Why do you dispute Quo Primum could not be abrogated?
I don't think we need to get into all of that again; there was a very long thread on this subject here about a year or two ago, and it's just endless. There is just no good or convincing argument that a future pope can not revoke, change, reverse, abrogate, revise, etc., a previous pope's disciplinary decrees, no matter how forcefully worded.
Sometimes I think we let our emotions rule our intellects; I'm just as irritated as anyone that a pope used his papal authority to promulgate a new rite of Mass, but as much as I hate it, I have to admit that he certainly possessed the authority to do so. May not have been the smartest or most prudent exercise of authority, but ... the authority was still there, like it or not.
Quo Primum just confirmed the long standing tradition of the Church. Even if it wasn't there, theologians agreed that the Mass, in any form, should not be touched.
It really doesn't matter if thousands upon thousands of theologians agree or not; the dogma of the Church is that the pope possesses the supreme authority in such disciplinary matters. A liturgy of the Church cannot be properly called a "dogma," thus making it irreformable, no matter how beautiful it is.
I will go even further: it really doesn't matter (in the jurisdictional sphere) what a nine-cardinal commission decided either. It's nice to know; it gives a bit of ammo; but if the pope didn't confirm their decision by some kind of decree, it remains nothing but the opinion of nine men. Nine very well-read and learned men, to be sure; but just nine men, all the same.
Also, the TLM is long standing tradition; a Pope may legally suppress it, but in such a case, the Pope would be hardpressed to find a good moral reason for it.
A "long standing tradition?" Yes and no. Bits and pieces of it are older than others, and I understand that the core of it is pretty ancient. But when St. Pius V finally sat down to codify the one liturgy which was to be official for all of the West, he collected all the extant liturgies currently in use, and discovered that there were so many variations that the very first thing he did was eliminate anything younger than 200 years old.
The Mass has always been an organically growing and developing thing; you can trace several changes it just in this last century (the 20th) alone. That's why Traditionalists in some places argue over whether the 1962 missal or the pre-1962 missal should be used!
I understand what you're saying; but I'd be careful about trying to turn the TLM into something (historically) which it isn't. Apparently the popes who made alterations to it in the 20th century did not understand Pope St. Pius V's bull the way certain Traditionalists do today.
Cardinal Stickler himself said the Pope could not forbid a Mass that made all the saints we've ever known.
But that's Cardinal Stickler. But a bunch of men in pointed hats dogmatically declared a hundred years ago or so that the Roman Pontiff possesses supreme authority in the Church. If a pope wanted to surpress the Mass, he would have every right to do so. He'd be a fool, but he could certainly do it.