Every book with an written approval of the Catholic Church before 1965 is good.
The 7th November 1965, Paul VI promulgated many heresies at the closure of the anti-council of Vatican II. So after that only books written by a catholic (sedevacantist) priest of bishop are in order.
This approval is in the first pages or on the last pages of the book and it is expressed by the words “imprimatur “ or “imprimi potest” or “evulgetur” or similar expression, followed by the date of the approval and the name of the censor. Also an introduction written by a bishop suffices to approve a writing.
See for more information the very important article about books and approval :
But there is more. If it is a liturgical book, especially a missal or breviary, then one must use a book from 1962, because this is the year of the last change made by a pope.
Popes have this power to make some changes in liturgy. Jesus said to Peter and all his successors (Matthew 18:18) : “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”.
Indeed the liturgy has recently been reformed by the popes in the 20th century. The reforms done by real popes must be accepted, but done by antipopes must be refused.
So the last valid ( but bad) pope was Paul VI till in 1964 by his heresy “Lumen Gentium” he lost the papacy.
Most acceptable and obligatory liturgical reforms have been done by Pius XII especially his last reform (omission of many vigils etc.). The rubrics and calendar of the Mass and the Divine Office were reformed by the constitution Cum Hac Nostra Aetate (March 23, 1955).
Small changes have been done by John XXIII in 1962.
So as did every priest and bishop in the Church from 1962 on and during years, even the two bishops keeping the faith against 2500 bishops falling in the heresies of Vatican II, I am using the liturgical books of 1962.
One of the changes done is the introduction of the name of St Joseph in the canon. That is not allowed?
There was a poll organized by Rome in the beginning of the 20th century asking all bishops of the Church what they think about introduction of the name of St Joseph in the canon. Even Joseph Sarto signed the poll in favour of this introduction, he became pope Saint Pius X..
So the objection that one must refuse the missal of John XXIII because he “changed” the canon of the Mass is a false accusation. To add a name of a saint in the list of saints in the canon has been done by several popes in the first centuries.
In 1962 and during many years till 1969, the entire Latin Church accepted and used those liturgical books (missal and breviary) of John XIII. Because the entire Church is infallible, here is another argument to accept those books.
The problem is that almost all Catholic (Sedevacantist ) priests use the missal of Pius XII and refuse the missal of 1962. Because they think that John XXIII was never pope because he was a bad pope and free mason before his election.
A real pope cannot fall in heresy. So because there are heresies in Vatican II, the (false) conclusion is : that is a proof that those “popes” never were popes.
I refuted this by this text :
Next false statement of most sedevacantists is : John XXIII and Paul VI never were popes because they were free masons.
That is refuted by this text:
But because all bishops (sedevacantists) use or accept the missal of Pius XII as still valid, one must also accept that this missal is used, because the unanimity of all bishops is infallible (Universal Ordinary Magisterium). But everybody must accept the missal of John XXIII as normal because of the infallibility of the Church.
Some sedevacantists refuse even the liturgical books imposed by Pius XII : the holy week books of 1952.
That is an abuse because of these two arguments, everybody must obey the pope, and those books have been accepted buy the entire latin Church. And the arguments that some modernists worked on these books is not valid, because the pope verified and approved the books.