Mass facing the people - why has it become so predominant?

[dmar198]

St. Peter’s has an unusual design. The structure was built facing west, but the current altar was positioned in relation to St. Peter’s tomb, freestanding, giving rise to the unusual combination of both ad orientem/versus populum. People turned toward the doors/away from the altar, so there still was the common direction of facing east.

The following author says that the people faced the altar:

1708 A.D. - Claud de Vert - “Suppose the end of the Church [is] East of the Altar. In this situation the Priest celebrating at the Altar with his face to the East, has his back to the people, who are in the West in the Nave, and turned like himself toward the East in praying. Necessarily then when he wishes to address them, he must turn and look at them. So that in Churches turned to the West, whose end is to the West of the Altar, the Priest saying Mass with his face to the East, consequently faces the people, who are placed in the Nave and praying toward the West (i.e. the Altar)…[In this case he] has no need to change his position to turn to them.” (Explication simple, littérale et historique des cérémonies de l’Église, in explanation of a place titled “Place du Celebrant a l’autel, regardant l’orient,” as translated in “The Church and the World, Volume 3” p.
49 )

Where do you get your information saying the people faced East, with their backs to the altar?

 

[patrick457]

The following author says that the people faced the altar:

1708 A.D. - Claud de Vert - “Suppose the end of the Church [is] East of the Altar. In this situation the Priest celebrating at the Altar with his face to the East, has his back to the people, who are in the West in the Nave, and turned like himself toward the East in praying. Necessarily then when he wishes to address them, he must turn and look at them. So that in Churches turned to the West, whose end is to the West of the Altar, the Priest saying Mass with his face to the East, consequently faces the people, who are placed in the Nave and praying toward the West (i.e. the Altar)…[In this case he] has no need to change his position to turn to them.” (Explication simple, littérale et historique des cérémonies de l’Église, in explanation of a place titled “Place du Celebrant a l’autel, regardant l’orient,” as translated in “The Church and the World, Volume 3” p.
49 )

Where do you get your information saying the people faced East, with their backs to the altar?

I’m guessing this comes from hints in Greek, Coptic and Ethiopian liturgies. In these liturgies, just before the Anaphora, the deacon would tell the people to “stand upright” before the Lord, which some have taken as a command to stand and face the East). The exchange “Lift up your hearts” (Sursum corda) - “We have (lifted) them (up) to the Lord” (Habemus ad Dominum), common to all liturgical traditions, has been interpreted as meaning that the congregation originally turned to the east at this point. In the Coptic Liturgy of St. Mark, the deacon even explicitly tells the people near the Sanctus, “Turn to the east.”

And for the presbyters let there be assigned a place in the eastern part of the house; and let the bishop’s throne be set in their midst, and let the presbyters sit with him. And again, let the lay men sit in another part of the house toward the east. For so it should be, that in the eastern part of the house the presbyters sit with the bishops, and next the lay men, and then the women that when you stand up to pray, the rulers may stand first, and after them the lay men, and then the women also. For it is required that you pray toward the east, as knowing that which is written: Give ye glory to God, who rideth upon the heaven of heavens toward the east [Ps 67.34 LXX]. (Didascalia Apostolorum 12)

The apostles therefore appointed that you should pray towards the east, because “as the lightning which lightens from the east and is seen even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of man be” (Mt. 24.27). By this may we know and understand that he will suddenly appear from the east. (Didascalia Addai, canon 1)

 

[patrick457]

As a rule, the eastward direction determined the position of the priest at the altar during the eucharistic liturgy. In a church with an oriented apse, the celebrant would stand in front of the altar, facing east just as the people did. As for the direction of liturgical prayer in basilicas with the entrance in the east and the apse in the west, various hypotheses have been presented. According to Louis Bouyer, the whole assembly - both the celebrant, who stood behind the altar, and the people in the nave - turned towards the east for the eucharistic prayer. This suggestion has met severe criticism on the grounds that it would have been unthinkable for the people to turn their back on the altar, since from early on the altar was considered a holy object, indeed a symbol of Christ. Klaus Gamber holds that the congregation, separated by sex, mainly occupied the side naves, of which St Peter’s and the Lateran had four and some churches even six. The central nave would have been left free for liturgical actions, such as the solemn entry of the celebrant with his assistants, the reception of the offertory gifts, and the distribution of Holy Communion. An analogy for this peculiar arrangement can be seen in the use of the Christian East, where the faithful are at the side walls, while the central space under the dome is left free for liturgical ceremonies.

