This seems like flame bait and off-topic on a message board that's supposed to be about the several versions of Eastern Christianity, including but not limited to Eastern Orthodoxy. I don't see any tie-in to the East here, just bait to elicit complaints about the RC services, which have their place, but not here.
We may not agree on some things but I dare say the near consensus here, with which I agree of course, is the Novus Ordo
was a disaster and definitely 'a move away from the Christian East' (direct quotation from Archimandrite Serge
The 'old' Mass has a lot in common with Eastern rites for several reasons.
At its heart is the Gregorian or Roman Canon, the anaphora or consecration prayer, which is even older
than the two anaphoras in the Byzantine Rite today. Its lack of an explicit epiclesis
points to that fact.
On my faith page
there is a link to a page on a vagante
site describing a fascinating real ordo
of liturgy - a Russian text of the Byzantine Liturgy but with a version of the Roman Canon instead of one of the Byzantine anaphoras! A ROCOR priest, Fr John Whiteford, is quoted on the page, vouching for the authenticity of this so-called 'Liturgy of St Peter'. (Obviously the head of the apostles didn't write either the Roman Canon or the Byzantine Rite framing it here. But Catholics I'm sure will note that here a Liturgy with the Roman Canon is attributed to his authority - by Orthodox.) Long extinct from Russian Orthodox usage, some Old Believers had kept a manuscript. (That's right - the most extreme and xenophobic of the Russians preserved this!)
More on antiquity: I understand from browsing Joseph Martos (name?) or Basil Pennington, themselves no friends of tradition, that parts of the Roman Mass are so old that some texts (possibly including the Canon) from the time of St Ambrose - Roman times - would be recognizable to a traditionalist today.
Partly because it's so old at its heart, and partly because it evolved during the same period - the Middle Ages - as the Eastern rites, even though it largely evolved separately, it shares orthodox content and an objective, Godward style with them.
Despite the separate history and different cultures, there was some crossover. I've read that one reason why the Mass and the Eastern rites resemble each other, and have for a long time, is because circa 1000 the original, very simple version of the Roman Rite nearly died out amid the Dark Ages and corruption in the Eternal City. What came to the rescue liturgically was the now-extinct Gallican Rite, from France as the name says, which was elaborate because it had been influenced by the Eastern rites. The resulting Roman Rite, actually a Roman-Gallican hybrid from this point on, thus got an indirect shot in the arm from those rites.
Interestingly, both the Roman and Byzantine rites reached their final flowering, in forms recognizable today, by about the 1400s.
(The Tridentine reforms were claimed to be a restoration of primitive practice but of course weren't, partly because nobody knew how to get back to that.)All
traditional liturgies are collections of historical accretions. Writing one from scratch is both un-traditional and thus un-Eastern and is ipso facto
a warning sign of protestant intent.