Both Sts Pius V and Pius X were popes and saints.  +ABL may at some point be canonized, but he wasn't a pope, and neither was he a roman authority on the liturgy.  So, yes, his opinion/actions can be questioned.  The actions of popes', in the case of liturgical reform, cannot be questioned.  Your comparison is nonsense...apples-to-peanuts.

If the Preface of St. Dominic lasted until the 1960's and the modernists got rid of it, I would have assumed it to be another unfortunate alteration.  What I'm saying is, it is not as easy as you may think to judge liturgical reforms.  The best guide we have is undoubtedly Archbishop Lefebvre, not self-appointed doctors of the Church, whether on the Internet or in the other 49 states of this country.

The liturgy is the school of our Faith.  It teaches by words, but mostly by actions and gestures.  When the priest genuflects to the Blessed Sacrament throughout Mass, the Church is teaching the simple faithful that those appearances are in reality God Himself.  By omitting those genuflections, the rite is at least lessening the perceived importance of this fundamental dogma in the minds of the faithful.  That is danger.

In so construing your argument, all you have really done is tried to objectify that which, nevertheless, remains a subjective argument:

The "danger" comes not from something intrinsic to the reductions themselves, but from an extrinsic consideration (i.e., it is the intentions of the reformers behind the reductions which creates the "threat," and not the change itself).

This realization demonstrates that the "danger" is still a perceived one, and therefore subjective, since, but for the knowledge of the secret intentions of the modernist reformers, none would feel threatened in their faith by said reductions.

More simply:

Everyone's faith is threatened by an objective danger (e.g., heresy; invalid form).  Not everyone's faith is threatened by a subjective or perceived danger (e.g., not ringing the bell at the elevation; fewer signs of the cross).

If the reductions were an objective threat to the faith, then reducing the number by even 1 sign of the cross would have constituted a danger (just as 1 heresy would), but I doubt anyone wants to make that argument.

PS: Exagerrating the educational aspect of the Mass was one of the errors of the modernist liturgical reformers.

I think the erasing of genuflections and Signs of the Cross is an objective danger to the Faith in the '65.  I'd love to have asked the Archbishop for other specific problems.

If the reductions (not erasing) of genuflections and Signs of the Cross are *objective* dangers to the Faith, then exactly how many genuflections and signs of the cross make the liturgy NOT dangerous to the Faith? If it's objective and not subjective, there should be an exact number. But there is no answer to this question.

Eastern Christians keep the Faith without making any genuflections. So the lack of genuflections endangering the Faith is not universal, it's subjective, not objective. I'm sure there are Eastern rites that prescribe substantially fewer Signs of the Cross than the Roman Rite - it seems that Malankara rite priests make less than 20 during each Mass. So it's also subjective.

The 1962 Missal removed many Collects that petitioned God for important graces. Sunday Masses used to have multiple Collects. This reduction may not have endangered the Faith of the Archbishop, but others could easily say otherwise, and argue that “the Faith is very much in question.”

For many who left the Novus Ordo, it's clear how similar the Pian Holy Week is to the N.O. Holy Week. In some aspects, the Pian is worse than the N.O. (e.g. the N.O. restored some Easter Vigil prophecies that were removed in 1951/55). Many of us find the Pian HW quite offensive, once we learned about the traditional HW. Imagine leaving your parish to commit to a traditionalist chapel only to find the HW liturgy more-or-less the same, and made by the same crooks.

It's too subjective to use this qualifier (“we must use the latest missal that does not endanger the Faith”) to decide which missal to use. The better and more consistent principle to follow, is to reject all products and experiments of the Consilium, which from its foundation was made up of enemies of the Church.

The 1962 Missal is an outlaw Missal. Without proper authority it changed the Missal of Pius V promulgated by the Papal Bull Quo Primum by inserting a change in the Roman Canon. The change (adding St. Joseph to the Communicantes) was based on a temporary CURIAL decree that originated from a papal wish to add St. Joseph's name to the canon at Masses said during the Vatican II Council at the Vatican. The decree uses the phrase motu proprio, which is a low-level decree of a diocesan bishop aimed at making changes in a single diocese. By contrast, a Papal Bull signed by the Pope himself, like Pius V's Quo Primum, has the highest and most universal authority. 

An infallible pronouncement by a previous Pope cannot be overturned by the Curial decree motu proprio signed by a Cardinal Prefect. God would not allow John XXIII to change the Roman Canon with authority, so he snuck it in. All who fall for his deception deserve what they get.

Here is the evidence. I've attached the proof from the AAS, which can be checked on the Vatican website.

