CathInfo.com

Lefebvre was the preeminent defender of the faith against the conciliar and post-conciliar errors, certainly, but he did not concern himself much with the liturgical rot he himself was raised upon, and which by the time of the Council was considered normal, and even traditional (eg., dialogue Masses, etc).  The preconciliar damage was much mitigated by popes who were still doctrinally orthodox, and did not draw much attention (outside the revised Holy Week rites, anyway).

But in his own seminaries, we were taught -and this was the central point of the entire Liturgy I class- that by 1920, the principles animating the liturgical reform were no longer Catholic.

Why then embrace their results?

But today, we have the same conciliar authority actually permitting the traditional Holy Week, and consequently, retaining the 1962 missal has lost its purpose:

It can no longer be construed as disrespectful to authority to revert to a superior missal which that very authority now permits.

Please direct me to the proof that they are allowing it, and what version it is they are allowing. I would be hesitant to the extent that, how can we trust the conciliar church to have the authority to allow the use of a missal or Holy Week liturgy older than, let's say, Pius XII's version?

I don't know if new-rome ever allowed the pre-55 Holy Week liturgy but I remember seeing all kinds of articles about it on indult sites like "One Peter Five" a few years back.  I think many of the indult communities started using it and the indult laity loved it, so word spread.  This "reversion" to Tradition (along with many other things) in the indult community is one of the reasons +Francis decided to crack down.