Really, no thanks at all? Thanks to God and also to His Vicar. The SSPX offered a Te Deum after Summorum Pontificum. Your words are that of an ungrateful son who's been badly misled on the duty of Catholic children toward the Holy Father and toward the Bishops.
You miss the point completely. Either Quo Primum is still law or it isn't. +Benedict said that Quo Primum is still law and this law allows the latin mass in perpetuity. +Benedict said that the latin mass was not outlawed and "thus always permitted". Most Trads knew that Quo Primum was still law way back in the 60s when the new mass came about - that's why they became Trads. That means that there is no reason for "SP" to exist. We don't need "SP" to give us an allowance that Quo Primum already gives.
What +Benedict should have done is issue an apology for all the bishops who lied to entire Catholic world for 50 years when they told everyone that the True Mass is outlawed. Instead, he gave us more contradiction and said that Quo Primum is still in force, then issued "SP" which ignores Quo Primum completely. +Benedict promotes the new mass, he promotes the indult, he hands out communion in the hand. He is not a friend of Tradition or Orthodoxy. Let's pray he converts.
If Vatican II was heretical, then the whole Catholic Church defected and disappeared at that moment, which is itself heretical to believe. It is false and the only thing true is that Vatican II was non-infallible, unlike all other previous Councils, as Pope Benedict XVI has confirmed.
V2 was not-infallible, meaning it is fallible, meaning it could contain error, meaning it could contain heresy. If a fallible council contains error, this is not a defection of the Church. Fallibility, by definition, means that error can happen. The pope is not protected from error unless he follows the 4 requirements and defines doctrine. V2 didn't define doctrine, therefore it's not protected from error. V2 must not be accepted to the same degree that other doctrinal councils have to be.
Cardinal Ottaviani did not believe what you think he believed:
It doesn't matter what he believes; what matters are facts. Ottaviani wasn't the only theologian who wrote his Intervention; there were a group of top theologians who explained that the new mass is 1) a new theology which is contrary to the doctrines of Trent, 2) it's consecration can be positively doubted in its validity, 3) it's liturgy is protestant and anti-catholic. The facts which the Intervention document presents have not changed. The new mass has not been updated to improve upon the defects which were listed. So, the problems still exist, the facts remain, regardless of if Ottaviani later accepted the new mass or not.
Secondly, the new mass is not a requirement to get to heaven. No V2 pope has EVER imposed a command that a catholic must accept it. Therefore, because it is not a requirement on the Latin Church, therefore it is not a "received and approved" rite, therefore it can contain error and its illicitness and immorality has nothing to do with the Church's indefectibility, nor papal infallibility.
Cardinal Mindszenty used to say Holy Mass in prison sometimes with little more than the Words of Consecration and without doubt, His Grace Archbishop Lefebvre said, that was a valid Sacrament and Sacrifice. When prayers are omitted, validity is not affected, but the grace received is less; that is what sacramental theology teaches and that is the true opinion on the new rites.
1. A priest saying a shortened version of the Mass, under extreme duress in a prison setting, is not even in the same universe of comparison to the new mass, which teaches a new theology, protestantizes the liturgy and changed the consecration formula. The new mass' purpose is to be anti-Trent, to minimize the sacrificial aspect, to be acceptable to people of all "faiths". Go read what the V2 theologians say about the new mass. They are heretics who hate the mass, bar none. And they don't hide their hatred of Truth or the Faith. You just have to be open to the fact that the new mass is an abomination.
+ABL is not infallible nor is his theological opinion 100% trustworthy. It is wrong to say that ALL new masses are invalid. It is wrong to say that ALL are valid. No one can know if it's valid or not - because the new rites are dependent upon the minister's PRIVATE intention, which no one can know. And even if they are all valid, they are still illicit and sinful because they violate Quo Primum's commands that ONLY it's missal can be used. New masses are also immoral because their theology is protestantized and anti-Trent. This means that by attending, one will lose their understanding of the Faith, even if gradually, which is more important than the mass.