Even Ratzinger's Motu left it to the bishops.

Only difference was:

Ratzinger:  permitted unless denied.
Bergoglio:  denied unless permitted.

So no PRACTICAL difference ... except for all priests ordained after the Motu have to get permission from ROME to be able to say the Tridentine Mass.  So they hope to extinguish the Traditional Mass over time.  So I wonder whether Xavier, if he gest ordained some day, will go to Rome to get permission.

But the real problem here is that Bergoglio:
1) claims that the NOM is the EXCLUSIVE expression of the Roman Rite (i.e. rejects Ratzinger's extraordinary form thing)
2) says the bishops are required to determine that any Motu groups do NOT reject the legitimacy of the NOM

So, R&R, is this guy still your pope?

Why should this present (as you desire) an additional impetus toward sedevacantism?

The 1984 indult had the same requirement of acknowledging the doctrinal uprightness of the NOM, and was the primary reason indult attendance was impermissible.

THIS^^^

Not that EVERYTHING that comes from the hierarchy is infallible, but this crosses a line.  They're clearly forcing the NOM on everybody.

So what of the R&R position that the NOM as never properly "promulgated" and the TLM never "abolished" and that's why the NOM is not an issue with regard to the Church's disciplinary infallibility?

In many ways, Bergoglio has unwittingly done much good.  He's ripped off the mask and the veneer of Catholicism from the Conciliar Church.

The sede thinks every new Roman outrage compels sedevacantism.
They’ve been saying that at each instance for the last 50 years.
It appears lost on them that we R&R will simply continue to abide by Quo Orimum, and disregard this pseudo-disciplinary MP (recognizing the pope until he is declared deposed, while resisting his heterodox teachings).
The sedes who believe a real pope can’t mislead the flock are ignorant about Church history (Honorious, Liberius, Adrian, etc).

To be clear, I’m not asserting that those who believe that Bergoglio is the pope are outside the Church. Where the danger presents itself is when they fall into the false notion that the Church can lead someone into error. This is heretical.

Church, or churchmen?
The latter can, have, are, and will continue to lead into error.

I mean, Bergs explicitly stated that any rejection of Vatican II was unacceptable last year. It was obvious this was coming. Now we're returning to the days like after Montini forced the new rite on everyone.

I am interested to see the mental gymnastics that will follow with those who insist the man is a pope of the CATHOLIC Church. I don't really care if I'm outside of the NOVUS ORDO church, I've known that already. But there is absolutely no way that he is part of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, let alone its head.

We're already seeing it.

Yeah. I see that now. Anything but sedevacantism. 

How about this whopper from the accompanying letter:

“I take comfort in this decision from the fact that, after the Council of Trent, St. Pius V also abrogated all the rites that could not claim a proven antiquity, establishing for the whole Latin Church a single Missale Romanum. For four centuries this Missale Romanum, promulgated by St. Pius V was thus the principal expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite, and functioned to maintain the unity of the Church.“

But Your Holiness, you are doing the exact OPPOSITE of what St. Pius V did: 

Rather than abrogating rites that could not claim a proven antiquity, you are abrogating a 1600 year-old rite, and establishing for the whole Latin Church a fabricated novelty (and pretending to do it by motu proprio against a papal bull declares you it’s author to be irrevocable).

And I note in passing the suggestion that the Missale Romanum promulgated by St. Pius V enjoyed only a 400 year usage in the Church, whereas in fact, in the main, it simply codified a rite already I use for 1,000 years.

No, if that monstrosity is the Church then those are the OFFICIAL liturgies, OFFICIAL sacraments and OFFICIAL laws. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Sorry.

Which church?  Catholic or conciliar?
Ps: This cake tastes wonderful.