When the matter is discussed, several documents in addition to the Missale Romanum are invariably cited ... lastly, a letter emanating from the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship addressed to the Bishop of Siena in 1999. ... the letter of the Sacred Congregation for the Divine Worship to the Bishop of Siena in 1999 acknowledges that “in the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum, no explicit formula of abrogation of the Roman missal so-called of St. Pius V occurs.” ... According to Canon 20 of the Code of Canon Law, a later law supersedes or, to use the technical word, “obrogates” an earlier law if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law, and supplants it. The letter of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship to the Bishop of Siena in 1999 seems to maintain that the Tridentine missal would have been suppressed by a form of obrogation. ... This letter asserts in the first place that “if the will of the Pontiff had been to leave in force the preceding liturgical forms as an alternative that could be freely chosen, he should have said so explicitly.” ... This letter asserts that documents subsequent to the constitution Missale Romanum confirm the obligatory character of Paul VI’s missal. ... This letter asserts that “usage” manifests the obligatory character of Paul VI’s missal. ... This letter asserts that the obligatory character of Paul VI’s missal can be seen by comparing it to the situation described in Canon 6, §1, No. 4 taken together with Canon 19 [I think this was probably 20?].
Hopefully B16 can conclude a universal indult if negotiations with the SSPX get going again, but the SCDW's arguments have convinced me that the "immemorial custom"/"Quo Primum never suppressed" arguments are bunk. Here are the referenced canons:
Can. 6 §1 When this Code comes into force, the following are abrogated: ... 4° any other universal disciplinary laws concerning matters which are integrally reordered by this Code.Can. 19 If on a particular matter there is not an express provision of either universal or particular law, nor a custom, then, provided it is not a penal matter, the question is to be decided by taking into account laws enacted in similar matters, the general principles of law observed with canonical equity, the jurisprudence and practice of the Roman Curia, and the common and constant opinion of learned authors.
Can. 20 A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.
B XVI himself disagreed with your assertion. So did the rest of JPII's commission of cardinals.
--------------
25) Due to the common misuse of the word "Indult," regarding the Tridentine Mass, we will quote this section of the book in its entirety: "Moreover, St. Pius V granted in perpetuity to all priests a specific indult, conceding to them the tranquil enjoyment of their perpetual right to celebrate publicly and privately the rite which he had codified. This indult could not be suppressed without express mention, for 'a universal law does not derogate from a particular or from a special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise' (Canon 20). By its silence on this point, the apostolic constitution of Pope Paul, leaves intact the privilege granted perpetuity by St. Pius V." (PLR, p.106 uses the word "fraudulent" for the Commission Ecclesia Dei because the Commission pretends that a priest needs to be granted a special indult [a special permission] to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. This permission is not needed, as all Roman Rite priests have the permission already. Both Cardini Stickler and Cardinal Oddi have stated openly that they were on a 1986 Papal Commission of Nine Cardinals that concluded that 1) The Tridentine Mass has never been abrogated, and 2) That a priest needs no permission from his bishop to celebrate the Tridentin Mass privately or publicly. Further, in the recent negotiations between the Society of St. Pius X and the Vatican, Cardinal Hoyos, Prefect of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, admitted reluctantly, "Okay, we recognize that the Old Mass is not abrogated and is legitimate, but we can not say it publicly because there will be too much of a rebellion and dificulty with the bishops. We cannot say it publicly." (For Cardinal Oddi's comments, see CFN, Aug., 2 001. For Cardinal Stickler's comments, se CFN, Feb., 1998, p. 3. For Cardinal Hoyos' comments, see CFN, April 2001.
http://www.traditionalcatholicism.net/page36.html