Incorrect.  Please read Sacrosanctum Concilium and some of the related volumes about the reforms introduced by that Council document.  You are citing, I believe, the rationale for the pre-Vatican II liturgy (pick one) and not the conciliar return (recovery) of the early Church forms that were closely based on what Jesus of Nazareth actually did.  That seems to be the differences in the current arguments:  one advocates for the original form(s) of the early church, and the other desires the form(s) developed over the years by clerics that deliberately excluded the non-ordained from any involvement outside of a few responses to what the celebrant says or chants.  This article makes our arguments quite moot, as we now have a clearer magisterial statement from the pope about the need for continued reform.  We really should be discussing further liturgical development, and not rehashing old forms that no longer apply without substantial reasons.  Jesus never said to face East.