This is the reform of the reform argument. I don't agree with all of it, but he does present clear evidence that the NO as it is celebrated today is not consistent with the documents of Vatican II.
Fr. Fessio's observations are correct, but he's a little late to the party.
Serious liturgists and musicians have made that point since 1967, when the work of Bugger Bugnini and his Boyzzz was emanating from the slime, sulphurously poisoning genuine worship and substituting the cult of the 1960's.
Given that, FrFessio also falls into a few of the Modernists' booby traps, assigning the Sanctus/Benedictus to the assembly, e.g.
Anyone who reviews St. Pius X' documents on Musica Sacra and THEN reads the Document on the Liturgy is struck by the major change un-mentioned by Fessio: the lack of a distinction in the VII document between the 'sung' Mass and the 'recited' Mass. (You recall the High/Low Mass...)
Common sense tells us that the distinction would remain in place, were it not directly abrogated--but it has not.
Instead, what we have today is something of a mishmosh of the two. That's not necessarily bad, but it DOES serve to derogate the Mass Ordinaries composed by (inter alia) Palestrina, Mozart, DeLasso, et al, to 'occasional' use.
That, of course, is directly in contradistinction to the Council's words that 'the treasury of music...is higher than any other art...'
If it's so valuable to the Council Fathers, how come it's so rarely utilized?
B-16, if he wants a Restoration, has to work on reconciliation of the rites. Not an easy assignment.