A fine piece by MH on NLM, exploding with Facts some unfortunate assertions by His Excellency Archbishop Arthur Roche, successor of Cardinal Sarah as Prefect at the CDW.
Roche had claimed that the NO Missal "retains ... ninety percent of the texts of that  Missal". Hazell shows that this is, mathematically, quite untrue. Hazell is an exact and impressive researcher. To preserve his reputation, Roche (or whatever minion handed him this 'information') needs to discover some methodology wherewith to upset Hazell's conclusions.
But, readers may wonder, is it wise for us to engage with Roche, a man who now has an influential position in the Bergoglian power-structure? Perhaps not. But since Roche himself uses blunt language to attack those whom he has in his sights ("Opinions to the contrary are false"), it seems to me that he has chosen to engage in a battle in which he is not well-placed to complain about bluntness. And is Parrhesia still part of the policy of this pontificate?
I will point out three dodgy bits in what Roche wrote.
(1) There are two quite different ways of comparing the old and the new Missals and deploying the impressive statistic "90%". (a) "90% of the prayers in the New Missal were in the Old." And (b) "90% of the prayers in the Old Missal survived into the New." (a) is what might most reassure a traddy mindset, because it would imply that not much of what we loved has been taken from us. However, (b) has a much better chance of approaching truth than (a) does. And (b) is indeed what Roche has actually claimed. But this claim may not give the worshipper much comfort if the "90%" of such surviving texts survive almost invisibly in some corner of the New Missal where they will be virtually unseen, swamped by a great tsunami of new stuff.
(2) The positioning of prayers is ... surely even Roche would have to admit ... of some significance. Let us look at the ancient Roman "Sunday collects" of the great Christian seasons, Advent, Lent, Easter.
Not a single one of these survived as Sunday Collects for those seasons in the NO. Some of the Sunday Easter collects survived as Sunday collects in the Tempus per annum, but were evidently not deemed to be adequately 'paschal' to be heard in church during Eastertide. Other seasonal Sunday collects, notably in Advent, sometimes survived as collects on weekdays. But, with regard to Sundays in the Great Seasons, not a single one of the old collects was deemed fit for use. (So much for the organic evolution, changes only being made where truly necessary, which Sacrosanctum Concilium enjoined.)
(3) I wonder if it has occurred to Roche that the provision of so many alternative Eucharistic Prayers, all of them without exception non-Roman in that they import a byzantinising Epiclesis of the Holy Spirit, hitherto unknown in the Roman Rite, represents a significant and disastrous rupture between the two "forms" of the Roman Rite.
I cannot help wondering whether Roche's article may be part of the new onslaught upon the Old Mass, called for by the imperatives of the current Bergoglian War Objectives. Might it be that Roche is attempting to set up a new military strongpoint in this new liturgical conflict, with this narrative: "The traddies are illiterates who attack the New Missal for being new, which is untrue because its contents are 90% the same as in the Old Missal. So why the fuss."?
Were Roche to have in mind a more eirenic agenda, perhaps he might take steps to enforce the guidlines given in the IGMR about when each Eucharistic Prayer is to be used. If he eliminated the use of the Pseudo-Hippolytan prayer on Sundays and feasts; if he secured the use of the Roman Canon at least on those days which IGMR commends ... we would have an initiative that looked just a little more like an offer of brotherly engagement and rather less like a heavy (and inaccurate) hand.