Probably true, although Reason didn't write any French organ masses. LOL.

As my little nephew said when I offered a box of raisins as a snack, "you eat those things?" LOL.

...Mass would be said on a Sunday, substituting (e.g.) the church's saint's name-day Mass (& Propers) for the Sunday's Propers--usually 2-3 days before the Sunday in question.

Celebrating an external solemnity of the titular feast of a church does not require the permission of the Ordinary. See ¶358(f) in the 1962 Rubricæ Generales Missalis Romani. On the other hand, 2-3 days notice for changing the Mass proper is ... irritating.

He was also of the opinion that the 1962 Rite was not ancient enough; he preferred the pre-Pius XII Holy Week rituals.

Isn't this the opinion of most people interested in the Extraordinary Form?

Arthur, increasingly so that is the public case. But that was tempered due to the archbishop’s choices (Lefebvre), so occasionally people sing the glories of 1955 without thinking twice about how untraditional it is.

"Celebrating an external solemnity of the titular feast of a church does not require the permission of the Ordinary."

Well, our sources are in conflict. Found a set of rules in the Marquette U. library (IIRC, dated 1960-61?) which stated otherwise.

As to the 3-day notice....we usually rehearsed Propers for 2 weeks--e.g., for the XIII Sunday we'd begin rehearsing them prior to the XII Sunday, then again just prior to the XIII--at which rehearsal we'd also rehearse those for the XIV Sunday (etc.) So yes, it was disturbing.

Evidently there is a conflict. Does the law for the Novus Ordo require such permission? What does canon law say? If it isn’t required in the Novus Ordo (and a permission in canon law would be applicable to the TLM) then don’t ask the Ordinary a question he won’t understand and to which you already know the answer.

I understand the canonical bit. I was just trying to see where this is regulated.

Then why, other than the fact that two or three days is not enough time to prepare, does it matter if the priest did not ask the bishop and decided to celebrate the feast of title?

Écône used 1965. The French used 1962. The English, SSPX and not, used 1939 or at least pre–1950, for the most part, and a mix and match was used outside the SSPX on the Continent. In fact the St. Lawrence Press ORDO was produced by the SSPX in England until the 1962 mandate came down in 1983. The Nine were not (and are still not, if what Fr. Mosher, O.P. told me in another forum, is accurate) sedevacantists, but whatever extreme opinions they had were, according to them, at least tolerated if not encouraged. There is probably some truth to that, as well as with the fact that the Americans were well–organized liturgically and materially, which meant they saw through the cracks after 1975 and the suspensions, and that was something the archbishop didn’t appreciate. The Nine claim the Ridgefield CT seminary was harmonious, whereas Écône was in chaos over the liturgy. I mean, Lefebvre hated birettas... Now, Fr. Cekada has an ax to grind, so he paints the SSPX in the worst possible light, but the official line is more complicated. Lefebvre was this close to allowing 1939, but the priest (in England) stopped arguing and threw in the towel. :/