This is enforcing a post-Vatican II norm in the most pre-Vatican II way possible and contributes to the rebellion of Catholics in many different areas of the Church's norms and laws, liturgical and otherwise:
You can read a news story on this rebellion within a rebellion by pressing this sentence!
My comments on being a post-Vatican II Catholic after experiencing the pre-Vatican II Catholicism that partially formed me from 1954 when I was baptized to about 1966 or so:
What wasn't so good and needed some adjustment of the pre-Vatican II Church?
1. Paternalism: The clergy and religious often treated adults as they did children, thus stunting the spiritual and moral growth of Catholic adults. In fact this authoritarianism of many of the clergy and religious of the pre-Vatican II period (not authoritativeness, which is a positive) helped lead to the rebellion of adult Catholics in the post-Humanae Vitae period of the Church.
2. Rigidity and smugness: In terms of touting the fact that the Church is the true Church and Protestants where both schismatic and heretical, fighting the reformation some several hundred years after the fact, the Church's clergy and religious could be shrill in condemning everyone who wasn't Catholic to hell. I know of many children who had a parent who wasn't Catholic being told directly or indirectly that their mother or father would go to hell if they didn't become Catholic. Outside the Church there is no salvation was taught without nuance.
3. The all Latin Mass and quiet actual participation made it difficult for children, teenagers and adults to fully comprehend the Mass in a natural way and the symbol of only the clergy having active roles, contributed to a false understanding that the Church was primarily of the clergy and the religious with the laity simply ignorant, immature children who can't ride a two wheeled bike and were spectators.
What was good about the Pre-Vatican II Church?
1. Clear teachings and strong Catholic identity built upon a love and respect for Holy Mother Church.
2. Clear moral teachings that could help adults know the boundaries and what could harm or kill their salvation.
3. Clear belief on the substance of the Sacraments, not the signs, but Jesus Christ to whom the signs point and reveal, and the awe and respect owed the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity which the Sacraments cloth in a material way.
4. Clear expectations about how the laity live their Catholic lives by avoiding scandal and bad example.
Finally what is good and bad about the Vatican II Church?
Bad: To make the Vatican II Church look good by denigrating that which was good in the pre-Vatican II Church, especially strong Catholic identity and the manner in which the Sacraments were celebrated including the Holy Mass.
Good: Trying to enable lay Catholics to participate in all facets of actual participation in the Sacraments and more easily understand what is happening through vernacularization.
Bad: Making adult Catholics think that being mature means rebelling against the legitmate authority of the Church and her authoritativeness especially in the areas of human sexuality but now with ultra-traditionalists who think they can go their own way if they disagree with the Magisterium, like the SSPX and its splinter rebellion groups. All are cut from the same cloth to include the ultra liberal rebellion in the Church today.
Good: Catholics accepting all that the Church teaches and believes to be revealed by God and the ability to apply these teachings to their own lives in difficult situations by listening and believing what the Church teaches and respecting these teachings in their decisions of conscience acknowledging that if that decision diverges from what the Church teaches they will find accountability before God at their particular judgement.
Bad: Loss of identity by clergy and religious in a bid to become more like the laity, especially in dress and lifestyle and the loss of the identity of the laity who tried to become more like the clergy.
My final comments: This very post Vatican II liberal Catholic who loves his roots and celebrates it in the most positive way possible, by embracing what the Church allows us to embrace of the pre-Vatican II period that is good, loves ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue and respect for those who are different from us. He loves the Ordinary Form of the Mass and understands it as the main liturgy of the Church but loves the EF Mass too and allows it where it is welcomed.
He loves the clarity of the pre-Vatican II Church in the areas of morality, in particular sexual morality, but presents it in the most post-Vatican II way possible.
He loves too that while the laity are now treated in a more adult-like way and not in a paternalistic way, that the clergy have a responsibility to be authoritative and to be leaders and not to abdicate to the laity in this regard.
He would never join a group that is rebelling against the Church such as SSPX or any ultra-liberal expressions such as "Voice of the Faithful" and similar groups.