The inelegance of liturgical disobedience--should this then be allowed liturgically?
The southern Church is a bit more conservative than the Catholic Church in the northeast and other parts of the country. This was true also in the 1970's in the midst of radical change and disobedience in the Church all of which left bishops who became bishops prior to Vatican II in a conundrum of not knowing what to do and befuddled by all the disobedient foment of adolescent acting out against their authority. (We've since discovered the apex of this adolescent pathology in adult men occurred about 1974 as that year seems to have had the biggest number of adolescent acting priests acting out with adolescent boys, a tragedy of epic proportions for their victims which include not only the kids abused but rank and file priests and laity who today have to suffer the consequences).
This acting out in adolescent ways by adult priests extended to the liturgy and liturgical renewal. We all know the extreme horror stories of clown Masses, puppet Masses and Masses that don't resemble Mass at all but some demonic deviation of it. These were extremes even in the 1970's and still are fodder for discussion and ridicule today. But these examples are extremes.
But there are three other liturgical abuses born of adolescent disobedience in bishops, priests and liturgical theologians that need to be noted.
1. Ad libbing parts of the Mass that should not be ad libbed: It is true that our former (thank God) sacramentary with the banalized translation of the English Mass allowed for improvisation in a couple of places, for example in the introduction of the Penitential Rite and even at the "Ecce Agnus Dei" and the General Intercessions. But that was it. But very early in the 1970's priests started to improvise on the fixed prayers, such as the penitential rite, the collect, prayer over the gifts, the Eucharistic Prayers and post Communion Prayers. No priest has the authority to do such.
2. Holy Communion in the hand was implemented and contrary to liturgical law, but became so widespread that bishops eventually petitioned Rome to allow it and it was granted.
3. Altar girls were implemented long before it was allowed by liturgical law and came about only because of the fact that girls were in place and bishops had no real choice but to approve it.
Is this the way to reform the Catholic Mass by acts of liturgical disobedience that then causes bishops to approve the disobedience in order for the disobedience not be be disobedience any more and thus gets the bishops off the hook for not confronting the disobedience? Just wondering.
So my question today concerns the reform of the reform and going against liturgical law and I ask, is it going against liturgical law to do the follow in contradiction to what most parish priests do today?
1. To celebrate the Ordinary form Mass ad orientem?
2. To allow for the option of kneeling to receive Holy Communion and by intinction?
3. To add a mix of Latin to the vernacular?
Are any of the three things I post as questions truly acts of liturgical disobedience comparable to the acts of disobedience in the 1970's that led to the disobedience being approved and thus no longer disobedient?