I ask this question for several reasons. First of all I am not a sedevacantist and I have frequently attended SSPX Masses and have gladly supported Angelus Press in the past. Also, I believe that Archbishop Lefebvre was a very good man. 

However, with that being said, I recently came across the following passage in The Council of Trent docuмents:

The Council of Trent: Session 22, Chapter 9, Canon 7 (and Denzinger #954) reads: "If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema."

Therefore, if you refuse to accept the New Mass as valid and licit, then unfortunately this canon applies to you. However, this Council of Trent canon does not apply to you if you accept that Paul VI (the creator of the New Mass, which you believe is invalid and counterfeit) was not a legitimate pope. 

Also, I noticed that the docuмent Quo Primum is not in ANY edition of Denzinger (i.e. The Sources of Catholic Dogma). Why is that so? It's simply because it is not a dogmatic docuмent but merely a disciplinary one. This is because at the time of the docuмent, 1570, there were several different kinds of masses being practiced within the Church and Pope St. Pius V permitted said masses to continue if they were practiced for more than 200 years. 

Therefore, the above-mentioned Council of Trent canon [promulgated in 1562-- 8 years before the docuмent Quo Primum] is not referring only to the Latin Tridentine Mass but to other masses as well. So to deny that the New Mass is licit while ignorantly believing that Quo Primum is a dogmatic docuмent is to make one "anathema" unless of course you do not accept Paul VI as a valid pope. 

I would like to hear Traditionalist opinions on this issue. Thank you.

I remember when I first came across that canon.  It also happened to be one of the first set of canons I had read.  And, I will say, understanding denzinger and canons becomes much easier after you have read all of them(denzinger from start to finish).  

This is complicated for the laity, and it is conceivable that the most complicated clerical matters simply are above the understanding of the laity.  And, this canon and its implications is likely in my opinion the most complicated canon to apply.  Because, not only is a canon to be understood by its context, but canons also are potent in themselves, transcending the time periods in which they were said, becoming applicable for all time.  However, when being applied to situations in which they were not originally intended(in this case originally applied towards to protestants who hated the latin rite and wanted a novus ordo like the church now has, attended by types who have a disdain for the old liturgy and old ways), they lose some of their potency.  And, those decisions become prudential decisions, and are best left to the bishop(s), of which +Lefebvre was one.  Really, end of discussion.  Applying this canon at this point is a prudential decision, and +Lefebvre surely kept this canon in mind when he decided to implement a "liturgy of econe"(1967 liturgy mix and matching the most traditional rubrics allowed), which he is still criticized for.  Surely it was this canon that influenced him to experiment saying privately the novus ordo in the early days of the sspx.  +Lefebvre was also severely criticized for that at the time by De Lauriers.  

My personal opinion about this canon applied to the novus ordo liturgy is that if looked at entirely objectively, which is not realistic, yet sufficient when judging later applications of the letter of the law; in its most traditional "potential" manifestation, aside from the fact that it still causes divisions due to human frailty, its most traditional manifestation(which by the way the church has not seen even fifty years after the council) would pass the test for a catholic generation who had not experienced the revolution of vatican 2 or been formed/attached to 1500 years of a particularly universal liturgy.  However, that is not realistic.  We not only must be objective, but also subjective.  We must be subject(ive), because the church is hierarchical.  We are "subject" to authority, which is quite a mystery in itself, because there are checks and balances in the church.  We have to be subject in so many ways.  With that said, I do not disagree with +Lefebvre/sspx thinking when they say that the novus ordo is bad and should be avoided/abolished.  But, at the same time I do not disagree with +Williamson who says if you feel you must attend, you may.    

My gripe as a layman has been that tradition(the sspx) has not provided you could say a survival guide for how laity can/should attend the novus ordo if they feel they must(no sspx/ecclesia dei nearby).  But, not requiring them to do so.  However, even with this lack of, God is not some distant being, he is close, and has provided countless souls with instruction as to how to survive in the novus ordo.  So, I do not let my gripe get the best of me.  It is a small matter.  

1 - Therefore, if you refuse to accept the New Mass as valid and licit, then unfortunately this canon applies to you. 

