Bowing to Altar or Tabernacle?

[JReducation]

When the tabernacle was moved from the main altar, after Vatican II, there was a recovery of the “old” monastic custom of bowing before the altar. I place old in quotation marks, because it was never totally lost. It was still done in Benedictine abbeys and in large cathedrals and shrines that did not have a tabernacle on the main altar. But those were few and far between , between the 13th century and the 20th. It was never totally gone.

However, just as kissing the floor and genuflecting was a practice that was rarely seen by the laity prior to the 13th century, bowing to the altar was rarely seen by the laity between the 13th and the 20th century.

The two customs have always existed. They were simply not as obvious to the man in the pew. At one time the man in the pew knew only the bowing. Later he knew ony the genuflection. Today, we have both, because there is diversity in our religious architecture. Some churches have the tabernacle front and center and some do not. Some have the tabernacle on the side, but visible and others have it in a side chapel, where it is less visible.

The rule is that the tabernacle should be in the main body of the church, either cetner or on the side, but very visible. The new ruling is a blend of the ancient Franciscan and Benedictine models, either front and center (Franciscan) or on the side (quasi-Benedictine). Side chapels are allowed, but not preferred.

What never changed was the rule as to when to bow and when to genuflect. Those rules remain in place. In some places, they have become a little blurred. What I mean is that bowing before the tabernacle has become more common. But this was originally for the altar, not the tabernacle. And some people have begun to genuflect before the altar. This was for the tabernacle, not the altar. Obviously, when the tabernacle is front and center, you just genuflect. It is not a sin to bow instead of genuflecting. However, that’s not the Roman custom.

It’s very important not to confuse custom with morals. The custom is to genuflect or to kiss the floor. But it is not a moral law. If a person bows, it is not a sin, just as it is not a sin if a person genuflects before an altar where there is no Blessed Sacrament.

The most important part is that there must always be an act of reverence for the Eucharist in the tabernacle, as was modeled by St. Francis and for the altar of sacrifice, as part of liturgy, as was introduced by the St. Benedict. The tabernacle requires no explanation and the altar is the Calvary.

Finally, there is another ancient monastic custom practiced by monks and friars that has been introduced to the laity since Vatican II. This is the Table of the Word. In the mendicant and monastic orders, the LOTH is very prominent. However, the Liturgy of the Word has always been very elaborate as well. The two are interconnected. The lectern, podium, pulpit, amboe, whatever we call it this week, is the table where God feeds us with his Word in preparation for the Eucharistic Sacrifice and meal. Just as the Litugy of the Word and LOTH are linked, so are the Eucharistic Sacrifice and Eucharistic meal. I like to think of them as the four points on the compass. They all go together. You can’t pull them part any more than you can pull apart a compass and still call it a compass. The proper reverence and solemnity must be given to the four points.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ConvertaKat]

Thank you, BR JR, that was very informative!
I had no idea and often wondered why, at some churches where the Lord and his tabernacle are hidden in the back behind closed doors or screens why people still did the knee bend to the empty altar.

Nice web links too!
Thanks!

 

[Monty61]

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 idea of doing either of these things never occurred to me, nor anyone else, I suspect. “Most people” probably have more ability than you are giving them/us credit for.

Normally it’s not an issue. You go to your pew, genuflect because you cross in front of the tabernacle, pray for a while, then Mass begins. You pay attention to the Mass, the readings, receive Communion, go back to your pew (normally without genuflecting because you come in the side where you don’t cross in front of the tabernacle), kneel down, give thanks that the Lord has given you his body to receive. The Mass ends, then you leave, genuflecting as you leave and cross in front of the tabernacle again.

The Mass is no less valid if there is no tabernacle there with reserved consecrated hosts. Few people, even the most traditionalist, believe that it is. And we know that there are special situations, such as you mention where there will not be a tabernacle.

The objection is that the traditional placement has been changed, and the traditional shape of the Churches have been changed. And because the traditional placement is gone, and the consistency of the placement of the tabernacle is gone, everyone is now confused, which was the point of the OP. She is confused, and I can’t blame her. Modern churches that you enter if you are visiting from out of town, (which I do a lot in my line of work) do not provide you with a map to show where the tabernacle is or if they even have one. In a church with a tradional altar, there’s no question.

Further, most traditionalists believe, (as I do) that all of the confusing changes have been for nothing and have not advanced Catholicism or Catholic worship, but have watered it down.

The altar is not Calvary unless Mass is in progress. I personally will not bow to an empty table style altar with no tabernacle on it and no relic contained in it. To re use your battlefield analogy, would you bow to the hood of a Jeep or a C-ration crate every time you saw that Jeep or crate if it had been used once to celebrate Mass?

 

[JReducation]

The idea of doing either of these things never occurred to me, nor anyone else, I suspect. “Most people” probably have more ability than you are giving them/us credit for.