   
Decretum 

De S. Ioseph nomine Canoni Missae inserendo

Novis hisce temporibus Summi Pontifices non unam nacti sunt occasionem ut ritibus sollemnioribus cultum S. Ioseph, inclyti Beatae Mariae Virginis Sponsi, augerent. Prae omnibus autem Pius Papa IX eminet, qui votis Concilii Vaticani I annuens, Ecclesiae universae castissimum Deiparae Virginis Sponsum, die octava Decembris anni 1870, caelestem Patronum designavit. Praedecessorum suorum vestigia persequens Santissimus D. N. Ioannes Papa XXIII eundem Sanctum Ioseph non tantum Concilii Vaticani II, quod Ipse indixit, "Praestitem salutarem" constituit, sed motu proprio etiam decrevit Eius nomen, tanquam optatum mnemosynon et fructus ipsius Concilii, ut in Canone Missae recitaretur. Quod consilium die 13 Novembris proxima superiori per Cardinalem suum a Status secretis, Concilii Patribus in Vaticana Basilica congregatis publice apperuit iussitque ut praescriptum inde a die octava proximi mensis Decembris, in festo scilicet Immaculatae Conceptionis Beatissimae Virginis Mariae, in praxim deduceretur. 

Quapropter haec S. Rituum Congregatio, voluntatem Summi Pontificis prosecuta, descernit ut infra Actionem post verba: "Communicantes ...Domini Nostri Iesu Christi..."  haec addentur:  ”...sed et beati Ioseph eiusdem Virginis Sponsi...” et deinde prosequatur:  “...et beatorum apostolorum ac Martyrum tuorum.”

Statuit etiam ipsa S. Congregatio ut huiusmodi praescriptum diebus quoque observetur in quibus peculiaris formula "Communicantes" in Missali praescribitur. Contrariis non obstantibus quibuscuмque, etiam speciali mentione dignis. 

Die 13 Novemberis 1962.

A. Cardinal Larraona, Prefect



Decree

To insert the name of Saint Joseph into the Canon of the Mass

In recent times, the Supreme Pontiffs have taken advantage of not one occasion to increase the more solemn rites of worship of S. Joseph, the illustrious bride of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Pope Pius IX stands out above all, who, agreeing to the vows of the First Vatican Council, designated the most chaste spouse of the Virgin Mother of the whole Church, on the eighth of December 1870, as the heavenly patron. Following in the footsteps of his predecessors, His Holiness, Pope John XXIII did not only establish the same Saint Joseph as the "Saving Advocate" of the Second Vatican Council, which he himself indicated, but he also decided, on his own initiative [motu proprio], that his name, as a desired memorial and fruit of the Council itself, should be recited in the Canon of the Mass. On the 13th of November, next to the superior of his Cardinal Secretary of State, he publicly opened the Council to the Fathers gathered in the Vatican Basilica, and ordered that the provision be put into practice from the eighth of the next month, that is, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

For this reason, this Sacred Congregation of Rites, following the will of the Supreme Pontiff, decides as follows below: Action after the words: "In communicating with our Lord Jesus Christ. and then let them follow them: "...and your blessed apostles and martyrs."

The S. Congregation itself has also determined that this prescription should also be observed on the days where the special form of "Communicating" is prescribed in the Missal. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary whatsoever, even worthy of special mention.

November 13, 1962

A. Cardinal Larraona, Prefect
[Sacred Congregation of Rites]

would it not be in the best interest to fidelity to return to what we now know is the better form - the pre 1955 forms - thus restoring a great deal of what was lost when the 62 changes came?

St. Thomas does not say to refuse an order because you judge a previous order to be better.  He says 'do what your told unless the Faith is in danger.'

Communion in the hand while standing is a liturgical action that is definitely an objective danger to the Faith, whether or not the person knows the intentions of the reformers.  By not having the communicant kneel in the rite of Communion, the innovators are depriving the faithful of a valuable lesson of What they are receiving, and what they are in relation to It.  The educational aspect of the liturgy is not to be despised either.  Humans learn from how they are taught to comport themselves.

How many genuflections can one delete before you objectively endanger the Faith?  I'll defer to the Archbishop for that judgement.

On the contrary, Communion in the hand was the practice of the Church for centuries, and is only evil, once again, because of extrinsic circuмstances (ie., the intentions of the reformers), and not in se.

PS: This is now the second time you copy the error of the innovators, who wanted to use the Mass as a catechism.

St. Thomas does not say to refuse an order because you judge a previous order to be better.  He says 'do what your told unless the Faith is in danger.'

Judging what is happening with the neoSSPX there is cause for concern. Slow death by increments. When I am in doubt I turn to clerics whom I trust to answer queries and dispel erroneous notions.the 1962 is all most of have, so that is what we use. 

"...no more genuflections, no more Signs of the Cross!  Appalling!  The Sign of the Cross showed that it indeed concerned the sacrifice of the Cross.  Let us not say that these are merely details.  These are not details; these are gestures that have meaning and value."