Bowing to Altar or Tabernacle?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flatty10
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Flatty10

Guest
Just to clarify…

Is it better to bow to the alter or the tabernacle when approaching or moving past.

It seems kind of funny to bow to the altar in my opinion?
 
Just to clarify…

Is it better to bow to the alter or the tabernacle when approaching or moving past.

It seems kind of funny to bow to the altar in my opinion?
I was taught to bow to the alter and genuflect to the tabernacle. Of course those who have difficulty genuflecting should bow to the tabernacle.
 
What’s called for is a genuflection to the tabernacle (actually, to the Body of Christ in the tabernacle) or a bow to the altar. If they are together, or in the same line of sight, genuflect, don’t bother to bow. Unless, as the other poster noted, you can’t genuflect, in which case certainly bow, deeply if you can.
 
What’s called for is a genuflection to the tabernacle (actually, to the Body of Christ in the tabernacle) or a bow to the altar. If they are together, or in the same line of sight, genuflect, don’t bother to bow. Unless, as the other poster noted, you can’t genuflect, in which case certainly bow, deeply if you can.
What about moving between the altar and the tabernacle during mass (altar servers, lay ministers) do they genuflect each time they pass there?
 
What about moving between the altar and the tabernacle during mass (altar servers, lay ministers) do they genuflect each time they pass there?
I was taught a long time ago you only had to bow/genuflect once.
 
most good churches should have the tabernacle right behind the alter but i know most churches don’t, but if a church is set up that way you don’t have to worry, if the tabernacle is behind the alter all you have to do is bow or genuflect once.

but i am interested to see what people think is the better thing to do, i also wonder if there is any cannon law on this issue
 
In a true Tridentine-celebrating church, you just have to genuflect before the altar, because the Body is already there watching over you. 😉 Of course, in St. Mary’s Cathedral here in Halifax, the Tabernacle is just to the left of the altar (still in a prominent position, thank God). The layout of the cathedral means that one must go up the aisle to the altar, then move to the left (up the Sanctuary steps) to approach the Tabernacle, then left again into the western wall to get into the Sacristy. This requires one to bow before the altar and then genuflect before the Tabernacle, if one wishes to enter the Sacristy.

I am rather confused, though, about one thing: why on Earth do we genuflect toward the altar before we enter a pew in a N.O. church? I went to one very modern church where the Tabernacle was in a small side room, a sort of antechamber to the right of the altar, and yet people still genuflected toward the empty altar before sitting in a pew. Should they not bow?
 
I think the confusion about this is a by product of the changes brought about in the implementation after Vatican II. Before that, the altar, tabernacle, and the crucifix were all three in the same place. So when you bowed or genuflected, you were reverencing all of them at the same time.

However, when the altar was moved so that the priest can face the people, someone noticed that “Hey, now in order to face the people, he has to turn his back on the tabernacle. We Better Move the Tabernacle!” Then all kinds of spurious reasons had to be made to explain why. In some churches the crucifix was also moved.

Some modernists state that the altar is more important than the tabernacle, and that the hosts inside the tabernacle are somehow less important to revererence than the hosts that are on the altar at that particular Mass. There is a book by a Fr. Smolarski, SJ (How Not to Say Mass) that says that “excessive” reverence to the tabernacle is inappropriate.

Personally, if there is a tabernacle that I cross in front of on my way into a pew, I genuflect every time I cross in front of it. I see no purpose in bowing to an empty altar, especially since most modern altars do not even have relics inside in them.

Another twist on this that I don’t like is that at the beginning of the Mass, the veiled chalice is not there. Usually the book with the Gospels is on the altar. The Gospel is proclaimed from the ambo, while the chalice is used on the altar. I don’t get that the chalice is not on the altar, but the book is.

Also, the people who carry the book around to the different locations are taught to wave it in the air. You don’t get any grace from seeing the book, but from listening to and taking to heart what is proclaimed from within it.

I think all of these are just more examples of “change for the sake of change” mentality of OF liturgists. “That’s what we used to do, so we have to come up with an excuses not to do it anymore, and make them sound like they are theologically based”
 
Some modernists state that the altar is more important than the tabernacle, and that the hosts inside the tabernacle are somehow less important to revererence than the hosts that are on the altar at that particular Mass. There is a book by a Fr. Smolarski, SJ (How Not to Say Mass) that says that “excessive” reverence to the tabernacle is inappropriate.
I haven’t read the book you mention, but the passage you mention strikes me as correct. Imagine if a person said, “Oh, I don’t pay attention to any of the readings at Mass – I’m completely focused on the Real Presence of God in the tabernacle!” Although in one sense the Blessed Sacrament reserved in the tabernacle is “more important” than listening to any given Bible passage, you can understand that this would represent an erroneous view of the function and importance of the tabernacle within the liturgical action.

