A validly promulgated liturgy which, celebrated according to the rubrics, confects a valid sacrament. Do you deny it?
If you do not deny it, then you ought to rejoice that it will perhaps be translated with greater fidelity to the Latin. Who knows, maybe they'll even get pro multis right this time.
"A validly promulgated liturgy which, celebrated according to the rubrics, confects a valid sacrament. Do you deny it?"
No, it's valid. But it still protestantizes the faith, which is why even Lutherans use it. As Bishop Fellay put it recently, "Rome says it's a soup, eat it. We say, sure it's a soup, but it's a poison soup. We don't wish to eat it."
"A validly promulgated liturgy..."
Actually I took your post to mean the New Mass itself was valid, not that it was "validly promulgated." In fact it was invalidly promulgated, lacking any papal signature whatsoever, the General Instructions carrying only the signatures of a few cura cardinals--insufficient for any official liturgical change of that magnitude in the Church. A later published document on the new liturgy included decrees by Paul VI which carried his signature, but the decrees only covered Eucharistic Prayer changes, not the new liturgy itself. A still later explanation of this published Constitution again lacked the papal signature, having been signed by a cardinal. These are curious facts. Was Paul VI fearful of an official promulgation? No one can say. Curious also is the fact that the traditional Mass was never officially abrogated. History will look on the whole debacle as a strange aberration from Catholic Tradition and the immediate cause for the loss of faith of tens--some claim hundreds--of millions of Catholics.