Consequently, in basilicas with an eastward entrance, the faithful did not face the altar directly, but did not turn their backs on it either. The latter would indeed have been inconceivable on account of the sacred character of the altar and of the sacrifice offered on it. The people in the side naves needed only to change their position slightly in order to face east; the altar would have been on their right or their left. This suggestion would seem plausible especially if the altar stood in the central nave. During the Eucharistic prayer the congregation would face the same direction as the celebrant, looking towards the open doors of the church through which the light of the rising sun, the symbol of the risen Christ and his second coming in glory, flooded into the nave. Thus the liturgical assembly would have formed a semicircle that opened to the east, with the celebrating priest as its apex. The practice of priest and people facing each other arose when the profound symbolism of facing east was no longer understood and the faithful no longer turned eastward for the eucharistic prayer. This happened especially in those basilicas where the altar was moved from the middle of the nave to the apse.

• Lang, U.W. (2006). Facing East: The Eucharist in Early Roman Basilicas. (ed.), Studia Patristica. Vol. XL - Liturgia et Cultus, Theologica et Philosophica, Critica et Philologica, Nachleben, First Two Centuries, 40, pp. 45-46.

 

[dmar198]

As a rule, the eastward direction determined the position of the priest at the altar during the eucharistic liturgy. In a church with an oriented apse, the celebrant would stand in front of the altar, facing east just as the people did. As for the direction of liturgical prayer in basilicas with the entrance in the east and the apse in the west, various hypotheses have been presented. According to Louis Bouyer, the whole assembly - both the celebrant, who stood behind the altar, and the people in the nave - turned towards the east for the eucharistic prayer. This suggestion has met severe criticism on the grounds that it would have been unthinkable for the people to turn their back on the altar, since from early on the altar was considered a holy object, indeed a symbol of Christ. Klaus Gamber holds that the congregation, separated by sex, mainly occupied the side naves, of which St Peter’s and the Lateran had four and some churches even six. The central nave would have been left free for liturgical actions, such as the solemn entry of the celebrant with his assistants, the reception of the offertory gifts, and the distribution of Holy Communion. An analogy for this peculiar arrangement can be seen in the use of the Christian East, where the faithful are at the side walls, while the central space under the dome is left free for liturgical ceremonies.

Consequently, in basilicas with an eastward entrance, the faithful did not face the altar directly, but did not turn their backs on it either. The latter would indeed have been inconceivable on account of the sacred character of the altar and of the sacrifice offered on it. The people in the side naves needed only to change their position slightly in order to face east; the altar would have been on their right or their left. This suggestion would seem plausible especially if the altar stood in the central nave. During the Eucharistic prayer the congregation would face the same direction as the celebrant, looking towards the open doors of the church through which the light of the rising sun, the symbol of the risen Christ and his second coming in glory, flooded into the nave. Thus the liturgical assembly would have formed a semicircle that opened to the east, with the celebrating priest as its apex. The practice of priest and people facing each other arose when the profound symbolism of facing east was no longer understood and the faithful no longer turned eastward for the eucharistic prayer. This happened especially in those basilicas where the altar was moved from the middle of the nave to the apse.

• Lang, U.W. (2006). Facing East: The Eucharist in Early Roman Basilicas. (ed.), Studia Patristica. Vol. XL - Liturgia et Cultus, Theologica et Philosophica, Critica et Philologica, Nachleben, First Two Centuries, 40, pp. 45-46.

To me, it sounds like U.W. Lang speaks of several different orientations. Sometimes the people faced the altar while the priest faced the people, so that priest and people looked at each other, like today. If the people and the priest looked at each other, some churches, but not all, had the people turn around during the Eucharistic prayer to face the same direction the priest was, while others didn’t make anybody turn around. Other churches had some people sit on benches along the walls. Some people sat with their chairs facing north and others sat with their chairs facing south, and the people looked at each other, or at the priest, or East during the Eucharistic prayer, or West if that’s where the altar was, but it all depended on local custom. The custom doesn’t exactly sound uniform from U.W. Lang’s description. Am I missing something?