I have read a couple of people on this forum who insist that the tabernacle is a vital part of Mass and that they would reject any Mass where the tabernacle was not present in a prominent location. But there would be no tabernacle in many Masses in a crypt chapel, at a side altar, on a battlefield, etc. Placing excessive emphasis on the importance of the tabernacle to the Mass might lead one to mistakenly think that Masses outside the presence of a tabernacle were somehow “incomplete” or “faulty.”
 
Just to clarify…

Is it better to bow to the alter or the tabernacle when approaching or moving past.

It seems kind of funny to bow to the altar in my opinion?
From the GIRM:

Genuflections and Bows
  1. A genuflection, made by bending the right knee to the ground, signifies adoration, and therefore it is reserved for the Most Blessed Sacrament, as well as for the Holy Cross from the solemn adoration during the liturgical celebration on Good Friday until the beginning of the Easter Vigil.
During Mass, three genuflections are made by the priest celebrant: namely, after the showing of the host, after the showing of the chalice, and before Communion. Certain specific features to be observed in a concelebrated Mass are noted in their proper place (cf. nos. 210-251).

If, however, the tabernacle with the Most Blessed Sacrament is present in the sanctuary, the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers genuflect when they approach the altar and when they depart from it, but not during the celebration of Mass itself.

Otherwise all who pass before the Most Blessed Sacrament genuflect, unless they are moving in procession.

Ministers carrying the processional cross or candles bow their heads instead of genuflecting.
  1. A bow signifies reverence and honor shown to the persons themselves or to the signs that represent them. There are two kinds of bows: a bow of the head and a bow of the body.
A bow of the head is made when the three Divine Persons are named together and at the names of Jesus, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of the Saint in whose honor Mass is being celebrated.

A bow of the body, that is to say a profound bow, is made to the altar; during the prayers Munda cor meum (Almighty God, cleanse my heart) and In spiritu humilitatis (Lord God, we ask you to receive); in the Creed at the words Et incarnatus est (by the power of the Holy Spirit . . . and became man); in the Roman Canon at the words Supplices te rogamus (Almighty God, we pray that your angel). The same kind of bow is made by the deacon when he asks for a blessing before the proclamation of the Gospel. In addition, the priest bows slightly as he speaks the words of the Lord at the consecration.
 
So if i was to do the first reading say, and the tabernacle is placed to the left of the altar, and in doing my reading i do not pass in front of the tabernacle. I should genuflect towards the tabernacle and not bow towards the altar?
 
So if i was to do the first reading say, and the tabernacle is placed to the left of the altar, and in doing my reading i do not pass in front of the tabernacle. I should genuflect towards the tabernacle and not bow towards the altar?
No, during Mass you genuflect if you pass in front of the tabernacle (except during the Communion procession). If you cross the altar you bow. I don’t have to pass in front of either the altar or the Tabernacle when I go read so I was trained to simply go to the ambo.
 
ok cool, whats the significance in bowing to the altar then? i don’t quite understand it.
 
I haven’t read the book you mention, but the passage you mention strikes me as correct. Imagine if a person said, “Oh, I don’t pay attention to any of the readings at Mass – I’m completely focused on the Real Presence of God in the tabernacle!” "
This is faulty reasoning because it assumes that the two are mutually exclusive. They are not. I (and any properly catechised Catholic) am perfectly capable of being in awe and reverence for the for the physical presence of Jesus in the tabernacle, and simultaneously listen to his word proclaimed from the pulpit. Just as anyone is perfectly capable of listening to your voice as you speak to me while simultaneously seeing your face phyisically.

The other cases you mention are special and do not apply to normal Masses. Men on the battlefield obviously realize the priest does not carry a tabernacle around in a backpack with consecrated hosts in it for fear it would be damaged or taken into the wrong hands.
 
This is faulty reasoning because it assumes that the two are mutually exclusive. They are not. I (and any properly catechised Catholic) am perfectly capable of being in awe and reverence for the for the physical presence of Jesus in the tabernacle, and simultaneously listen to his word proclaimed from the pulpit. Just as anyone is perfectly capable of listening to your voice as you speak to me while simultaneously seeing your face phyisically.
Sorry, most people are not capable of giving complete reverence to the Blessed Sacrament while simultaneously digesting and praying on a Biblical reading. This is why they do not throw Bible studies or give pious lectures during Adoration, and why you would complain if they tried to.
The other cases you mention are special and do not apply to normal Masses. Men on the battlefield obviously realize the priest does not carry a tabernacle around in a backpack with consecrated hosts in it for fear it would be damaged or taken into the wrong hands.
Actually, it may be normal in a rural chapel, a military chapel, a college chapel, or the like. The point is that focusing too much on the tabernacle when you do have it at Mass may make you think the Mass is missing something when you don’t have it. The Mass is 100% complete without a tabernacle.

