An erudite correspondent has made very interesting points. Having mulled over them, I am concluding that they mostly arise from statements in the current "Magisterium" which confuse (at least) two different things.
(1) The guidance explicitly given in Sacrosanctum Concilium about changes which the consensus patrum required.
(2) The changes which in fact subsequently emerged from the post-conciliar deliberations.
Confusion beteween these two things is natural enough.
Human beings change their minds. Academic fashions do not remain immutable.
But those who compose "magisterial" documents ought to be at least minimally capable of distinguishing between the two.
Unless it suits them not to do so.
And, at the moment, it clearly suits some quite important people not to make any such distinctions. Accordingly, they play up the status of the pronouncements of an Ecumenical Council (vide 1 supra) and then imply that the same sort of obsequium applies to 2 supra.
This enables them to rubbish any criticisms made of (2) as being 'rejections of the Council.'
Roche did this again just a few days ago.
Yet such folk, when it suits them, ignore the plain, explicit 'decrees' of 'the Council'.
Slippery folk with double standards.
But naughty fibs are always naughty fibs.
One example of this will suffice.
The Council required that all clerics say their Office in Latin. (Where this would create real problems for clergy, the Ordinary could dispense from this requirement, but could only do so in individual cases.)
You all know as well as I do that this Conciliar Instruction is completely ignored.
An additional, related, matter: Recent "legislation" also requires traddies not to exclude the "Magisterium of Roman Pontiffs". Well, what about the Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia of S John XXIII? It requires all seminary teaching to be done in Latin, and the sacking of professors unable to teach in Latin.
What price that in the lecture rooms of the Grilli and the Grilloids?
To be concluded.