Normally it’s not an issue. You go to your pew, genuflect because you cross in front of the tabernacle, pray for a while, then Mass begins. You pay attention to the Mass, the readings, receive Communion, go back to your pew (normally without genuflecting because you come in the side where you don’t cross in front of the tabernacle), kneel down, give thanks that the Lord has given you his body to receive. The Mass ends, then you leave, genuflecting as you leave and cross in front of the tabernacle again.

The Mass is no less valid if there is no tabernacle there with reserved consecrated hosts. Few people, even the most traditionalist, believe that it is. And we know that there are special situations, such as you mention where there will not be a tabernacle.

The objection is that the traditional placement has been changed, and the traditional shape of the Churches have been changed. And because the traditional placement is gone, and the consistency of the placement of the tabernacle is gone, everyone is now confused, which was the point of the OP. She is confused, and I can’t blame her. Modern churches that you enter if you are visiting from out of town, (which I do a lot in my line of work) do not provide you with a map to show where the tabernacle is or if they even have one. In a church with a tradional altar, there’s no question.

Further, most traditionalists believe, (as I do) that all of the confusing changes have been for nothing and have not advanced Catholicism or Catholic worship, but have watered it down.

The altar is not Calvary unless Mass is in progress. I personally will not bow to an empty table style altar with no tabernacle on it and no relic contained in it. To re use your battlefield analogy, would you bow to the hood of a Jeep or a C-ration crate every time you saw that Jeep or crate if it had been used once to celebrate Mass?

Slow down here. I hear your passion. But I also know that not everyone is confused. First of all, the younger generation knows to look for the Blessed Sacrament chapel, because it has grown up with that. Second, most churches are not open during the day, only the Blessed Sacrament chapel is and it is usually approached through its own entrance, though most are in the same building as the parish church. And finally, we have to remember that the rule does not say that the Blessed Sacrament be hidden. It says that it should be quite prominent, in the central wall of the santuary or off to the side, but not hidden. If it is in a chapel, the indication should be noticeable. If you go to a parish and this is not the case, then you have a legitimate concern to bring to the pastor.

However, the rule does not say that the tabernacle has to be on the main altar. In fact, the tabernacle should have its own altar. The next time that you tune in to mass on EWTN or to Benediction observe their setup. It was done in conformity to the current rules. You will notice that the Blessed Sacrament is in the center, but on its own altar, not on the altar of sacrifice. The altar of sacrifice is very prominently placed in front, but does not block the view of the tabernacle. The only time that your vision of the tabernacle is impaired is when mass is being celebrated, but that is also the case within the Tridentine mass. In both forms the priest is standing in front of it. It is allowed, because the attention is on the altar.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[MarkThompson]

Slow down here. I hear your passion. But I also know that not everyone is confused. First of all, the younger generation knows to look for the Blessed Sacrament chapel, because it has grown up with that. Second, most churches are not open during the day, only the Blessed Sacrament chapel is and it is usually approached through its own entrance, though most are in the same building as the parish church. And finally, we have to remember that the rule does not say that the Blessed Sacrament be hidden. It says that it should be quite prominent, in the central wall of the santuary or off to the side, but not hidden. If it is in a chapel, the indication should be noticeable. If you go to a parish and this is not the case, then you have a legitimate concern to bring to the pastor.

However, the rule does not say that the tabernacle has to be on the main altar. In fact, the tabernacle should have its own altar. The next time that you tune in to mass on EWTN or to Benediction observe their setup. It was done in conformity to the current rules. You will notice that the Blessed Sacrament is in the center, but on its own altar, not on the altar of sacrifice. The altar of sacrifice is very prominently placed in front, but does not block the view of the tabernacle. The only time that your vision of the tabernacle is impaired is when mass is being celebrated, but that is also the case within the Tridentine mass. In both forms the priest is standing in front of it. It is allowed, because the attention is on the altar.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks for posting that, Brother. One question: is it in fact correct to say that “the tabernacle should have its own altar”? The GIRM states, “303. In building new churches, it is preferable to erect a single altar which in the gathering of the faithful will signify the one Christ and the one Eucharist of the Church.” It also clarifies, “315. It is more in keeping with the meaning of the sign that the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved not be on an altar on which Mass is celebrated.” Am I missing some other instruction which would indicate that the tabernacle should have an altar?

 

[AJV]

The altar is not Calvary unless Mass is in progress. I personally will not bow to an empty table style altar with no tabernacle on it and no relic contained in it. To re use your battlefield analogy, would you bow to the hood of a Jeep or a C-ration crate every time you saw that Jeep or crate if it had been used once to celebrate Mass?

