LifeSite: On the liturgical level, I have read that you have recently chosen to say Mass ad orientem in the chapel of the archbishop’s palace. Why?
Eijk: A journalist who often speaks critically about me has written derisively that it is not even ad orientem because in this chapel, the altar faces the northwest. Why were churches built ad orientem in the past? We turned to pray towards the east, where the Sun of Justice, Christ, arose. But in the end it doesn’t really make any difference: the church can also have a different direction. By the words ad orientem, we mean that we are celebrating Mass turned towards Christ. Someone else wrote critically that now I celebrate Mass by turning my back on the people. No, I do not celebrate Mass with my back to the people, I say it by turning my face towards Christ, towards the tabernacle, so that everyone in the church or chapel is turned towards Christ.
What triggered it all was actually a very practical reason. The chapel is neo-Gothic, but the auxiliary altar that was installed in the 1960s was a Renaissance table – for the art connoisseur, it was obvious that it was not in its place. I must also say that this altar was quite low, which is not practical for the celebrant, especially as we get older. I now have bifocal glasses, and reading has become complicated. It’s awkward.
So there was a reason related to art history, an artistic reason to say that the auxiliary altar didn’t “fit”; a practical reason: it was too low; and there was also a third reason. The high altar of the chapel is decorated with a very beautiful engraved wooden panel representing the holy bishops of Utrecht: Willibrord and others. It is an altar that existed before this building became the archbishop’s palace – the chapel was built on that occasion. You know that in the Netherlands since 1853 it was possible to have an episcopal hierarchy again, but the Archbishop of Utrecht still had to keep a low profile, stay a little under the radar because it was a fairly orthodox Protestant city. He did not have an archbishop’s palace but lived in the residence of the priest of the cathedral. These days we still find the room where he lived, including his box bed. There he had a private chapel where this high altar was located. The auxiliary altar, which does not correspond to it at all, blocked the view of this high altar, with its beautiful panels, for the faithful. So these were a series of practical reasons why we would prefer to celebrate at the main altar.
I must say that I did it several months before the chapel was put into work for its restoration, and that it really suited me very well. Together with the people, we are truly turned towards Christ. I no longer celebrate with my back turned to Christ but looking at Christ, who is present under the sacrament of the Eucharist in the tabernacle. For me, this could be done everywhere, but this is obviously something that cannot be imposed because the Second Vatican Council authorized the presence of an auxiliary altar, and there are also practical reasons: in some churches it would be impossible. But I find it very beautiful to celebrate in this way. I find it enriching.
Plinthos: His Eminence Cardinal Eijk also spoke of the connection between apostasy and the culture of death.
LifeSite: Do you think there is a link between the culture of death and the death of the cultus?
Eijk: Yes, this link certainly exists. Why did the Netherlands secularize so quickly, to the point of being at the forefront of European countries in this respect? This is the result of the growth of prosperity – a real comet trajectory during the 1960s. And what was the result? Successful people have come to be able to live without depending on others, they can become individualistic, and that’s what happened. We live in a hyper-individualistic culture. People do little together, unless it is necessary, for example in a sports association or when it takes several people to defend a collective interest. But for the rest, we rely heavily on ourselves; that’s a very strong trend in our country.
So what happens to the young individualist? He puts himself on a pedestal and sees others as people around him, nothing more; he must distinguish himself from others – he not only has the right to do so, but in fact the duty. And he also does this by choosing his religious convictions, his life vision, his set of ethical values. In practice, the truth is that most people simply let themselves be led by public opinion, by what they see in the media or on social networks or in advertising. But the idea is to feel autonomous.
Such an autonomous individualist has no need for someone who transcends him.
He does not need it in society – the State – and that is how some forgo civil marriage and just live together, justifying it by saying: “It is our relationship, why would anyone else have anything to do with it?” This is a consequence of individualism.
Individualism has also led us to push God to the margins, if we have not become total atheists already. Most Dutch people today no longer believe in a personal God. And if you do not believe in a personal God who is a creator, and who is, in fact, Father to us all, neither do you believe that man was created in the image and likeness of God. Autonomous individualists believe that they themselves have the right to control their own lives and deaths – through euthanasia, assisted suicide – because they no longer need all that, not to mention a God. The rise of individualism, the disappearance of the Christian faith or at least its weakening, in the very large numbers of people, are certainly linked to the appearance of the culture of death. That’s an absolute certainty, there is a direct link.