Quo Primum is disciplinary, and for proof of that you simply have to look at the subsequent texts that follow it in a priestly missal, where the Popes tried but failed to get printers to revert back to what Trent codified with extensive use of Vetus Itala instead of the Vulgate but gave up, and left it be. Vetus Itala did survive with the Pater noster as the most famous example. The words of Quo Primum are conventional for the Papal chancellery, and they were ignored by printers. It still doesn't make the Novus Ordo something Catholics should follow. Trent itself accepted local liturgies of at least 200 years standing and while, say, France in its Neo-Gallican era of 17th-18th century ignored that, these other old liturgies and new liturgies were utterly Catholic which cannot be said for the Novus Ordo, which took an already short liturgy (Greek ones was take hours) and shortened still more and introduced ambiguous propers and offertories as the traditional one was supposedly 'medieval.' The less said of the lectionary the better.
As you know, I disagree that it's PURELY disciplinary. There's a definite doctrinal aspect to it ... similar to how St. Thomas says that canonizations have a doctrinal aspect to them and therefore can be said to be "infallible", as infallibility in the strict sense can only refer to doctrinal propositions.
But my point earlier was that it's disputed even among Traditional Catholics, so that it would be an exercise in futility to attempt to prove it to OP's husband. I didn't mean to start a full-on debate about it, just wanted to touch on the fact that there's no "smoking gun" that would convince OP's husband. I do know some Traditional Catholics who hold that it's completely unchangeable and irreformable. I hold an in-between position, that it's permitted to offer this Mass in perpetuity and that permission can't be revoked by a subsequent pope (any more than a subsequent pope could undo a canonization or a dogmatic definition). This does not mean it can't be slightly modified
per accidens. Nor does it preclude a pope from introducing or promulgating an alternative Rite (although one could ague whether they could concoct a new Rite out of thing air vs. relying on a development from an Apostolic Rite). In other words, I think this is controverted. I just don't believe that a Pope could solemnly declare that the Rite is permitted in perpetuity but by that really mean "until I die and the next pope comes along."