There are many critiques of the the revised liturgy of Paul VI compared ot what went before. Some have good points. However, this paricular comparison is among the most idiotic I have seen.
To quickly address the point: (1), (2) and (3) are unnecessary dichotomies. I will say though, that sometimes the new liturgy is celebrate din such a way that confirms those points. Not that it should be celebrated like that, but it is.
Latin ha not been used worldwide since then - but much later, and within the Western Churches.
“Offertory+ Consecration = Communion”. I have a feeling they were trying to say something else here, and I have a good idea what it was. But as it stands, this idea is not correct. Furthermore, the offertory prayers came in at a later date. A formal “offertory” has never been required as a sine qua non of the Eucharist.
The new Eucharistic Prayers were not composed by the Protestants but by a group of Catholic scholars. There is a tendency, because the Protestant observers were invited later to meetings of the Concilium, to assume that they stuck they fingers in every piece of the pie. Actually, many of the subgroups worked indepedantly, and there is good evidence on record that the Protestants weren’t involved, not only because the schema (draft documents) list the names of those who were, but because the basis of the prayers was written before the Protestants were invited.
The Word of Consecration argument takes the cake as the silliest argument ever. Not only is the wording found in other liturgies, ancient and modern, but one could apply the same argument then to the consecration of the Chalice (“which will be poured out for you…”)
The last one might indeed be the impact of the type of preachign and theology found in some places but the liturgical texts do not objectively mediate this impression in any significant way.