1)Must be a decision by the Supreme teaching authority of the church.
Met.
So far, you're on fire.
2) Decision must concern faith and morals.
Not met.
sorry Charlie, you're wrong.
"But according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful.
"This council (Trent) used the word canon for short, dogmatic definitions with an anathema attached to them. On the other hand it gave the name of decrees to its disciplinary regulations.
Now let's look at the quote:
" If anyone says that the Mass should be celebrated in the vernacular only, let him be Anathema . " - Council of Trent (Session XXII, Canon 9)
Oh lookie it's a canon not a decree.
3) Must apply to the UNIVERSAL CHURCH
Not met. Since we are talking about the use of LATIN in the "Latin Rite" of the Roman Catholic church, it obviously does NOT apply to those OTHER rites (Eastern Catholic, etc) that are in full communion with Rome.
I'm sorry but where is Latin mentioned? What is condemned is that vernacular be used exclusively.
" If anyone says that the Mass should be celebrated in the vernacular only, let him be Anathema . " - Council of Trent (Session XXII, Canon 9)
4) Must be irrevocable, or, as it is called, definitive.
Met--BUT--..."what it excludes is a re-opening of the question in a spirit of doubt about the truth of the doctrine which has been already definitively settled."
Which is just what you are doing. Unlike the pronouncement in the 2nd Vatican Council which "examined anew and defined again" re-asserting more specifically that which was declared by Trent,
"[T]he use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." -Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy
Final score---
It seems you're out of gas.
Now, your original comment was,
I fail to see what all the hoopla is about the "Latin mass".
...which through numerous posts and links has been adequately explained, including the fact that the hoopla is not just about the language, although very important, but the actual differences in the NO and the TLM. You can no longer claim to not see what the "hoopla" is about, although you can still obstinately refuse to accept the very solid reasons for the "hoopla".
P.S. The Protestant Reformers saw quite well what all the "hoopla" was about Latin and the TLM, which is why they rejected it.
"Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit. . . . The spirit of rebellion which drives them to confide the universal prayer to the idiom of each people, of each province, of each century, has for the rest produced its fruits, and the reformed themselves constantly perceive that the Catholic people, in spite of their Latin prayers, relish better and accomplish with more zeal the duties of the cult than most do the Protestant people. At every hour of the day, divine worship takes place in Catholic churches. The faithful Catholic, who assists, leaves his mother tongue at the door. Apart form the sermons, he hears nothing but mysterious words which, even so, are not heard in the most solemn moment of the Canon of the Mass. Nevertheless, this mystery charms him in such a way that he is not jealous of the lot of the Protestant, even though the ear of the latter doesn't hear a single sound without perceiving its meaning .… . . . We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in ever destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one's work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace. . . ."- Dom Prosper Gueranger 1805-1875
Sure I can, since I don't buy the arguments put forth as "very solid reasons", but propaganda put forth by a bunch of "Latin purists" whose only goal is to go back to the Tridentine Mass.
As to the rest of your "arguments", I'll respond when I have more time to study your links--but I suspect I'll find that you have taken things out of context once again.