The Case for ad orientem

During the Sacra Liturgia conference being held in London on July 5, Robert Cardinal Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, made some comments that sent ripples through the Roman Catholic Church.  Not for the first time, he recommended that priests celebrate the Mass "ad orientem," which literally means "towards the East."  This is as opposed to the "versus populum" celebration we most typically see today.  He further recommended that this begin on the first Sunday of Advent, for reasons I will explain.  As of yet, there has been no official change.  By why would the Church want the priest to celebrate the Mass "with his back towards the people" as some say?  There are four main arguments that I would like to highlight.

First, there is the argument of precedent.  To fully make this argument would take more time than I have here.  Essentially, if we look at the history of the Liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church, Mass, and indeed all prayer, was always celebrated facing the East up until roughly fifty years ago.  There were a few reasons, but in essence it was because all people were to be facing the Lord, the focus of the Mass, and He was to come from the East.  This, by the way, is why Cardinal Sarah recommended the change be made in Advent, the time when we most explicitly anticipate the coming of the Lord.  The other argument of precedent is that all other Catholic rites, the Tridentine Mass or the Extraordinary Form, the Ordinariate, as well as all Eastern Catholic rites, celebrate Mass "ad orientem."  Only the "Novus Ordo," the new Mass coming from the Second Vatican Council, allows for Mass to be said "versus populum," and even then it is a choice.  Returning to Mass "ad orientem" would be a return to history and in solidarity with all other Catholics.  (For more on this topic, I highly recommend Uwe Michael Lang's Turning Towards the Lord.)

Second, there is the spiritual argument.  This is where many people may ask, "why is the priest turning his back to us?"  The important thing is to think of "ad orientem" as the priest leading the people facing the Lord, in the form of the crucifix behind the altar.  There is also a practical side to this argument.  Priests, and all those at the altar, are humans.  Humans can get distracted.  If the priest is facing the people, any number of things can distract him from what should be the focus of the Mass: God.  If, however, the priest is facing Christ, his attention is completely focused on Christ.  I can also say this applies to the people in the pews.  Instead of watching every movement of the priest and being distracted by his movements or his clothing or anything else, they, too, can focus completely on Christ.

Third, there is the argument of translation.  In the original Latin of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (the document that guides all Liturgical worship), paragraph no. 299 states "Altare extruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et ineo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit."  The English translation has this as "The altar should be built separate from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible."  Thus, it sounds as though Mass "versus populum" is desirable.  The problem is that this is a bad translation, as many Latin scholars have noted.  The final clause beginning with "quod" actually refers to the first part of the sentence, and thus more accurately means "the altar should be built separate from the wall, which is desirable wherever possible," etc. 

Finally, there is the argument from the Missal itself.  Numerous times it remarks that the priest at certain points is facing the people.  This would not be necessary to mention if he were already doing so.  The final indication is that when the priest consumes the Body of Christ, he is to be "facing the altar," as opposed to facing the people.  Again, if facing the altar meant facing the people, there would be no reason to distinguish the two.

This is not to say that celebrating Mass "versus populum" is wrong, since clearly it is the norm now.  Whether the Mass is said "ad orientem" or "versus populum" at the moment is up to the discretion of the priest.  It will be interesting to see if any changes or further recommendations will be made.