Turn East, Young Man

When I was dating my now-wife, she attended a parish whose priest decided to begin celebrating Mass ad orientem, meaning that for much of the Eucharistic Rite he faced away from Mass attendees and toward the high altar. (The church, built in the 1920s, was in the traditional cruciform shape and had such an altar.) Having only returned to the Catholic Church of my youth less than two years before, I suppose I was more open than some to this. One Sunday, the priest explained to parishioners why he was doing it, and it made sense to me.

After we got married and my wife moved into my town house, we began attending a parish that was demonstrably traditional in character (number of confession times being one immediate indication). Yet the Mass was not celebrated ad orientem but versus populum, the manner in which most Catholics around the world have become accustomed since the Second Vatican Council. I confess, I was a little sad to no longer see ad orientem, as, at least from what I’d been told, it seemed more traditional and theologically consistent. Yet I certainly don’t remember losing any sleep over it; and, when traveling and attending unusual (if not disconcerting) parishes where one sees initial greetings at the beginning of Mass, tabernacles removed to some side chapel, or little-to-no kneeling, I thanked the Lord above for my home parish.

Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, the great defender of traditional, pre-Vatican II Catholic liturgy, sees things a bit differently. For him, the widespread abandonment of ad orientem is nothing less than a catastrophe plaguing the Church, as he describes in his new, small book, Ad Orientem: The Direction that Changes Everything.

A Mass that refuses to orient itself in continuity with the universal tradition and theology of Christian worship is irregular and subversive—harmful to the priest and people whom it malforms in an anthropocentric mentality, harmful to the Mystical Body in which it perpetuates rupture and discontinuity, and less pleasing to God whom it deprives of due adoration.

Before discussing that controversial claim, let’s review the positive case for ad orientem.

Perhaps the most persuasive argument in favor of ad orientem is that it was the norm in the early Church. For example, we have plenty of archaeological evidence based on the structure of churches in the ancient Mediterranean that the liturgy was performed ad orientem. Patristic sources affirm the same. St. Basil of Caesarea, in his On the Holy Spirit, lists among a variety of beliefs and practices not found in Holy Scripture ad orientem: “We all look to the East at our prayers.” St. John Damascene likewise asserts:

It is not without reason or by chance that we worship toward the east…. Since God is spiritual light and Christ in sacred Scripture is called ‘Sun of Justice’ (Malachi 4:2) and ‘Orient’ (Luke 1:78), the east should be dedicated to His worship.

St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Thomas Aquinas also affirm it.

There are other good reasons beyond the testimony of tradition. Eastward prayer, Kwasniewski tells us, serves as a symbol: after the dark night, the sun rises, bringing light and warmth. It thus “preserves the eschatological orientation of the liturgy.” Ad orientem, in its transcendence, emphasizes solemnity because everyone’s attention, including that of the priest, is directed eastward (and heavenward). Pace modernity, we are not disembodied minds but beings who learn through our senses, including movement and orientation. “In worship especially, the body often grasps what the intellect struggles to name.”

Versus populum undermines and obscures what ad orientem communicates, something the late Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) well understood. In his The Spirit of the Liturgy, he writes: “The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself.” When the priest faces Mass attendees, he seems to be playing the role of facilitating a communal event rather than acting in persona Christi in the divine liturgy.

I remember the priest at my then-girlfriend’s parish telling us a story about a woman who approached him after Mass and complained that ad orientem seemed to her to represent the priest turning his back on the people. He explained to her this couldn’t be further from the truth—the priest is representing the people to God, acting on their behalf. Kwasniewski affirms this:

The ceremonial centrality of the priest in the old rite serves to emphasize that God is the one and only object of worship, since the priest is obviously assimilated to his office as alter Christus, the head of a people on pilgrimage to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Nevertheless, many Catholics, even quite devout ones, have gotten used to Mass being a certain way. Indeed, one would have to be at least in their 60s to remember ad orientem being the norm. Thus, in many parishes, priests—even those sympathetic to the old ways—have sought halfway measures to avoid upsetting parishioners.

For example, many parishes place six candles and a crucifix on the front edge of the altar in order to bring a more traditional mentality to the Mass. Kwasniewski is less than impressed with this option, declaring it not a “valid temporary solution to the dramatic pastoral crisis of the anthropocentric inversion of the Mass.” This measure is not “adequate,” he argues, because it “leaves the false orientation intact” and “sets up an arbitrary barrier between the celebrant and the people.”

Versus populum, Kwasniewski argues, “contradicts” the act of worship and is “antithetical to the virtue of religion that adores God as first beginning and last end.” It “erodes and corrupts the faith of the people as to the very essence of the Mass and the adoration owed to God.” Perhaps most dramatically, he asserts: “It is no exaggeration to say that orthodox Christianity will thrive where public prayer is thus offered and will suffer attrition wherever it has been abandoned.”

These are strong words, ones which might persuade some Catholics that if their parish does not practice ad orientem, they must persuade their pastor to do so—and, if unsuccessful, leave for another parish. Frankly, I’m persuaded by Kwasniewski, and others, that ad orientem is superior to versus populum. Yet, the latter has been the standard for the vast majority of Catholics for more than fifty years. It is a sanctioned, perfectly licit, and valid way to celebrate the Mass. Moreover, contra Kwasniewski, the Church has grown, and continues to grow, where versus populum is the norm and where ad orientem is not so much opposed as simply unknown.

After all, we are talking about the sacrament of sacraments, which, as long as it is celebrated licitly and validly, communicates grace to those willing to receive. Christ continually proves that He is able to work even in liturgical circumstances that are less than ideal. That’s not a reason to not advocate for ad orientem, as I think Catholics should. But we should not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the (sometimes pastorally necessary) good, which versus populum is, simply because it is licit and valid. (To wit, what is a priest to do if explicitly instructed by his bishop not to celebrate ad orientem?) Versus populum may obscure what we perceive in faith, but, thanks and praise be to God, Christ is still working in and through it.