We can all appreciate what the Society of St. Pius X has done in the preservation of the traditional liturgy. Let's face it, if they did not preserve it in all corners of the world regardless of what the ordinaries of the dioceses thought, who would have? Maybe some old priests who said the old Mass in a closet, but who would have formed a new generation of priests to preserve that liturgy? Only the pressure of the "schismatics" kept the old liturgy alive to a large extent.
By its own admission, however, the SSPX believes that the liturgy is an outgrowth of a certain theological, Counter-Reformation worldview, and not a thing to be venerated in itself. That is why it is always accompanied with the agenda of distributism, Thomistic moderate realism, and apologetics for everything from the Confederacy here in the United States, to right-wing dictatorships in South America, to the Vichy regime of Marshall Petain in France. (Lefebvre in his last book, Spiritual Itinerary, praises Petain by name.) For them, St. Anselm's theory of vicarious satisfaction that accentuates the propitiatory aspect of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass also carries with it the ideal of the Catholic family as agrarian, patriarchal, and fundamentally reactionary. They would be right if they said that this was the agenda of some of the Popes up to Pius XII, but now they are a platform without a party and a body without a head.
As AG has been pointing out to me lately, how traditional was the traditional liturgy really? If people like me care so much about it, why did it die the death almost forty years ago now not with a bang but with a whimper? Has anything really changed? Or has the world continued as it has always been, only some externals have changed of what we do in church? Back then, no one knew Latin, and everyone pretty much did their own thing in the pews. Now, it is just a little more coordinated: people do their own thing, but with parts to speak. At least now, as AG says, black Catholics in the south don't have to stand in the back of the church so that white people don't have to sit next to them. That at least is progess.
Yes, the state of the liturgy nowadays does make me sad. I will admit that. I know the old liturgy so well that it does edify me very much. But I realize now that women in mantillas with their noses stuck deep in black missals are just as much a new phenomenon as Clown Masses and charismatic revivals. Neither can claim more antiquity than the year 1964. None of these things are "Tradition". If anything, Tradition is still there, and it will always be there, regardless of forms of worship, working in an imperceptible and hidden manner. It is the actions of the Holy Ghost in the world, and He does not work according to my theories of aesthetics, theology, or history.
So I too don't care about this Motu Proprio business. And even though I don't think calling oneself a "Lefebvrist" (or "traditionalist" or "traditional Catholic") is the most terrible thing in the world, it may not be the most good faith position in the Church. As long as we keep the Gospel alive in our hearts, and love our enemies and live by the teachings of the Church to the best of our abilities, that is Tradition, a propitiatory sacrifice, and the life of the Trinity among us.