It's "all or none" for you.  That's not how life works.

That has been YOUR position on this entire subject, not mine.

Pax Vobis:
I've cited docuмentation promulgated under three Popes, one of which is canonized. They have seen fit to make a distinction between active and passive attendance and place it in canon law. If a future Pope says that is wrong I'll accept his teaching. Until then I will stand by it because I believe it to be the teaching of the Church.
You have cited a book in which the author unhesitatingly declares that Catholics may attend a protestant wedding or funeral. His objection is that the NO mass is somehow a greater sacrilege that a protestant one. I'm not convinced by his assessment and you have not provided anything, other than your own opinion, to bolster his claim. Instead you have made several factually erroneous statements regarding protestantism, have not provided evidence that most trad clergy used to hold said position, and have insulted everyone who disagrees with you.
If you would like to provide actual evidence, I am open to considering it.

I've cited docuмentation promulgated under three Popes, one of which is canonized. They have seen fit to make a distinction between active and passive attendance and place it in canon law.

That's a half-truth, and based on your repeated half-truths, i'll assume it's now dishonesty. 
.
Yes, they have made a distinction between passive attendance, but such is allowed only under certain conditions.  1) protestant wedding (not a protestant service), 2) if there is a grave reason for attendance, 3) with permission of your bishop.
.

If a future Pope says that is wrong I'll accept his teaching. Until then I will stand by it because I believe it to be the teaching of the Church.

You'll stand by your personal interpretation of it, which is wrong.  Go right ahead, no one can stop you.  God knows your heart and your hard-headedness in the matter.  I'll pray for you to accept humility at some point.
.

You have cited a book in which the author unhesitatingly declares that Catholics may attend a protestant wedding or funeral.

Yep, and i've not objected to this once.  Notice, neither this priest nor canon law says you can attend a protestant service, only the wedding/funeral.  A distinction you repeatedly ignore.
.

His objection is that the NO mass is somehow a greater sacrilege that a protestant one. I'm not convinced by his assessment and you have not provided anything, other than your own opinion, to bolster his claim.

Ok, so you don't trust a priest who grew up pre-V2, went to a pre-V2 orthodox seminary, recognized the errors of V2 as they were happening in the 60s, refused to ever say the new mass and left his diocese, with no where to go, and with no $, when his bishop wouldn't let him continue to say the TLM.  Then he wrote a book against the new mass, one of the first on the topic, only 2 years after this blasphemy was forced on the laity across the globe.
.
...This is a priest, as orthodox as they come, whom you won't listen to.  Wow.  I have no words...
.

Instead you have made several factually erroneous statements regarding protestantism, have not provided evidence that most trad clergy used to hold said position, and have insulted everyone who disagrees with you.
If you would like to provide actual evidence, I am open to considering it.

I'm not going to write a history book to explain to you the common-knowledge of how Traditionalism started in the 60s and 70s.  If you don't already know this, then you're woefully uneducated on the topic and shouldn't even be talking about it.
.
Suffice it to say, from the period of 1969 (when the new mass came out) til the period of 1988 (when new-rome started the indult mass), there were almost no TLMs said in parishes or dioceses across the globe.  Everything was the new mass.  Except those Trad priests who had left new-rome and found Trad laity, where mass was said in garages, hotel rooms, basements and rental halls.  Until they saved up $ to buy/rent buildings which were turned into chapels.  This took years.
.
So for the period of almost 20 years, the only TLMs said on the planet were by Trad priests.  Not authorized by new-rome and not available in parishes/dioceses.  There was no FSSP.  No ICK.  No Summorum Pontificuм.  No indult TLMs.  Sure, there were some old, retired priests who said the TLM in a small parish chapel a few times a week.  But not on sundays.  Sundays, it was new mass or nothing.  This is historical fact.
.
Get the picture?

