human elements" of the Mass (Mediator Dei, n. 50).
The extent of this authority to impose new creations on all is questioned. Traditionally, Theologians held without censure that the Pope would become a schismatic were he to change all the Sacramental rites received from Tradition, which Paul VI did, because he would be alienating himself from the Church and Tradition.
The extreme traditionalists are completely illogical.
Not at all. But you aren't bothering to learn the position.
It is difficult to argue with Traditionalists because their arguments are inconsistent and illogical. Moreover, they disagree among themselves on many issues, including the validity of the 1962 missal, whether the see of Rome is vacant, etc. ad nauseum. If only it were possible to learn what the position of the traditionalists actually is.