You are the one claiming Ratzinger proposed a definite date. But you offer as proof the letter by Lefebvre laced with sarcasm about the Cardinal's insincerity in demanding dossiers--which would have delayed the process still more and was still more evidence of insincerity on the part of Ratzinger. So I ask again--show me where Rome ever proposed a definite date. And why, if Rome was sincere, were the names the Archbishop proposed, refused?
Rome in the past had routinely accepted even the names of suspected perverts named by archbishops, or even of outright known apostates. It demurred apparently only when Lefebvre proferred names--though he alone would have best known which men could be trusted to hold the line against papal pressures in the future and which would not. And this is precisely the point. Rome had an interest in appointing weak men who would do its will, the Archbishop had an interest in preserving Catholic Tradition at all cost by naming only the most committed.
Add to this problem of who to name, the papal "commission" which was also about to be set up and which would mean that traditional Catholicism would be controlled by Rome herself --and you can see the dangers that were being proposed for Lefebvre's acceptance. In fact the Ecclesia Dei Commission even now has proven no genuine friend of Tradition, having already punished the FSSP by firing its superior general and several of its theologians for what it perceived as an affront to the conciliar Church--in other words, for very minor offenses.
As for the issue of exclusive use of the missal, I was alluding to the ninth footnote which referenced "Quattuor Abhinc Annos," Oct. 3, 1984; AAS 76 (1984) pp. 1088-1089. This letter required that "These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin" and that "There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals." This was reinforced afterwards by the Decree of Erection which was given in Rome by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei on 18 of October 1988.
Not a letter, but his interview in "Fideliter" where he explained the consecrations. He explicitly states:
While I was facing Cardinal Ratzinger with that alternative, and while he was saying that he would give us a bishop on the 15th of August,
And why, if Rome was sincere, were the names the Archbishop proposed, refused?
Because Rome doesn't what extremists like Williamson to be made a bishop. Again, Msgr. Lefebvre said in a private letter that Rome would be willing to approve at least some members of his Fraternity and associated groups such as Dom Gerard's monastery. I note that Dom Gerard and his Benedictines have been regularized under the indult and he still publicly says that the 1970 Missal is inferior, that "this rite is inadequate in expressing the real Presence manifest on the altar, the sacrifice of Christ, the divine majesty".
traditional Catholicism would be controlled by Rome herself
It seems that the terrible Modernist plot already had entered the First Vatican Council:
Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world ...So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
You say that the SSPX isn't in schism: then you give the reason for the consecrations as staying out of control of Rome. But by these very words you implicitly admit the motive for the schism: Msgr. Lefebvre wished to remove himself from the "control" of the Modernist Rome of the Anti-Christs headed by the Successor of St. Peter.
several of its theologians for what it perceived as an affront to the conciliar Church
Care to give the "affront" committed by these theologians?
As for the issue of exclusive use of the missal, I was alluding to the ninth footnote which referenced "Quattuor Abhinc Annos,"
The Ecclesia Dei Commission has explained that the "wide and generous" application called for by the Pope removed all of the conditions except for the first:
In this regard I also wish to put an end to any further useless arguments based on Quattuor abhinc annos, Cardinal Mayer's Letter to Episcopal Conferences of 3 October 1984 when he was Pro-Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. Following the interpretation of the same Cardinal Mayer when he was President of this Pontifical Commission, I wish to make it clear that, in the light of the "wide and generous application of the directives...for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962" which our Holy Father called for in his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, the only condition that from Quattuor abhinc annos which this Pontifical Commission still recognizes as binding is the first, i.e., that those priests and faithful requesting the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal "in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970."As the dicastery charged by our Holy Father with carrying out the provisions of his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, this Pontifical Commission and only this Pontifical Commission has the right to make provisions regarding the use of the 1962 Roman Missal. No group outside of and independent of the Holy See has the authority to decide on what provisions of previous documents are binding or to rule on what constitutes an illegitimate "interchanging of texts and rites". Quattuor abhinc annos also prohibited the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal in parish churches except in extraordinary cases which were to be determined by the diocesan bishop, but we note that no one is interested in insisting on that condition. (Letter of Cardinal Hoyos to Michael Davies)
But this doesn't bear on exclusivity - the 1984 Indult was never understood to prevent an indult priest from offering the Mass acording to the 1970 Missal. Indeed, since the terms of that indult were very restrictive, there were no priests dedicated only to it and therefore they would have also offered the normative Mass. "There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals" and "These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin" refer only to Mass offered according to the Missal by indult: that is, the Mass was not to be offered according to the 1965 Missal, in English translation, or as a "hybrid" with the 1970 Missal.