CathInfo.com

But this isn't what Suarez and the Salmanticenses are referring to. Suarez himself says, "Now in the present matter, we do not use the word ‘ceremony’ in this broadest meaning, but we adapt it to the sacramental ceremony, and by Theologians it is usually simply called a ‘sacramental’. By this word we mean certain religious actions or circuмstances, which the Church observes in the administration of the sacraments, or the oblation of the sacrifice, and which are apart from those which are of the essence, or substance of the sacrifice, such as, in Baptism for example, the Unction, the Exorcism, and other things of this sort" (read here). The Salmanticenses likewise clearly state that they are talking about, to quote you, "the ceremonial rites used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments."

Dear jdfaber,

"By this word we mean certain religious actions or circuмstances, which the Church observes in the administration of the sacraments, or the oblation of the sacrifice, and which are apart from those which are of the essence, or substance of the sacrifice..." 
The sacraments consist of matter and form to which is added the intention of the minister. The rite of the sacrament binds these together. In the case of the Holy Mass this role is fulfilled by the Canon. The Canon is the rite that contains the essence, or substance of the sacrifice which is Transubstantiation, it is not apart from the substance of the sacrifice, it also provides the rubrics for it.

In other words:

The substance of the Canon is the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The substance of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the form of Transubstantiation and the matter of bread and wine. The substance of the form are the words of the institution. The substance of the matter is leaven or unleavened bread and sacramental wine.
The Canon without the Sacrament of the Eucharist does not exist, its only purpose is the sacrifice.

Dear Ladislaus,
Sometimes yes or no questions lead to wrong conclusions. Please sacrifice and reread the thread, you will have the correct answer.

You're just avoiding giving an answer.  I'm not going to re-read this nonsensical thread so you can escape answering a very clear question.

Does a pope who adds a name to the Communicantes in the Canon (after Quo Primum) incur an anathema?  Either he does or he does not.  There's nothing gray there.  You could then qualify it with considerations of their subjective guilt, etc., or whatever dancing you want to try ... but the question her is whether they objectively incur the anathema.  Yes or no?

As for your arrogant assertion that the "correct answer" is in your thread, you couldn't be more wrong, and more wrong about this issue, and yet you have the hubris to asser that yours is "the correct answer".  You were soundly refuted on your thread.