1) The articles supplied cite only liturgical movement authorities (ie., post St. Pius X authors);
2) If the author’s premise were true, I would have expected to see some pre-liturgical movement (ie., pre-1880’s) citations interspersed within the space of a 21 page article. Yet the authors and books relied upon to support the author’s thesis only span a period of 45 years.
3) In the opening pages of the study, the author cites the strange experience he had at St Michael’s (Norbertine) Abbey in California (with the implied conclusion that, upon further review, the usage there was the correct one). However, when I was at St. Michael’s Abbey for a visit in 1997, the Abbey was not even using the Roman missal, but their traditional Praemonstatention rite of Mass. Has the author of the essay in question arrived at a false conclusion stemming from unwittingly having witnessed a Norbertine Mass (which is similar to the Toman rite) and mistaken it for some variant of the Roman Missal?
4) In 2002 I met Alcuin Reid at St. Michael’s Abbey In Farnborough, England (outside London). That Abbey is the famous/notorious former haunt of the modernist liturgical reformer Don Cabrol. My point being once again, that Alcuin Reid (who was a deacon when I met him, and was later reported to have been on the verge of laicization for failure to observe celibacy and alleged homosexual behavior, in 2010) is a representative of the liturgical movement. That aside, does he not address pre-liturgical Mass postures in the citations included in the article?
5) It is true that Fortescue and O’Connell are reputable liturgists, but they too are representatives of the liturgical movement, and I am wondering how much of their reputation comes merely from the fact that they wrote in English, and are therefore more widely read?
6) The essay includes references to Pius X’s letter TLS, with the alleged emphasis on active participation and congregational singing, hence the posture of standing. But those ideas being attributed to St. Pius X are directly contradicted in Dr. Carol Byrne’s study on the TIA website, which observes that the words “active participation” do not appear in the original, and that St. Pius X’s intention was not to feature the congregational singing of Gregorian Chant.
7) It is not only the famous red Una Voce booklet which contradicts the premise of the author with regard to the postures of the faithful, but also the instructions of the 1958 Marian Missal of Fr Juergens and the 1945 Missal of Fr. Lasance. Both instruct the faithful to kneel immediately after the Preface.
In short, though the study does make some good points, I would say it is far from conclusive, and reads more like an apology of the liturgical movement, highly compartmentalizations to a small span of time in Church history when by the acknowledgement of all traditional liturgies (including those of the SSPX), the movement had long since jumped the rails of Catholic liturgical principles.
I would say the jury is still out on the matter.