A very good post that examines the fundamental problem with the theory of the "organic development of the liturgy" as expounded among many "new liturgical movement types."
Piety and an excessive concern for "Catholic identity" has obscured the historical fact of the liturgy being regulated and relatively formed by the bishop of the diocese (or abbot of the monastery) in the West. Consolidating regulatory authority to a centralized congregation that functioned as the administrative arm of the bishop of Rome runs contrary to the Western tradition. This is a crucial point, if only because acknowledging the historical fact seriously questions one of the most prized tenants of "organic development," that treats of the liturgy as though it were a nebulous, ethereal thing with its own laws, logic, and action. In truth, some bishop or some abbot made calculated decisions when regulating the liturgy in their diocese or monastery.
To ignore that the liturgy was regulated by the local church ignores how much imposition of Roman authority diverged from the Tradition. To ignore the historical (and very human) factors in the development the Western liturgies risks a very dualistic liturgiology. While such a liturgiology fulfills romantic notions of the liturgy, it fails to carry full historical weight of the Tradition in its argumentation. The very real justification for certain historical forms that have been lost in recent decades is therefore reduced to pious delusion.