We bow to the altar because a consecrated altar (and an altar may be validly consecrated without relics - it was so even before Vatican II except you needed a faculty) because it is consecrated for its function as the place where the sacrifice takes place. The hood of the jeep is temporary, out of necessity and not consecrated especially for that purpose. And according to the teaching of the Fathers, the altar in the Church represents Christ. It is as the Traditional rite itself says “Altare quidem sanctae Ecclesiae ipse est Christus…”

 

[Aramis]

Thanks for posting that, Brother. One question: is it in fact correct to say that “the tabernacle should have its own altar”? The GIRM states, “303. In building new churches, it is preferable to erect a single altar which in the gathering of the faithful will signify the one Christ and the one Eucharist of the Church.” It also clarifies, “315. It is more in keeping with the meaning of the sign that the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved not be on an altar on which Mass is celebrated.” Am I missing some other instruction which would indicate that the tabernacle should have an altar?

The GIRM use of Altar implies the term specifically means the altar of sacrifice; under the current praxis in the Roman Church, the altar of repose is not used as an altar of sacrifice, and is consecrated differently.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for posting that, Brother. One question: is it in fact correct to say that “the tabernacle should have its own altar”? The GIRM states, “303. In building new churches, it is preferable to erect a single altar which in the gathering of the faithful will signify the one Christ and the one Eucharist of the Church.” It also clarifies, “**315. It is more in keeping with the meaning of the sign that the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved not be on an altar on which Mass is celebrated.” ** Am I missing some other instruction which would indicate that the tabernacle should have an altar?

Notice the part that I have bolded. Here is where we get into our bad habits. I called it an altar. The fact is that it is not really such, because it is not where the sacrifice takes place. It’s really a table or pedestal or even in the wall. Like the rest of humanity, I often feel uncomfortable saying that the tabernacle is on a table behind the altar. Until we come up with a better word for the place where the tabernacle is set, many of us will probably mistakenly refer to it as an “altar”.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Prairie_Rose]

I’m a new Catholic since Easter 2009 and I want to say Thanks for teaching me something I didn’t know before. I was under the impression that when one genuflects before entering the pew before Mass that we are genuflecting before the Body of Christ on the Crucifix hanging on the wall behind the Altar or suspended just above the Altar or slightly behind as I’ve seen in a few Churches. I’ve leaned alot by watching others and most seemed to direct their gaze upward toward the Crucifix - maybe I should pay better attention next time??
I had no idea that we were bowing and genuflecting to the Body of Christ in the Tabernacle and/or the Altar of Sacrifice.
I’m glad to know what is the proper object to direct reverence to - Thanks

 

[ProVobis]

Thank you, BR JR, that was very informative!
I had no idea and often wondered why, at some churches where the Lord and his tabernacle are hidden in the back behind closed doors or screens why people still did the knee bend to the empty altar.

Nice web links too!
Thanks!

I was never taught to bow or genuflect to the altar. To the crucifix or Tabernacle, yes. And if the Blessed Sacrament exposed is exposed, genuflect on two knees. But maybe I was taught wrong.

 

[JReducation]

I was never taught to bow or genuflect to the altar. To the crucifix or Tabernacle, yes. And if the Blessed Sacrament exposed is exposed, genuflect on two knees. But maybe I was taught wrong.

I think it’s common for some confusion to creep in when you introduce the average lay person to conventual (as in monastic) customs and you don’t give him the background. As I explained before, bowing and genuflecting are very ancient customs or gestures of reverence. I’m sure that many religious educators simply assume that people know what to do, why it’s done, how to do it, and where it came from. There are probably many other religious educators who don’t know, because no one taught them.

I had the privilege of teaching sacramental preparation for our Sunday School, which is actually nightly, but that’s another story. I had lay catechists approach me and say, “Brother, I didn’t know that about receiving communion, bowing, genuflecting, praying hands and so forth.” We had parents of the children in my class come up to me and say that they suddenly felt “dumb”, because the kids were going home and explaining things that they (the parents) did not know.

If I may share a funny anecdote. I taught the First Communion kids how to bow correctly (how many degrees and the placement of the hands). The following Sunday the mother and child went to mass. The mother bowed, very respectfully toward the altar, but less than 30 degrees and the hands were in the wrong place. The child shouted out, “MOM, THAT WRONG. ST. BENEDICT IS GOING TO ROLL OVER IN HIS GRAVE.” Needless to say, I almost choked trying to hold back my laughter.

The motto of the story, “If you teach a child the right way, be prepared. Children and fools hold nothing back.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[una_fides]

It’s very important to note that you are not genuflecting to the tabernacle itself. You are genuflecting to the Real Presence of Christ Himself, which is being stored in the tabernacle. If the tabernacle is empty, then you do not genuflect to it. In such an instance you would only bow to the altar where the sacrifice takes place. I’m curious as to whether the bow to the altar had something to do with the relics that were stored there since now obviously tables have no relics in them. You still bow to the table-altar nonetheless because the rubrics state to do so.

