That's a difficult question to answer for two reasons
First the theology of Trent in an eastern liturgy is problematic since in some aspects the liturgical theology is different but I'm guessing what's referred to is sacrificial language. That is explicitly mentioned at least three times in the Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles also in the hymns. I attached one to the post.
There were substantial changes, the liturgy had a period post VII where everyone experimented and multiple versions of actual stuff worse than the NO was done wherever they wanted, the oriental congregation stepped in and demanded that the commission enforce the books in existence and do the actual reforms that were required.
The reforms removed from the liturgy Latinizations that were placed in at the synod of Mt Lebanon in the 1760s. This was a good thing. The problem is this was done by a group of bishops who were now NO in mindset, they made two glaring errors
1-the transition was made from Arabic. The liturgical language is Syciac/Aramaic this is like making a new Latin mass from the 'original' English.
2-the biggest problem is that when they removed the Latin accretions they didn't replace them with Syriac liturgical practice.
3-This makes up a very uncomfortable liturgy especially for tradition minded Byzantine and Latins. To see a good translation for liturgy in the Syriac Tradition the new Chaldean translation, examples are available at the eparchy on the west coast. Just be prepared east Syriac and Armenians still have deaconesses