2 - Also, I noticed that the docuмent Quo Primum is not in ANY edition of Denzinger (i.e. The Sources of Catholic Dogma). Why is that so? It's simply because it is not a dogmatic docuмent but merely a disciplinary one. This is because at the time of the docuмent, 1570, there were several different kinds of masses being practiced within the Church and Pope St. Pius V permitted said masses to continue if they were practiced for more than 200 years.

3 - Therefore, the above-mentioned Council of Trent canon [promulgated in 1562-- 8 years before the docuмent Quo Primum] is not referring only to the Latin Tridentine Mass but to other masses as well. So to deny that the New Mass is licit while ignorantly believing that Quo Primum is a dogmatic docuмent is to make one "anathema" unless of course you do not accept Paul VI as a valid pope.

I would like to hear Traditionalist opinions on this issue. Thank you.

1 - Wrong.  This canon applies to those at whom it was addressed or directed.  It was addressed and directed at protestants.  It was not addressed or directed at future traditional catholics keeping with the spirit of the canons author regarding liturgical orthodoxy in a time of papal contradiction.  It is that simple. 
2 - I have yet to find a perfect book.  Denzinger is no different.  As much as I like even the bible, Jesus did not give us a bible.  Jesus gave us apostles.  
3 - you are presuming a lot here.  How about you refer to exactly what the pope's thinking was behind the canon.  In all likelihood, his thinking was in agreement with the docuмent he wrote 8 years later, quo primum.   And, that docuмent condemned liturgies lacking a history of greater than 200 years continuous use.  And, the novus ordo does not even meet that criteria.  Which, would have been your best shot at applying that docuмent to favor your liturgy(the novus ordo).  
Lastly quo primum is more popular among 1945 liturgy catholics, whom the majority of are sedevacantists.  So, you are barking up the wrong tree.

1 - Wrong.  This canon applies to those at whom it was addressed or directed.  It was addressed and directed at protestants.  It was not addressed or directed at future traditional catholics keeping with the spirit of the canons author regarding liturgical orthodoxy in a time of papal contradiction.  It is that simple.
2 - I have yet to find a perfect book.  Denzinger is no different.  As much as I like even the bible, Jesus did not give us a bible.  Jesus gave us apostles.  
3 - you are presuming a lot here.  How about you refer to exactly what the pope's thinking was behind the canon.  In all likelihood, his thinking was in agreement with the docuмent he wrote 8 years later, quo primum.   And, that docuмent condemned liturgies lacking a history of greater than 200 years continuous use.  And, the novus ordo does not even meet that criteria.  Which, would have been your best shot at applying that docuмent to favor your liturgy(the novus ordo).  
Lastly quo primum is more popular among 1945 liturgy catholics, whom the majority of are sedevacantists.  So, you are barking up the wrong tree.

 Sorry PG, I guess I replied too soon from reading only your first post. 

1. First of all, the canon is specifically referring to The Catholic Church Masses and not Protestant rites or services. Had the canon just said "masses," then your point would be valid here. Unfortunately, things are not so simple.

2. I do not claim that Denzinger is a perfect book. In fact, I am referring to the 30th Edition of Denzinger (which also contains a Corrigenda in the back of it to correct any errors made in the book) which still doesn't include Quo Primum. I can see your point being valid here if the omission of Quo Primum were in the first few editions of Denzinger. Currently, Denzinger is in its 43rd Edition and still there is no inclusion of Quo Primum. Don't you think that the theologians since the 19th century would've noticed this error of not including Quo Primum, if it was indeed an error? 

3. The Novus Ordo is not my liturgy. I fervently love the Traditional Latin Mass and do not attend Novus Ordo Mass because, as I have previously stated, it is a Mass that is "barely Catholic."

 

1 - Wrong.  This canon applies to those at whom it was addressed or directed.  It was addressed and directed at protestants.  It was not addressed or directed at future traditional catholics keeping with the spirit of the canons author regarding liturgical orthodoxy in a time of papal contradiction.  It is that simple.
2 - I have yet to find a perfect book.  Denzinger is no different.  As much as I like even the bible, Jesus did not give us a bible.  Jesus gave us apostles.  
3 - you are presuming a lot here.  How about you refer to exactly what the pope's thinking was behind the canon.  In all likelihood, his thinking was in agreement with the docuмent he wrote 8 years later, quo primum.   And, that docuмent condemned liturgies lacking a history of greater than 200 years continuous use.  And, the novus ordo does not even meet that criteria.  Which, would have been your best shot at applying that docuмent to favor your liturgy(the novus ordo).  
Lastly quo primum is more popular among 1945 liturgy catholics, whom the majority of are sedevacantists.  So, you are barking up the wrong tree.