It’s like when the decision was made several centuries ago to cease distributing the Chalice at Mass in order to reinforce the fact that one does not need to receive the Precious Blood to have a complete Communion. Something that most people like and has good symbolic value – being permitted to receive under both species – was suppressed to correct people’s mistaken thinking that it was necessary. Likewise, in not a few cases the thinking behind moving the tabernacle was that people had falsely come to see it as necessary and even central to the Mass, and they required an adjustment.

Personally, I like have the tabernacle front-and-center. I also like receiving under both species, though. Sometimes when your parents say “no” it’s for your own growth and good, though, even if you don’t understand it at the time. 🙂
 
I think the confusion about this is a by product of the changes brought about in the implementation after Vatican II. Before that, the altar, tabernacle, and the crucifix were all three in the same place. So when you bowed or genuflected, you were reverencing all of them at the same time.
Only “usually”… not always. Some Cathedrals had the tabernacle elsewhere. Some not even in the sanctuary end of the building…
 
It’s the reverence for the place where the sacrifice is re-presented.
Yeah but like would we bow to the hill of calvary if we were present at that time?

Also should we bow at an empty tabernacle then, as it is the place where the body is housed?
 
No, during Mass you genuflect if you pass in front of the tabernacle (except during the Communion procession). If you cross the altar you bow. I don’t have to pass in front of either the altar or the Tabernacle when I go read so I was trained to simply go to the ambo.
What about bowing to the altar outside of Mass? Parishioners at one of the churches I attend bow to the altar before and after Mass (like when entering or exiting a pew), but some only do that and don’t genuflect toward the Blessed Sacrament (which is clear on the other side of the church). I have only genuflected toward the Blessed Sacrament outside of Mass.
 
I realize that I’m joining a conversation in progress, so excuse me if I repeat what may have been said. It is important to understand where the bowing, genuflecting, tabernacle and altar all came from.

Until the 1200s tabernacles were not on the main altar. The tabernacle on the main altar was an innovation introduced to Roman Catholicism by St. Francis of Assisi. Though it is beleived that others had already started this on a smaller scale. When our Holy Father built our first chapels, they were very small in comparison to the large monastic churches and cathedrals of the time. There was no other place to put the tabernacle but on the main altar.

Let’s understand that Francis wanted the tabernacle present, because of his great devotion to the Eucharist. But even he was very accustomed to the governing Benedictine tradition of the time. What was that?

The tabernacle was in a chapel where the monks prayed. The mass was celebrated in the abbey Church. They were literally two separate spaces. The practice was carried outside of the monasteries to the cathedral parishes. The monks had the custom of bowing before the altar at the beginning, during and at the end of the mass. That’s where bowing before the altar came from. They did not bow to the altar outside of mass times, probably because they were not in the abbey church, except for mass.

Where did the genuflection come from? The ancient custom was to kiss the floor when entering the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. Most lay people rarely saw this, because the Blessed Sacrament was not in the main church.

When the Franciscans took the monastic traditions outside of the enclosure things began to develop rather quickly. Like the monks before them, the friars kissed the floor when they entered the chapel, because the tabernacle was on the main altar. The chapel was the place where they prayed the Liturgy of the Hours and where they celebrated mass. They did not have two spaces as the monks had.

It was a very common custom of the time to kneel before the lord (king, duke, count, etc). While the friars went down and kissed the floor, the laity tried to follow suit with the reverence that they knew. They genuflected, as they had done for the lords of their day and ancient days before that.

As we see, the two customs of bowing to the altar and prostrating before the Blessed Sacrament become blended when the tabernacle and the altar of sacrifice are united in the same space.

The Franciscans and Dominicans grew, almost explosively. Soon both orders had friars and friaries all over Europe. Both professed very austere poverty. Both had very small places of worship, unlike the Benedictine and later the Cistercians who had large monastic complexes.

As the Franciscans and Dominicans replaced the Benedictines and the Cistercians pulled the Benedictine tradition back into the enclosure, the laity became more Franciscan and Dominican by default. Eventually, what had been practices that were particular to those two orders, Franciscans and Dominicans, became common practices in the Church. As new religious communities were founded, they did what the early Franciscans had done. The Franciscans took from the Benedictine abbey and the other communities took from the Franciscans and Dominicans. Eventually, all of those apostolic communities that were opening churches and parishes around Europe carried with them the custom of a tabernacle on the main altar. It ceased to be a mendicant custom and became common to a larger pool of people, thanks to the missionary work of all these active religious communities that followed.

Once you had the tabernacle fairly well established on the main altar, the custom of bowing to the altar at the beginning, middle and end of mass, was lost. It was replaced by what we still call the “venia” today. To us, friars, it is kissing the floor. To the laity it was going doing on the knee, at least.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top