 

[una_fides]

JR gave a great explanation of the history. I am wondering if you have any sources you could cite for further reading on that subject.

The only thing that I would question is whether it would be a sin if one did knowingly genuflect to the altar or only bowed to the tabernacle. Since the GIRM explains the Church’s teaching that genuflecting is a sign of adoration, if one were to then knowingly genuflect to the altar then he would be adoring the altar, which is clearly wrong just as it would be to genuflect to a priest. Similarly if one not out of necessity bowed to the tabernacle rather than genuflecting just because he didn’t feel like it and did know of the Church’s law and was thereby unwilling to adore Christ in the tabernacle (perhaps because of disbelief) then that too would be a sin. If the person does not know, which most people do not, then he would be acting improperly and should be instructed but would not personally be guilty of sin.

One thing I’ve been wrestling with lately is that we actually adore the Cross itself with the type of adoration reserved to God. I’ve read Aquinas on this topic and I’m still left scratching my head and wondering how it seems almost like idolatry in a sense since the Cross itself is just a symbol. I realize that by venerating the Cross we are venerating Christ who became united to the Cross and as it is like his throne, but I still don’t see how we worship it with the same degree of adoration as Christ himself (latria). I am a convert from Protestantism so I dont know if this could just be a carry over of some of their thinking for me. I am hoping someone can help shed some light for me on this point. Thanks.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s very important to note that you are not genuflecting to the tabernacle itself. You are genuflecting to the Real Presence of Christ Himself, which is being stored in the tabernacle. If the tabernacle is empty, then you do not genuflect to it.

I disagree. To do so is to ignore the fact that the tabernacle is the Holy of Holies which God detailed at length for us in the Old Testament. When I see the two cherubims on both sides of the tabernacle (amongst other things), I know that God has chosen this spot to allow me to have that special closeness with Him as He intended. The Real Presence of Christ comes to us in a different and special way.

 

[una_fides]

I disagree. To do so is to ignore the fact that the tabernacle is the Holy of Holies which God detailed at length for us in the Old Testament. When I see the two cherubims on both sides of the tabernacle (amongst other things), I know that God has chosen this spot to allow me to have that special closeness with Him as He intended. The Real Presence of Christ comes to us in a different and special way.

Sounds to me like you do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I was just reiterating the teaching of the Church on this matter. Genuflecting is a sign of adoration. The Blessed Virgin Mary–the new Ark of the Covenant–does not even get that degree of adoration (latria) though she does get the highest form of veneration above all the angels (hyper-dulia). The statues of the angels are not worshipping the tabernacle itself! They are worshipping Christ’s Real Presence of the Eucharist, which is stored in the tabernacle. We ourselves become special tabernacles when we receive Holy Communion. But we ourselves are not then worshipped as a result. You worship God, the Creator, not the lesser creation.

 

[Cristiano]

Sounds to me like you do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I was just reiterating the teaching of the Church on this matter. Genuflecting is a sign of adoration. The Blessed Virgin Mary–the new Ark of the Covenant–does not even get that degree of adoration (latria) though she does get the highest form of veneration above all the angels (hyper-dulia). The statues of the angels are not worshipping the tabernacle itself! They are worshipping Christ’s Real Presence of the Eucharist, which is stored in the tabernacle. We ourselves become special tabernacles when we receive Holy Communion. But we ourselves are not then worshipped as a result. You worship God, the Creator, not the lesser creation.

I think that you are being harsh, the poster was not talking about the theology of the real presence but about customs associated with the real presence.

At the same time I would ask ProVobis if he genuflects to the tabernacle when it is empty on Good Friday.

 

[ProVobis]

Sounds to me like you do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Didn’t say that. I do believe in the Real Presence, but I’m only saying there is a distinction. You are the one who implied the tabernacle without the Real Presence of Christ is of little value.

 

[ProVobis]

At the same time I would ask ProVobis if he genuflects to the tabernacle when it is empty on Good Friday.

Thanks for defending me and yes I do and I see others go out of their way to do as well.

In fact, one of the things that is supposed to be done at communion time in the EF is to close the tabernacle doors prior to distribution of communion. And people are supposed to be kneeling all the time the tabernacle doors are open when they are open.

 

[Cristiano]

I just want to add something else by saying that kneeling is not always intended as a sign of worship. For example during the Veneration of the Cross usually people kneel down and kiss the feet of the corpus or the bottom of the cross.

 

[ProVobis]

I just want to add something else by saying that kneeling is not always intended as a sign of worship. For example during the Veneration of the Cross usually people kneel down and kiss the feet of the corpus or the bottom of the cross.

Okay, I don’t quite see the point here. Are we discussing bowing vs kneeling/genuflecting or are we discussing either as a form of worship? It’s more of a sign of respect, I would think.