Thank you, Maria, you proved my point.  Changes were to the calendar and Holy Week only.  
.
The addition of St Jospeh was not part of the original, 62 missal approved by Pope J23.  St Jospeh was added in a 2nd edition by a liturgical commission, so arguably not papal approved.  

But what is wrong with going with the 1955 Liturgy, especially if it's less "Bugnini" and more in line with St. Pope Pius V's codification?

Is it only because +ABL approved the 1962 Missal that the R&R stays with it?

3. In his letter Fr. Pagialrani made a significant defense of the Tridentine Mass, opposing it to the Novus Ordo Missae. He used strong words, referring to the fight between the two Masses as the fight between God and Satan, which violently implies that Paul VI was a representative of the latter.
 
 However, the SSPX has never said the actual Tridentine Mass, which is the one said from 1570 to 1955, when the reforms made by Pius XII started the changes that resulted in the 1969 New Mass. Instead, all of the SSPX Bishops and priests say the Mass according to the 1962 Missal, which was a transitional step to reach the Novus Ordo. Let us not forget that the three steps of this process – the 1955 reform, the 1962 Missal and the 1969 New Mass – were all works of the same Msgr. Annibale Bugnini (here, here, here, here, here and here).
 

https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum.html

(First two paragraphs)

The Roman Missal, promulgated in 1570 by Our predecessor, St. Pius V, by decree of the Council of Trent,(1) has been received by all as one of the numerous and admirable fruits which the holy Council has spread throughout the entire Church of Christ. For four centuries, not only has it furnished the priests of the Latin Rite with the norms for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, but also the saintly heralds of the Gospel have carried it almost to the entire world. Furthermore, innumerable holy men have abundantly nourished their piety towards God by its readings from Sacred Scripture or by its prayers, whose general arrangement goes back, in essence, to St. Gregory the Great.

Since that time there has grown and spread among the Christian people the liturgical renewal which, according to Pius XII, Our predecessor of venerable memory, seems to show the signs of God's providence in the present time, a salvific action of the Holy Spirit in His Church.(2) This renewal has also shown clearly that the formulas of the Roman Missal ought to be revised and enriched. The beginning of this renewal was the work of Our predecessor, this same Pius XII, in the restoration of the Paschal Vigil and of the Holy Week Rite,(3) which formed the first stage of updating the Roman Missal for the present-day mentality.

1962 refers to the year John23 created the missal.  Sometimes it takes a while to get it printed.  There is a 1st edition of the 1962 missal, which doesn't have St Joseph in the canon.  That's a fact.
.
It also does not have the changes to the prayers at the foot of the altar, etc.  Except for Holy Week, it's all calendar changes.

Thank you all. I finally decided to get a 1955 Missal: Saint Mary - My Everyday Missal, Benziger Brothers, 1955

Here's the way I look at it:  There is a 1st addition of the 62 missal, approved by Pope John 23, with no changes to the missal.  So this is THE papally-approved 62 missal.
.
The second, third, fourth, etc editions of this missal have the changes to the canon, and were only approved by a liturgical commission, as part of the on-going, ever-changing liturgy from 62-65.  These were not approved by John23 nor issued by him in the same way as the original, 1st edition.
.
Conclusion:  The original/1st edition of the 62 missal is orthodox and papal-approved.  Subsequent editions are not.  You have to make this distinction.  That's why +ABL and many other priests would scratch out St Joseph's name in the canon and keep the 2nd confiteor, etc.  Because these were not part of the 1st edition.
.
So when people say "The sspx uses the 62 missal, just like FSSP.  Or, I can't believe Fr Wathen said the 62 missal was ok."  Well...WHICH 1962 MISSAL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?  To treat all the editions the same is an error.  But most people don't dive into the details, so they make bad conclusions.

Quote from PAX:

So, there "is a 1st addition of the 62 missal, approved by Pope John 23, with no changes to the missal"? Then why to publish a "first edition" at all? Produce such evidence, or, where you told by an SSPX priest?
 
Secondly, Is the SSPX's "1962" missal "papally approved"? NO. What gives the SSPX the authority to publish a hybrid (1954/1962) missal with Feasts and prayers such as the Second Confiteor and the Good Friday Prayer that had already been abolished? If ABL didn't agree with the changes in 1962, why didn't he simply keep the 1954 Missal the "9 priests" and many of their priests where already using when they were expelled by the ABL in 1983? Was it because ABL had signed an agreement with Rome to always use the 1962 missal? So he published the one that was acceptable to him?
 
An old priest, 92 yrs. old at the time, Fr. Casimir Peterson from Baltimore MD, showed me once the source about Leo XIII being asked to add the name of St. Joseph to the Canon and his reply was: "I am only the pope". But braking away with the ancient tradition of only adding martyrs to the Canon doesn't bother you or the SSPX? St. Thomas Becket died to defend ONE tradition alone.