 

[Havard]

The following author says that the people faced the altar:

1708 A.D. - Claud de Vert - “Suppose the end of the Church [is] East of the Altar. In this situation the Priest celebrating at the Altar with his face to the East, has his back to the people, who are in the West in the Nave, and turned like himself toward the East in praying. Necessarily then when he wishes to address them, he must turn and look at them. So that in Churches turned to the West, whose end is to the West of the Altar, the Priest saying Mass with his face to the East, consequently faces the people, who are placed in the Nave and praying toward the West (i.e. the Altar)…[In this case he] has no need to change his position to turn to them.” (Explication simple, littérale et historique des cérémonies de l’Église, in explanation of a place titled “Place du Celebrant a l’autel, regardant l’orient,” as translated in “The Church and the World, Volume 3” p.
49 )

Where do you get your information saying the people faced East, with their backs to the altar?

I’ve both read this in many places and heard this from my liturgy and theology of church architecture courses. My personal library isn’t particularly extensive, but the first book I turned to was Pope Emeritus Benedict’s magnificent work on the liturgy, The Spirit of the Liturgy. Particularly, in his section, entitled The Altar and the Direction of Liturgical Prayer, the Holy Father dedicates several pages of discussion to the misunderstandings surrounding versus populum, and specifically as it relates to examples such as St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. He also cites the Church historian Fr. Louis Bouyer on several points. The most relevant one to your question here is:

Never, and nowhere, before that [that is, before the sixteenth century], have we any indication that any importance, or even attention, was given to whether the priest celebrated with the people before him or behind him. As Professor Cyrille Vogel has recently demonstrated it, the only thing ever insisted upon, or even mentioned, was that he should say the eucharistic prayer, as all the other prayers, facing East… Even when the orientation of the Church enabled the celebrant to pray turned toward the people, when at the altar, we must not forget that it was not the priest alone who turned East: it was the whole congregation, together with him.

[Bold added by me, for emphasis.]

This is still the case in ad orientem celebration today, in most churches, except it is the celebrant who usually does the turning . Directionality, in regard to the prayers in the Mass, has historically only been emphasized insofar as a common turning East. There was no discussion about the relationship between the celebrant and the people during the prayers. Facing the people was the tradition during the Liturgy of the Word, understandably. The The Holy Father highlights this distinction, writing:

For the Liturgy of the Word is about speaking and responding, and so a face-to-face exchange between proclaimer and hearer does make sense… On the other hand, a common turning to the east during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of something accidental; rather, it is a matter of what is essential. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matter is looking together at the Lord. It is now a question, not of dialogue, but of common worship, of setting off toward the One who is to come. What corresponds with the reality of what is happening is not the closed circle but the common movement forward, expressed in a common direction for prayer.

There’s much more in this section that explains the theology here, but hopefully what I’ve posted is a good a start. I strongly encourage anyone to pick up a copy of The Spirit of the Liturgy, or better yet, The Collected Works: Theology of the Liturgy by Ignatius Press, which includes The Spirit of the Liturgy within it, as well as many other great writings by our extraordinary theologian, Pope Emeritus Benedict.

 

[patrick457]

To me, it sounds like U.W. Lang speaks of several different orientations. Sometimes the people faced the altar while the priest faced the people, so that priest and people looked at each other, like today. If the people and the priest looked at each other, some churches, but not all, had the people turn around during the Eucharistic prayer to face the same direction the priest was, while others didn’t make anybody turn around. Other churches had some people sit on benches along the walls. Some people sat with their chairs facing north and others sat with their chairs facing south, and the people looked at each other, or at the priest, or East during the Eucharistic prayer, or West if that’s where the altar was, but it all depended on local custom. The custom doesn’t exactly sound uniform from U.W. Lang’s description. Am I missing something?

In the quote I gave, Lang discusses two theories as to what would have happened in churches that had their entrance in the east and the apse in the west: that of Fr. Louis Bouyer (the people turned their back on the priest and the altar to face the church doors) and Klaus Gamber (the people were on the side aisles so they did not literally have to turn their back on the altar, but instead just turn slightly to their right or left).