That's a half-truth, and based on your repeated half-truths, i'll assume it's now dishonesty.  
.
Yes, they have made a distinction between passive attendance, but such is allowed only under certain conditions.  1) protestant wedding (not a protestant service), 2) if there is a grave reason for attendance, 3) with permission of your bishop.

Here's canon 1258 yet again:
s1. Haud licitum est fidelibus quovis modo active assistere seu partem habere in sacris acatholicorum.
s2. Tolerari potest praesentia passiva seu materialis, civilis officii vel honoris causa, ob gravem rationem ab Episcopo in causu dubii probandum, in acatholicorum funeribus, nuptiis similibusque sollemniis, dummodo perversionis et scandali periculum absit.

It is unlawful for Catholics to assist actively in any way at, or take part in, the religious services of non-Catholics.
A passive or merely material presence may be tolerated, for reasons of civil duty or honor, at funerals, weddings, and similar celebrations, provided no danger of perversion or scandal arises from this assistance. In doubtful cases the reason for assisting must be grave, and recognized as such by the Bishop.

1) protestant wedding (not a protestant service)

Canon 1258 does not say protestant anywhere. It says non-Catholic.
s1. makes the distinction ACTIVE assistance. It does NOT forbid passive presence. It DOES forbid active assistance and taking part in a non-Catholic services (ie. joining in the prayers, serving as groomsman or bridesmaid, etc.)
It also does not make the distinction between a wedding and a service that you claim.

2) if there is a grave reason for attendance, 3) with permission of your bishop.

s2. ...In doubtful cases the reason for assisting must be grave, and recognized as such by the Bishop.

'm not going to write a history book to explain to you the common-knowledge of how Traditionalism started in the 60s and 70s.  If you don't already know this, then you're woefully uneducated on the topic and shouldn't even be talking about it.
.
Suffice it to say, from the period of 1969 (when the new mass came out) til the period of 1988 (when new-rome started the indult mass), there were almost no TLMs said in parishes or dioceses across the globe.  Everything was the new mass.  Except those Trad priests who had left new-rome and found Trad laity, where mass was said in garages, hotel rooms, basements and rental halls.  Until they saved up $ to buy/rent buildings which were turned into chapels.  This took years.
.
So for the period of almost 20 years, the only TLMs said on the planet were by Trad priests.  Not authorized by new-rome and not available in parishes/dioceses.  There was no FSSP.  No ICK.  No Summorum Pontificuм.  No indult TLMs.  Sure, there were some old, retired priests who said the TLM in a small parish chapel a few times a week.  But not on sundays.  Sundays, it was new mass or nothing.  This is historical fact.

Thank you for the brief history lesson I am quite familiar with everything that you wrote. However, none of your reply answered what I wrote:

1) Instead you have made several factually erroneous statements regarding protestantism,
2)have not provided evidence (beyond Fr. Wathen's book, of course) that most trad clergy used to hold said position,
3)and have insulted everyone who disagrees with you.
If you would like to provide actual evidence, I am open to considering it.

Yes, the 60s/70s were "horror days" for trads. Imagine converting to the Faith in those days, as I did. 

The red highlighted words in your above quote appear to be flying over your head....

No one's honor is at stake, of this there is no doubt - scratch this reason for going.
The OP's daughter's wedding has nothing whatsoever to do with any civil office, of this there is no doubt, scratch this reason for going. There is no grave reason, so scratch this idea too.

So with no doubts, with no honor at stake, with no civil office involved, and with no grave reason to attend at all, exactly what answer should be expected from the OP's bishop?

This work has a slightly different English translation that might make the meaning clearer for you:
https://archive.org/details/pointsofchurchla0000slat/page/21/mode/1up
You seem to be misunderstanding "honoris". From the Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin (Leo F. Stelton): "honor, distinction, esteem, reward, acknowledgement"
As for doubt simply reread the sentence:
In doubtful cases the reason for assisting must be grave, and recognized as such by the Bishop
The slightly different translation may help as well. Sorry, I don't have time right now to type it out.