Some people who seem to think that there is a moral imperative in following pre-Vatican 2 traditions are quick to raise up those who do as paragons of virtue, often with a sly bent that those who don’t are of weak or little faith. And perhaps that is why some individuals - few in number, but lacking in charity, take umbrage. The vast majority of people have little or nothing to say, for example, about whether or not a woman wears a mantilla.
I am also old enough to remember that most women wore hats, not hankies or Kleenex with a bobby pin, and mantillas were relatively rare then.
As we almost always use the Confiteor and Kyrie, that issue is a non-starter. On the rare occasions we do not use them, the alternatives are approved by the Church.
Most people wouldn’t know the Roman Canon from any of the other canons, and all are approved by the Church.
The Church has preference for it; and I suspect that Rome is also aware that it is largely not used. I don’t have a dog in the fight, having grown up prior to the change in the Mass. Saying prayers in Latin is not going to make my socks roll up and down; neither is it going to bother me in the least should our parish do so.
I am not going to get into a debate about which direction the priest faces. Most people accept it, and willingly so.
I find your comment about midnight fasting to be one which ignores that some of us cannot sustain that long a fast, in particular when going to a later Mass. Let’s be honest here: most people prior to the change in the fast law, and most particularly in the US, were not fasting from midnight, but in reality were fasting from 6 or 7 p.m. when their evening meal was finished. So it was not an 8, or 9, or 10 hour fast for Masses starting at those times, but was more like a 13, or 14, or 15 hour fast. And not to make too fine a point of it, but from the Gospel readings it can be deduced that the Apostles had no fast at all, since the Eucharist first occurred at the end of their Passover meal.
No, I don’t think anyone really thinks that the reforms of Vatican 2 will be nullified - I have not met any in the last 52 years. But I have met people who are attached to practices and traditions (with a small “t”) who react to new traditions as if they are abominations. And some of those traditions are not from “time immemorial”, but from time specific. Over the centuries, traditions waxed and waned; some replaced with other traditions, which in turn were replaced with other traditions. Some people appear to be more attached to the form of a tradition than to the substance which underlies both an older tradition and a newer one.
As to modern culture, some members of the Church have a very myopic view of history. As the bishops of the world pointed out, over the history of the Church, things were added to the Liturgy over time that were time specific and needed to be removed, and things were lost over time which needed to be brought back.
Some disagree with that, which should come as no surprise; while the vast majority of the bishops of the wold voted in favor of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (2,146), a few (4) voted against it.