Lang goes on to note objections raised by others to Bouyer’s and Gamber’s theories respectively. Bouyer’s scenario has been criticized, he says, for postulating that the congregation would have turned their back on the holy altar. Gamber’s theory that the congregation stood mainly on the side aisles and left the central nave open was also questioned, because the side aisles would have also used for extra-liturgical functions. Besides, what if there was a kind of corridor or solea running down the nave, which left most of it open for the congregation to stand on (again, no pews back then)?

Lang does, however, still accept the idea that in such churches, the priest and the congregation may have turned to the entrance in the east for the Eucharistic prayer, citing Jewish custom of praying towards the direction of Jerusalem or the east and synagogues where the entrance faced either Jerusalem or the east, thus requiring the congregation to face the entrance in prayer.

Equally controversial is the view that in basilicas with an eastern entrance the whole assembly turned towards the doors. However, our judgement in this issue should not be governed by modern sensibilities. In the context of religious practice in the ancient world, this liturgical gesture does not appear as extraordinary as it might seem today. The general custom in antiquity was to pray towards the open sky, which meant that in a closed room, one would turn to an open door or an open window for prayer. This is well attested in Jewish and Christian sources, for example Daniel 6:10, Tobit 3:11, and Acts 10:9. The Babylonian Talmud transmits a ruling of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba to the effect that one must not pray in a room without windows. In his treatise On Prayer, Origen discusses the problem that arises if a house has no doors or windows facing east. He argues that one should turn towards the east, because this is a basic principle of Christian prayer, whereas turning towards the open sky is just a convention.

There is archaeological evidence of Galilean synagogues from the late 1st century AD with the entrance facing towards Jerusalem. Where this was the case, it would appear that the assembly turned towards the open doors for prayer and thus looked towards the direction of the sacred city. Moreover, facing east in prayer was also known to the Jewish tradition (for example, Wisdom 16:28), both among the Essenes and in the rabbinical Judaism of the first centuries AD. There are synagogues from the second to the fourth century with the doors on the eastern side of the building. The community in a synagogue with the entrance facing east turned presumably towards the doors, not towards the west wall. Against this background it would seem possible that for the eucharistic prayer the faithful, along with the priest, turned towards the entrance in the east.

Lang then proposes another possible theory: instead of facing literal east (i.e. the church entrance), maybe the priest and the congregation could have just looked up towards the apse - ‘liturgical east’ - which was decorated with mosaics which “might have served to direct the attention of the liturgical assembly, whose eyes were raised up during the eucharistic prayer.” He admits that “[t]his theory is rather tentative and requires much further scrutiny; nonetheless, its definite advantage is that it accounts better for the correlation between liturgy, art and architecture than the ideas of Bouyer and Gamber, which need to put up with a discrepancy between the sacred rites and the space created for them.”

Even if we assume that priest and people were facing one another in early Christian basilicas with an eastward entrance, we can exclude visual contact at least for the canon, since all prayed with arms raised, looking upwards. At any rate, there was not much to see on the altar, since ritual gestures, such as signs of the cross, altar kisses, genuflections and the elevation of the eucharistic species, were only added later. Christians in the ancient world and in the early Middle Ages would not have associated real participation in the liturgy with looking at the celebrant and his actions.

 

[Solomonson]

Well ok.
**Weird but ok…
**
But i think they could have said that in a more polite way…

But my question was: What does it have to do with Vatican II?

Why “weird”? Benedict understood that there was going to be confusion that that some would continue to use pejorative labels like “novus ordo” and “NO” so he provided simple, distinctive and non-offensive names for both the Pauline Mass and the Tridentine Mass.

Nothing “weird” about what he did for us – and many still don’t listen.

 

[Phemie]

Why “weird”? Benedict understood that there was going to be confusion that that some would continue to use pejorative labels like “novus ordo” and “NO” so he provided simple, distinctive and non-offensive names for both the Pauline Mass and the Tridentine Mass.

Nothing “weird” about what he did for us – and many still don’t listen.

And many, I would venture to say most, don’t know because they don’t know about these documents. Particularly if they are new to these forums. And most people who use the term do not do so in a pejorative manner. It’s the term they’ve heard for years and unless they frequent these forums they probably have no idea that it’s come to be used pejoratively by SOME people.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Why “weird”? Benedict understood that there was going to be confusion that that some would continue to use pejorative labels like “novus ordo” and “NO” so he provided simple, distinctive and non-offensive names for both the Pauline Mass and the Tridentine Mass.

