The situation is somewhat more complex and nuanced than that (I know, relatively speaking, a ton of people in that camp).
They strongly prefer the 1962 Latin (some the 1568 or pre-1954) Latin to what has followed. To the ones that are hard core, if one digs, it becomes evident that the problem post 1962 isn’t the Latin but the changes that accompanied the change from Latin—whether the 1968 or 2001 version, even in Latin, would be rejected as so bad as to be beyond the pale.
Many of their observations of negative things are accurate insofar as what they observe is, at bare minimum, arguably negative.
However, even a good many of these will frequent and pray in a Church where a more modern Mass is celebrated, albeit without attending Mass. I can walk two blocks and see this.
I appreciate the reply. However it illustrates what many of us have observed about Roman Catholicism in that it does change and that it does do things differently than they claim they’ve always done.