"The problem with that argument is that Paul VI and the Consilium both strenuously insisted that the sacrificial meaning of the Mass remained intact."
Not true. They did just the opposite, then backtracked and re-wrote the General Instructions to the New Mass, changing the Protestant emphasis into something more Catholic-sounding, sprinkling the norms here and there with words such as Propitiation and Sacrifice--but keeping the text of the liturgy itself intact and keeping the emphasis on the Meal aspect.
But as Ratzinger himself has admitted at Fontgombault, "the notion of the sacrifice of the Mass greatly lends itself to misunderstandings." And he admits further: "[Modern Man] can no long imagine that human fault can wound God, and still less that it would require an expiation equal to that which consititutes the cross of Christ." And he rejects the notion of a sacrifice which includes immolation of the Victim: "In what does sacrifice consist? Not in destruction, but in the transformation of man."
This is the theology of the Paschal Mystery which opposes the clear notion in Trent of a real sacrifice of immolation. Yet as Trent says: "He instituted a new Passover, Himself to be IMMOLATED under visible signs by the Church through the priests, in memory of His own passage from this world to the Father..."
The rejection of Trent explains the abhorrence of the old Mass by modernist liturgists. As Ratzinger has said: "A sizeable party of Catholic liturgists seems to have practically arrived at the conclusion that Luther, rather than Trent, was substantially right in the sixteenth century debate...One can detect much the same position in the post-conciliar discussions on the priesthood." He refers also to those who repeat Luther’s view that it is, "the most appalling horror and a damnable impiety to speak of the sacrifice of the Mass".
He concludes: "It is only against this background of the effective denial of the authority of Trent, that the bitterness of the struggle against allowing the celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Missal, after the liturgical reform, can be understood. The possibility of so celebrating constitutes the strongest, and thus (for them) the most intolerable contradiction of the opinion of those who believe that the faith in the Eucharist formulated by Trent has lost its value."
Then why were so many of the traditional offertory prayers retained? Remember, as you have pointed out, that the liturgical texts remained intact (since the doctrinal problems were mainly within the General Instruction). You simply can't get around the fact that the GIRM opens with a solid affirmation of Trent - of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of Transubstantiation. Nor can you get around the fact that the liturgy is clearly sacrificial.
Re: Ratzinger. For one thing, Ratzinger's theology at a private conference is not determinative of the meaning of the Missal. You are taking him out of context in any case - he ends the conference with:
Trent did not make a mistake, it leant for support on the solid foundation of the Tradition of the Church. It remains a trustworthy standard.
What do the opinions of a "sizeable party of Catholic liturgists" have to do with the meaning of the Pauline Missal?