Nothing “weird” about what he did for us – and many still don’t listen.

As a professor of liturgy, I have used the terms Vetus Ordo and Novus Ordo…many years before Benedict was pope. I have absolutely no plans to change terms.

 

[Solomonson]

And many, I would venture to say most, don’t know because they don’t know about these documents. Particularly if they are new to these forums. And most people who use the term do not do so in a pejorative manner. It’s the term they’ve heard for years and unless they frequent these forums they probably have no idea that it’s come to be used pejoratively by SOME people.

I strongly disagree. I’ve never met anyone (and I mean anyone) in person who used either “novus ordo” or “NO” to describe the OF Mass who didn’t strongly strongly prefer the EF Mass over the OF Mass. Quite frankly I think it makes them feel good to ever so gently denigrate the OF Mass and/or those that prefer it to the EF Mass.

But by golly they sure know to type out “Traditional Latin Mass” to describe the EF Mass. No confusion or ignorance there, ayup? Maybe I will start using “Ancient Vernacular Mass” to describe the OF Mass? Only seems fair…

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I strongly disagree. I’ve never met anyone (and I mean anyone) in person who used either “novus ordo” or “NO” to describe the OF Mass who didn’t strongly strongly prefer the EF Mass over the OF Mass. Quite frankly I think it makes them feel good to ever so gently denigrate the OF Mass and/or those that prefer it to the EF Mass.

But by golly they sure know to type out “Traditional Latin Mass” to describe the EF Mass. No confusion or ignorance there, ayup? Maybe I will start using “Ancient Vernacular Mass” to describe the OF Mass? Only seems fair…

You are incredibly mistaken.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I was there before and after Vatican II and certain misconceptions have appeared. As far as the Mass being rushed, that was never true. The Mass took the same amount of time every single time. Missals were available that had the Latin and English on the same page. We knew what we were saying.

I was there, too. It is not as you say…at all. Masses were most certainly rushed in the days before the liturgical reform and renewal, with which we were blessed.

Missals were assuredly not always available,

Every day of my priesthood, I thank God for the liturgical movement as well as for the gift of the Council

 

[FrDavid96]

Not everyone who uses the term Novus Ordo does it disparagingly. Even Pope Paul VI “Novus Ordo” in a speech back in 1976.

w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/la/speeches/1976/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19760524_concistoro.html

Yes. Exactly.

It’s a perfectly legitimate term used in liturgical vocabulary. Liturgists and clergy use the term all the time.

I did not even know it can be used disparagingly.

It is always better to ask rather than to blindly asume someone’s intention…

Yes. It is. Unfortunately, some people prefer to impose their own biases onto others, expecting others to conform to their own personal notions of what those others should be permitted to say or how they should be permitted to think.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I’ve probably excused myself a dozen times in real life from chatting with people who use either “novus ordo” or “NO” in conversation. It’s a dead giveaway to their bias/bigotry and I’m just not interested.

I suspect most know they’re being offensive too which makes their behavior all the worse. As long as it makes them feel good personally (they seem to derive pleasure from that cute little gig) seems to be all they care about.

This is one of the most absurd things I have heard in decades of priesthood…both with regard to my ministry and to the classroom.

 

[FrDavid96]

I strongly disagree. I’ve never met anyone (and I mean anyone) in person who used either “novus ordo” or “NO” to describe the OF Mass who didn’t strongly strongly prefer the EF Mass over the OF Mass. …

Quite frankly, that just another way of saying that you’ve never been in an environment where you were surrounded by actual experts in the Church’s liturgy. Those who have had that experience, such as those who have academic degrees in liturgy or theology or canon law, or any other Church academic discipline are quite comfortable using the term.

 

[Havard]

In my experience, most people have no agenda when it comes to terminology. There’s plenty of real problems out there, I wouldn’t worry about whether a person uses this term or that.

 

[Kielbasi]

I was there, too. It is not as you say…at all. Masses were most certainly rushed in the days before the liturgical reform and renewal, with which we were blessed.

Missals were assuredly not always available,

Back in the traditional days, I don’t think most of the faithful followed along with a missal, but they usually did know what was going on and how the mass was progressing. It was very difficult to try and follow word by word as to what the priest was saying in Latin.

