Every SSPX priest I've ever talked to about the Holy Week changes can't stand it, but they tolerate it out of obedience, since it was Pius XII.
I rather think they tolerate it out of obedience to Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, not to Pius XII.
A bit of history – perhaps people know this already, but some may not: When the first priests were ordained at Econe (the 1965 liturgy was normal usage there until 1974) and sent out to the new 'missions', they were told to follow the 'customs of the country', i.e. to say Mass in the same way as the independent or retired parish priests who were supporting the traditional movement. In the UK these priests were all using the 1954 liturgy, so the SSPX priests followed suit. I think this was also the case in the USA, Australia and Germany. In countries where the Liturgical Movement had been more established before the Council, such as France and Switzerland, the custom became to use the liturgy of 1962.
Given that with the introduction of the Novus Ordo, all the previous rubrics had fallen into desuetude, the SSPX no doubt saw this as a sensible and practical measure and had no idea of imposing uniformity. On whose authority, after all?
Then there was a big change in 1984. Archbishop Lefebvre was involved in negotiations with Rome and it seems that he felt, with the best possible intention, that things would look better if the priests of Society could all be seen to be using the same liturgy – and he chose that of 1962 (on the grounds that this was being used at Econe, I assume). This was to become the case throughout the SSPX from Holy Week of 1984 and priests who didn’t agree would have to leave. So a practical, albeit arbitrary decision, although the Archbishop himself was certainly convinced that Bugnini was a Freemason and that the 1955/1960 changes were not good – just not bad enough to warrant their rejection.
This is no doubt correct from a theological and doctrinal point of view. BUT – it leaves out the context and background. We know Bugnini had a lot to do with these changes, even those in the time of Pius XII, and that they were all part of the modernists’ admitted attempt to get people used to constant liturgical change and to produce permanent revolution in the liturgy, with the eventual aim of abolishing it. Pius XII couldn’t see it as the time, of course, nor could anybody else. But should the SSPX and the traditional movement in general be tied to such a temporary and tendentious liturgy? Knowing what we know now, is it not asking a lot, psychologically, of traditional priests to live in a 1960’s time-warp (certainly the most destructive decade of modern times – Vatican II, 1968 revolutions) and to have to say a Mass and Office every day that was produced by a possible Freemason? The liturgy is an important part of a priest’s daily life, after all, and there’s more to it than doctrinal correctness.
And one can see the fruits. Obviously the SSPX has flourished greatly despite of it. But on the other hand there’s been a fallout. Priests who’ve left the Society because of it, and perhaps became SV’s, and laity who have given up practising the faith because of it. It’s a sad business, the result of a historical accident, nobody’s fault. But was it really necessary?
One good point, though. 'The Mass of "Blessed John XXIII"', the 'Extraordinary Form', the 'Usus Antiquior' – all these terrible phrases – and now the idea of rewriting prayers, adding new prefaces and so on. At least it’s the 1962 liturgy that is in the hands of the modernists, being said with women altar servers and Communion in the hand, as happened recently in England. And perhaps eventually becoming 'The Mass of Benedict XVI'. The liturgy of 1954 has been kept well out of it. So perhaps the Holy Ghost works where we least expect!