I know feel safer with a pre-Pius XII Mass.
I 100% support the pre-Pius XII Mass (and the pre-St. Pius X Breviary Psalter) as the basis for the Latin Liturgy.
This article is somewhat over the top and hyperbolic with all its Masons talk, but the basic points are well taken.
Annibale Bugnini, architect of the New Mess, was, along with Ferdanando Antonelli, architect of the Mess created by Pius XII and John XXIII, with all their supposed "restorations" by liturgical destruction and surpression. The various "reforms" of 1942, 1950, 1951, 1955, 1960, 1962, and 1963 were merely the first steps towards a process that with further "reforms" in 1964, 1965, 1967, 1969, 1972, 1974, 1979, etc. brought us to the liturgical catastrophe we have today of a sanctuary full of ordinary extraordinary Eucharistic ministerettes, girl altar boys, lectorettes, cantorettes, 1960's Jesuit tunes, no altar rail, elimination of the sanctuary, comedic stand-up routine homilies, Mess facing the people, "hide the tabernacle", wreckovation of Churches, Communion in the Paw, Communion standing, "no kneeling allowed", "no Latin allowed", "no benediction after Mass", "no Vespers in Church", "theme" (Clown, Biker Gang, Rock) Messes, destruction of fasting and abstinence, "confession available from 4pm to 4:15 pm Saturdays after a full moon", etc. These grotesqueries should not be viewed in isolation but seen as part of the total revolution accomplished by changing the Missal and Breviary and making traditional discipline a plaything of the Pope and his pointy-headed intellectual advisers. Please note the continual frequency of "reforms" of the Mass from the start of the Pius XII pontificate.
The Missal and Liturgy were in total flux based on a top-down imposition and experiment, with the final goal already in sight to those at the top, rather than being a rule of faith, grown from the bottom through incorporation and adoption of additional pieties brought forth by the "sensus fidelium" Christian people in their worship.
In the sense of this last point, I disagree with Bishop Dolan concerning the ENRICHMENT of the Missal, in what I see as the two sensible ADDITIONS made by John XXIII - adding St. Joseph to the Canon (as the people of the Church had been calling for for over 100 years), and adding additional prefaces to the Missal. I would also categorize the rubrical changes to the classification of feasts made to bring out the Temporal Cycle to precendence over the Sanctoral as a similarly motivated change - many people had been asking for this from good motives, and the rubrics on festal precendence were almost unintelligible, and required special annual calendars for the typical person to figure out; the problem as always was in the execution - by eliminating the extra collects and proper Last Gospel, commemoration of the minor Saints simply vanished during Lent, and the major Octaves when this change was made, which is bad.
Once viewed in this light, many of the things called for by the Fathers of Vatican II can similarly be seen as enriching - restoring a 3rd scripture lesson, restoration of the bidding prayers, ensuring a Homily every Sunday and feast day, clarification of the role of Priest vs. choir in the chants (unless the chants are given to the choir and thus the people, the people remain as disinterested spectators, and all the writing in the world won't get them to sing the proper chants as done in the rest of the Church, and the temptation then arises to add in obnoxious non-liturgical hymns for them), adding rubrics for the actions of the people during Mass, strengthening of the Lenten Fast by extending it to Holy Saturday.
No one should oppose enrichment, especially that which lengthens the abysmally short amount of time people spend in Church worshipping the Lord and learning the faith. Everyone should impose destruction, needless change, and outright error.