Also, although I attended Latin masses for years, I don’t think I ever heard a high mass outside of a funeral. The usual standard was low mass.

 

[FrDavid96]

Statements that generalize people, such as “most people did not do this or that” or “hardly anyone understood this or that” aren’t helpful at all.

That might have been your experience at the time and place—no one can argue that.

However, generalizing about what all or most Catholics experienced simply cannot be done—at least not with regard to the specific topics I’ve been reading about in this thread.

Some people had hand missals (once such things came into existence). Some did not.

Some people paid attention to the Mass. Some did not.

Some priests rushed Mass. Some did not.

Some priests practiced good Latin pronunciation. Some was atrocious.
(Some of the atrocious Latin actually eventually became the standard ).

Some people prayed the rosary at Mass. Some did not.

Some priests started Mass on-time. Some priests had a habit of starting late.

Some catechesis was excellent. Some was miserable. Some was in-between.

I’m just asking everyone not to generalize about matters that are entirely subjective.

Objective statements such as “Masses were mostly in Latin” are fine because they express objective truths that could be both measured and proven.

But when it comes to entirely subjective experiences, may I please just ask posters to refrain from statements that seem to universalize what was, in reality, a wide variety of experiences?

Thanks!

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I was there for all of it. The reformers/dissidents wanted to remove things that elevated the church and created an appropriate sense of reverence. That was wrong. They wanted to turn the mass into something profane.

You have said this repeatedly in threads. You were there for all of it.

What, exactly, were you there for all of? And in what capacity were you there?

Are you priest?

I know you are not a Father of the Council because those who are now are few, elderly, and frail…some more frail than others. In any event, they are quite known to each other.

Besides, a Council Father would never say such things. There was no experience that marked those who had the grace to go through it as did the Second Vatican Council. I, literally, give thanks for the Council every day of my life – as well as the fruit it bore.

And are you a liturgical theologian? And where on the continent did you earn your degrees in liturgy? And what was your relationship to these most extraordinary of theologians involved with the liturgy?

And what did you do in the liturgical movement?

One Cardinal I remember as if it were yesterday more than 40 years after his death, so unforgettable was his impact.

These were the most extraordinary men one could encounter in the haute circles of theology, let alone work with – and how far such ecclesiastics and their conversations were from the prattle I am finding presently.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Vatican II never called for Mass to be said facing the people. As far as I understand, it was the General Instruction of the Roman Missal that called for it to be made possible. Even Eastern Rite churches who have traditionally celebrated their liturgies ad orientem have Mass facing the people now.

The chapel where we have our Traditional Latin Mass on Sunday has a beautiful high altar. However, after the Mass is finished, two people move the wooden table back in front of the high altar for the weekday Masses. I don’t know why the priest who says the daily Masses can’t do them at the high altar, ad orientem.

So why has Mass facing the people, which was never mandated by Vatican II, become almost universal now?

The priest himself is the only one who could answer your question. I don’t doubt he has an answer…but I do doubt my ability to discern it.

For us in Europe, which was different from the Americans, our criteria was to install the new altar – which was to be freestanding in such a way as to walk about it with ease and to be able to say Mass facing the people with facility – wherever practical.

There were some churches…very few…and more oratories where there was not a way to do it realistically. The sanctuary was too small. So we didn’t. But the Bishop was completely involved in these decisions and determinations.

But we celebrated the Mass according to the reform and renewal that Sacrosanctum Concilium implemented. And let us be clear: they said the whole liturgy was in need of overhaul…not just the Mass. Everything. Each sacrament. The breviary. The music. The book of blessings. Everything.

Thus, when the table faced away from the people, we were to minimize through the use of the presider’s chair are other artifices so that this facing away from the people would now occur for the barest time possible. And everything was do be done in audible voice…as last. As the Council Fathers said,
“In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else”
I have celebrated many times ad absidem and, frankly, it causes very little of what I read on American websites because we do not treat as though that has any specialness…it is purely logistical and pragmatic.

When the Council Fathers returned from Vatican II and in all the follow-ups, they led the way in the reform and renewal of the liturgy…as did the Blessed Paul VI, himself. There was a continuum from the Bishops sitting in Council to the Bishops governing their dioceses after the Council.

The only times I celebrate Mass ad absidem is either when any alternative is not possible or I was presiding while using the vetus ordo.