Hate to inform you, there were no errors on questions of faith and morals in any of the Vatican II documents.
Ambiguities are not errors, they are simply ambiguities, left that way for the simple reason the Council Fathers did not wish to dictate. They changed no Dogmas or Doctrines nor did they pronounce any new teachings.
Any Bishop or priest who used any ambiguities to deviate from settled dogma or Doctrine did so solely on their own disordered initiative.
Untrained laity should refrain from judging what they do not know or understand.
To all above, I stand by my post. There should never have been "Indults" in the first place. One that everyone missed was St. Catherine's in Ottawa which never ceased having a TLM. The bishop there allowed them to continue. It's now cared for by the FSSP.
First, I have to say, I like the "+JMJ+" at top of your post. I often put it on top of my private letters also. I should expand it, like you. But I fear it's over-use and lack of attentiveness to what is written. You see, when it was taught to me to use it in parochial school ( as it may be the case with you also), it was always to serve as a reminder to keep one's pen/pencil mindful of the Holy Family (Jesus, Mary, Joseph), That is, to be mindful what is written; God is watching.
Now, I am not always the best example either, but it bodes well to correct ourselves when it's demonstrated we've written some things that are out of line.
So, with that I want to exhort you to be careful how you may have a tendency to put your own opinions above that of our bishops and popes. After all, who is Peter's rep?
You clearly do it with this: "To all above, I stand by my post. There should never have been "Indults" in the first place." So, now, you must possess some inside knowledge, having 20/20 hindsight AND you are to be listened to and not the Holy Father's instructions via Ecclesia Dei Commission and through the local bishops?
My dear brother in Christ, please reflect on the significance of what you are saying. I pray with you so that you may open your eyes and see how damaging those words can be.
Lastly, I am astounded that you entirely validate both my point and Jerry's that the TLM was continuously available all along - thus ADMITTEDLY never abrogated (by proof of celebration). So you yourself clearly state yet another example, but then do the flip and say "To all above, I stand by my post" ... that it took 40 years to admit it. Seriously?
Please apply a little logic, reflect and pray on it. I submit that a correction of your views is in order Sir. Wouldn't you agree?
I would suggest this; In fact, the Latin Mass was abrogated, but it was not suppressed nor did Paul
VI prohibit its use. He did, however, promulgate the Novus Ordo as the official form of the liturgy in the Latin Rite.
As always, the local Bishop is responsible for how the liturgy is celebrated in his See. That is the way it was until Benedict's Modus Proprio, the local, bishop's permission was required for the celebration of the Latin Mass.
But Benedict's pronouncements comes with a lot of caveats:
1. The local Bishop is still ultimately and primarily responsible for the public celebration of the Mass within the Diocese.
2. Every priest is given the right to celebrate the Latin Mass. However, contrary to the belief of all the ultra traditionilists, the permission is only FOR THE PRIVATE, not public, celebration.
3. Pastors are free to have the Latin Mass publicly celebrated in their parish but are limited to only one on Sunday. All other celebrations of the Mass on Sundays must be the Novus Ordo.
4. Bishops are exhorted, but not required, to arrange for the public celebration of the Latin Mass when there is enough of a demand by the laity to justify it.
5. Most importantly, the Latin Mass may only be celebrated by Priests properly trained to do so.
That last means that no priest may celebrate the Latin Mass even in private if they have not received the necessary training. Nor may a Pastor or even a Bishop have Latin Masses celebrated if there is no priest available who has been properly trained.
Are we really saying similar things from different vantage points?
The permission required for TLM celebration in a particular western diocese is no different than a priest or other bishop needing permission to say the Novus Ordo or the Byzantine, etc... from the local ordinary... although the conditions for that permission have varied and likely will continue to vary.
It's pretty obvious that the TLM has never ceased to be celebrated.
The added conditions placed on those desiring the TLM (in principle) is because of all the other issues that can affect status (union). Different dioceses have different issues and it has been left up to the local bishop to deal with it as he sees fit.