CathInfo.com

You answered your own question. Look at the facts.  Which came first, JPIIs commission or the indults?  The commission did.  What does that mean?  It means that the commission decided BEFORE THE INDULT LAWS EXISTED that the True Mass wasn’t outlawed.  

That means that the 62 missal wasn’t outlawed and the indults are legal trickery, trying to get people to “ask” for something that they already have the right to have.  The indults were accepted by everyone but Traditionalists because we know that Quo Primum is a higher law.  And since the commission ruled that Quo Primum is still law, and this was again confirmed in 2007 by +Benedict, then this is fact.  

What we disagree on is which missal is the True Missal.  For some reason (which you’ve yet to explain) you say the 62 missal is illegal, immoral and unusable.  You’ve yet to prove this with any facts.  The legal fact is that if you say that the 62 missal is illegal then you’d have to use Pius Xs missal.  This would be the last valid missal.  Is this your argument?

If so, then you’d have to say that John XXIII isn’t the pope because his 62 law abrogated Pius Xs missal and does not allow it to be used any longer.  

Further, earlier on in this debate, it was said that the 62 missal is wrong because Bugnini was involved.  But John XXIII is the one who suspended Bugnini and took him off the liturgical commission, so that argument doesn’t fly.  

I still don’t understand why you’re against the 62 missal, if you’re not a sedevacantist.

Any changes to the 62 missal would be a new missal, with a new year.  There’s no such thing as a “new 62 missal”.  That’s an oxymoron.

Any new missal (from Benedict or otherwise) must be legally put into use.  This promulgation for its use is the most important part because this determines the why, the obligation for its use and how we are to treat the older missals.

If +Francis comes out with “updates” to the 62 missal this year (we would call it the 2019 missal), then what really matters is 1) if he makes the updates by ABROGATING the entire 1962 missal and commanding that the new 2019 missal is ONLY to be used.  Or 2) if he just comes out with changes or a new hybrid version between the 62 and the new mass, and does NOT ABROGATE the 62 missal, but simply creates a new missal like Paul VI, with no obligations for anyone to use it.  

If he does the latter, then no one has to pay any concern to it, since there’s no obligation to.  If he tries to do the former, then we’ll have to read the law and see what it says, exactly.