This is most profoundly seen in the prayers at the foot of the altar and the prayers of the offertory. Neither of these sets of prayers had to be removed, and in fact if still present in the vernacular, would have provided immeasurable benefit to newcomers at mass. References to the sinfulness of the priest, the priest being the one to offer sacrifice on our behalf, his petitions for us to pray for him, and the weight of exactly what we are entering in has been extraordinarily reduced.

This can’t be argued as beneficial on the basis of being more accessible, rather it is quite deliberate action to change the theology of the mass. If the reforms of the liturgy in the 1960s merely consisted of a translation from Latin to the vernacular, I would be quite inclined to agree with you Peter, but it sadly was not. It was a divorce on many fronts from the immemorial tradition of the church.

-Tombnelson

The new Catholic, enthralled by mystagogia, often fails to deepen their knowledge of the faith in a fitting and appropriate way. The fact is that these things are all present in either form of the Mass. The Graduale Romanum didn’t go anywhere, and Solesmnes revised it only slightly for the new rite. A liturgical cycle remains – so enriched over the meagre one year cycle of the extraordinary form, that all the great churches of the west adapted it (their Revised Common Lectionary,)

And the revised rite is the first to gain conciliar-grade blessing of Gregorian chant – Tra Le Solicitudini is only a papal encyclical.

That ordinary form Masses are celebrated poorly fairly often – we all know this. But that’s the fault of pastors unwilling to fund their choirs or follow the council. It isn’t a defect in the rite.