Actually, there's less reason to call the N.O. "Protestant," since the N.O. still has men in valid orders pronouncing valid consecrations, you still have the Sacrifice, the Transubstantiation and the Sacrament. See what I mean? Catholic and Protestant are quite different in their central liturgical aspects, as most on both sides would justly agree.
That still avoids the point that the Catholic mass for hundreds of years has been relegated to the back of the bus.
And so many Catholics see nothing wrong with that whatsoever.....including the hierarchy.
This is most apparent to an old-time Catholic who attends an NO Mass for the first time. Almost invariably, a comment about protestant character follows.
Note I have not included description of any of the abuses which are so prevalent.
It’s not Protestant per se, but reflects a mode of liturgical expression which is more closely aligned with Protestant theology than was the case prior to the changes. Have you read the Ottaviani Intervention?
Some relevant excerpts from “Letter On Novus Ordo Missae” -
Cardinal Ottaviani:
“2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith....
...VII—The Alienation Of The Orthodox
The Apostolic Constitution makes explicit reference to a wealth of piety and teaching in the Novus Ordo borrowed from the Eastern Churches. The result—utterly remote from and even opposed to the inspiration of the oriental Liturgies—can only repel the faithful of the Eastern Rites. What, in truth, do these ecumenical options amount to? Basically to the multiplicity of anaphora (but nothing approaching their beauty and complexity), to the presence of deacons, to Communion sub utraque specie.
Against this, the Novus Ordo would appear to have been deliberately shorn of everything which in the Liturgy of Rome came close to those of the East.
Moreover in abandoning its unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the Novus Ordo lost what was spiritually precious of its own. Its place has been taken by elements which bring it closer only to certain other reformed liturgies (not even those closest to Catholicism) and which debase it at the same time. The East will be ever more alienated, as it already has been by the preceding liturgical reforms.
By way of compensation the new Liturgy will be the delight of the various groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy, are wreaking havoc in the Church of God, poisoning her organism and undermining her unity of doctrine, worship, morals and discipline in a spiritual crisis without precedent....”