What you speak of is false antiquity. When Jesus walked the Earth, men and women used to sit separately as well. Do we see that in the NO? No, but we do see female lectors and EM’s. So this supposed return to early Christianity is bogus. And Latin started in the liturgy as early as the 3rd and 4th centuries when Christianity spread beyond the Jews.
And no one is saying that the TLM was the ONLY way to worship as the Catholic Church also has the Eastern Rites as well. However, the Eastern Rites are nothing like the NO either. The Mass developed over time, but never underwent the kinds of changes that occurred at VII.
The issue with the NO is not that it’s “new” but that it took much of what was actually Catholic out of the Mass, many prayers, etc. because those things were just too Catholic, darn it. Those Catholic references were too much for the non-Catholics to handle and well, Vatican II was all about making the Catholic Church and Catholicism more palatable to others like the Protestants, to the Modern World. Same with the Mass. In fact, there were Protestant ministers that helped in changing the mass.
It would behoove you to read up on the change in the liturgy and those who changed it before pointing fingers at those “TLM only” Catholics. So-called “TLM Only” Catholics have very good reason to take issue with the NO.
Really? I've read numerous traditional Catholics argue that the Tridentine mass is the ONLY valid expression of worship and that the liturgy MUST be in Latin or it isn't the true Catholic faith. Would you like me to show you some quotes?