I read your 1st response wrong so I'm replying again. 
1. So you think that this canon is only addressed to Protestants (who were either most likely to never read or ignore it since they were no longer Catholics?
3. I also agree with you that people who favor the 1945 liturgy (i.e. those who use the St. Andrew 1945 Missal) are sedevacantists. These are the same people who always say that "Bugnini butchered Holy Week in 1955" even though Pope Pius XII had to approve of the changes. 

I read your 1st response wrong so I'm replying again.
1. So you think that this canon is only addressed to Protestants (who were either most likely to never read or ignore it since they were no longer Catholics?
3. I also agree with you that people who favor the 1945 liturgy (i.e. those who use the St. Andrew 1945 Missal) are sedevacantists. These are the same people who always say that "Bugnini butchered Holy Week in 1955" even though Pope Pius XII had to approve of the changes.

Well, the council of trent was assembled to address Protestantism.  In sum, it is addressing the issues of the times.  It is not addressing the issues of our times.  Applying it by itself towards the sspx is far too out of place.  Next, in my opinion, only the pope is preserved from formal heresy.  I do not believe a pope can become a formal heretic/judged by any mechanism of the church.  But, the rest(bishops and laity) can be judged by "the two or more".  And, that is the sspx imo.  The sspx has never considered the conciliar church "the official church".  +Williamson recently wrote an article about that.  And, that means, that the conciliar church is not synonymous with "the catholics church".  So, with canon 7, you cannot swap out "the catholic church' for "the conciliar church".  The canon simply isn't applicable enough in its strict form.  And, without its strict form, there is no anathema.  
Have you ever read the pre 55 holy week?  Have you ever prayed it?  I will say this, because many rubrics of holy week were changed.  The 12 prophecies, or readings need to return.  There is no question about that.  And, I do not have a high opinion of pius xii.  He was a terrible pope.  But, you will perhaps soon learn that here at CI.  Not many have a high opinion of him.  

PG - I'm not surprised in the least that some people didn't care for Pope Pius XII. Yet, so many Traditional Catholics continuously cite his encyclicals (particularly "Mystici Corporis Christi (1943)," "Mediator Dei (1947)," and "Humani Generis (1950) and praise him almost endlessly as being the last great pope. That's why, obviously, the sedevacantists consider him the last pope. 

Little do they know, however, that Pope Pius XII published the first Modernist (i.e. Liberal) encyclical, and in 1943 no less!

His "Divino Afflante Spiritu" (On Promoting Biblical Studies; September 30, 1943) contradicts both Pope Leo XIII's "Providentissimus Deus" (On the Study of the Holy Scripture; November 18, 1893) and Pope St. Pius X's "Praestantia Scripturae" (On The Bible Against The Modernists; November 18, 1907). The Church used Divino Afflante Spiritu to make the Douay-Rheims Bible "obsolete." 

That's why if you look inside any Novus Ordo Bible, Divino Afflante Spiritu is always mentioned and praised at the beginning. Funny how Traditionalists who absolutely love the 3 above-mentioned encyclicals of Pope Pius XII never even mention Divino Afflante Spiritu.

I understand your love for the pre-1955 Holy Week but remember that before Pius XII allowed Bugnini to "butcher" Holy Week, churches were not nearly as occupied during Holy Week as they were after his reforms, since the reforms filled the churches for all three days of the Triduum. 

First of all cannons are not infallible, otherwise all kneeling on Sunday, and the Pope (acting outside of his patriarchal jurisdiction) would be in violation of Nicea and Ephesus. Take some advice stop trying to apply canons if you are not a priest or do not have some theological training. Canons are guideposts our fathers placed down saying beyond here be dragons. They may or may not have applicable parts in a given situation.