"Lex orandi, lex credendi." This whole article makes the point that liturgy matters. More importantly, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not like any other "church service", especially not a "preaching service." Those folks are going to think we're weird even if we Protestantize the Mass to the nth degree.
Worrying about what others may think is unhelpful and wrong.
This article also gets a lot of factual errors, which demonstrates an unfamiliarity with the topic of developments in Catholic liturgy which draws its reliability into question. First of all it implies that Quatturor Abhinc Annos (1984) was promulgated in reaction to the SSPX ordaining bishops. That was not Quattuor, it was Ecclesia Dei Adflicta which was promulgated on July 2, 1988. Furthermore, that action was not done to enhance the liturgy. It was very likely done to minimize the size of the schism by throwing those priests who would have gone with the SSPX had Rome not thrown them an olive branch. For the most part, this papal command was also almost entirely subverted by the bishops who refused to enforce its terms, with a few exceptions, for nearly 20 years. Also, it could be argued that Ecclesia Dei actually placed a restriction on the older liturgy. If we accept Benedict XVI's legislation in Summorum Pontificum, which asserts that the Latin mass was never forbidden, then JPII would have actually placed a restriction on the Latin Mass, because his Ecclesia Dei required every priest to get permission from their bishop to say the old mass, whereas no permission would have been required before Ecclesia Dei Adflicta if it had been legal as Benedict XVI asserted in Summorum Pontificum.