As I recall from all that I have read over the past 10 years, VCII was intended to 'reform' the TLM. Again, from what I understand, the Latin Mass was 'sealed' for 500 years. Liturgy is not fixed, it is fluid as exemplified by the evolution of what resulted in the (now) TLM. Once the seal was affixed, the evolution was halted. There are gaps in the old Latin Mass. At certain parts, the priest extends his hands and says "Oremus" (Let us pray) but there is no prayer that follows. These gaps are what most participants anticipated would be addressed. Instead, certain bishops (from around the world) expressed an interest in adjusting the liturgy to suit their culture - hece, liturgical dance, etc. Once the discussions began, more ecclesial interests were addressed in the actual documents. What went wrong was writing those documents in such a was as to allow for 'interpretation'. For example, there are certain small parishes in the US comprised of immigrants. For them, the loopholes in the documents were interpreted as approving liturgical dance or some other novelty from their culture. Once it began, other parishes caved. Locally, I battled the pastor of my now former parish + the bishop who approved him introducing liturgical dance. The dioces demonstrated their support by citing a VCII document on multiculturism. That did not fly here because there was only one 'immigrant' family in the parish and they were not from a culture where dance was the tradition. In my 2nd response to the diocese, I quoted Canon Law - "every catholic is entitled to a valid liturgy". That ended the potential abuse. No Catholic should have to resort to these means to protect the Mass celebrated at their parish.
This is my understanding of how this all transpired over the past 4 decades. The important point now is that this nonsense is beginning to wind down. The bishops who instituted these changes, for the most part, are retired or nearing retirement age. Attn NT Hockey - you have my sympathy on the situation in your diocese. Like you, our diocese offers the TLM at only one church. Last month, the bishop announced that particular church was being closed, along with several others in that area. That will bring to 66, the number of churches and schools he has closed since becoming bishop 35+ years ago. He will reach mandatory retirement age in just under 5 years. That leaves him ample time to wreck further damage on his diocese.
They also mention "restoration" rather than "reform" of the liturgy. Now, these two words are not synonymous. To restore is to bring out the original luster. You restore an old painting, without changing it. To reform is to a new form, to form again. If the aim of the Church was simply to let in some fresh air, as Pope John XXIII suggested, to restore the vivacity of the Church, then the Council went terribly astray. That much is clear from even a cursory read of the Sacronsanctum Concllium. The aim was to redefine the Catholic Church, not to restore her. They certainly succeeded in that, and four Popes so far have presided over it.
Today, hardly anyone remembers the pre Vatican II Church and that in itself makes the reforms "irreversible." Perhaps Vatican II should be called Reformation II?
My point is that my situation is not unique. This is a common occurance.
I also take issue with your position that “Liturgy is not fixed, it is fluid as exemplified by the evolution of what resulted in the (now) TLM.” This is EXACTLY the same argument that LIBs use in referring to the Constitution.
Pope St. Pius V promulgated the rite of Mass, in perpetuity. The Founding Fathers wrote a document to lead this nation forever. One cannot say that one ruling can be changed, while the other cannot. As Mr. Spock would say, “That is illogical.”