I
It was, of course, Father Scott  . . . The view he expressed—in brief, that the new mass is valid in se but not licit to participate in—is still the Society's position.

a) If the new Mass as promulgated by Paul VI, in its original Latin, had been promulgated a century after Quo Primum, it would have been condemned as at least Protestant. (unproven assertion)

a) Protestant = Blasphemous

c) Therefore the Mass promulgated by Paul VI is blasphemous.

Sorry, but this doesn't prove the new Mass is Blasphemous.  What specifically in the new Mass as promulgated by Paul VI is blasphemous?  And to be clear, I don't attend the new Mass.

but the position that true "popes" of Christ's Church and the "mass" they offer(ed) to God with fellow Catholics is "not licit to participate in" is so absurd as to practically invalidate the whole Trad movement by any association with it. 

Question: But the people say that the people make the contention that pope Paul VI had the right so therefore we must accept it.

Fr.That of course is a central question. We deny that he had such a right. That exactly is the point. We have every reason to question whether the pope had the authority to introduce a brand new mass, introduce a new Rite of the liturgy of the Western Church. We believe that when one reads Quo Primum of St. Pius V, he can see clearly that it is altogether forbidden for his successors, any of his successors to go contrary to this law.

Here is a key question, whether a successor can override pope Pius V with regard to the establishment of the Rite of the Mass. It’s a key question.

It was never considered that the pope could go contrary to this ruling because Quo Primum was issued to protect the Mass. It was as strong of legislation as the pope could possibly impose. If we say that his successor is not bound by this legislation, we have to say that the Church has no way of protecting it’s own liturgy. There is no doctrine that says that a pope cannot make a mistake, there’s no such doctrine.

The mass of five "popes" now counting, and of the millions of Catholics in communion with them?

Stubborn, if Fr Hesse were alive today, i'd ask him this question:
.
Fr, I agree with you that Quo Primum prohibits a pope from overriding the True Mass, which Pope St Pius V codified.  I also agree with you that Quo Primum forbids a pope (or any cleric) from USING a new/changed liturgy.  But in reading Quo Primum, it does not ever prohibit the "legal creation" of a new liturgy, even though it would prohibit the use of such an illicit abomination.  
.
So isn't it possible that satan and his minions found a loophole in the law, and used it to create confusion, by creating a "competing liturgy" which they could offer to catholics, as an option?  This seems to be what happened and I don't see that Quo Primum prohibits it.  Is it against the spirit of the law?  Of course.  But is it against the letter of the law?  No.

Not possible, Pope Pius V left no loopholes:"...Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world..."