[ultima ratio]

You've got it all wrong again. The launching of the new religion happened some time around 1969. The new religion was begun by a confused liberal pope and a freemason archbishop, with the strong approval of six Protestant theologians. It even has a brand new, if pseudo-Cathic, Mass that would have warmed the cockles of Martin Luther's heretical heart. Unfortunately the new religion was built on quicksand and is sinking fast. Within five years of its institution, Mass attendance dropped 30% in the US, 43% in France and 50% in Holland. It's down to around 17% now--a pitiful level when compared to the 80%+ before the fabrication of the New Mass. Within seven years of its institution, moreover, the number of priests dropped by 50%. Converts dropped from around 100,000 annually, to around 10,000. At this rate, the NewChurch will totally disappear in the not too distant future. Good riddance.

[ninenot]

You certainly can spout "post hoc, propter hoc" argumentation. Unfortunately, logic demands better.

You won't catch me defending Bugnini, or the prudential judgment errors of Paul VI (who finally DID figure out that B. was a snake--in the Genesis sense.) You won't catch me defending ICEL, that gang of bedwetting intellectualoid subversives and fellow-travelers.

But you will NEVER catch me disputing the authority of the Pope (and ONLY the Pope) to regulate the Liturgy.

That's an authority you just can't submit to.