Bowing to the Priest at Mass?

Not every reverent gesture is actually traditional

Deep Dive Podcast Discussion:

I SAW IT AGAIN at Mass yesterday, a curious gesture appearing in traditional-leaning parishes that is becoming something of a small fad. A few individuals are making a deep, formal bow toward the priest during the entrance and recessional processions—a gesture some mistakenly interpret as directed toward the crucifix. While the impulse for reverence is good, it’s worth considering: does this particular gesture actually belong to the Church's liturgical inheritance?

After observing this pattern at several parishes over the past couple of years, this gesture is clearly and consistently directed toward the priest himself, not the crucifix.

A profound bow, right as the priest passes by, most likely is intended to show reverence for his priesthood and for Christ whom he represents as an alter Christus standing in persona Christi at Mass.

I find it genuinely encouraging to see a growing number of Catholics today, especially young people, drawn to tradition, with a heartfelt desire to rediscover important liturgical attitudes and venerable customs that have too often faded amid the post-conciliar upheaval of the past sixty years. That instinct is good and should be nurtured, but also guided. Unauthorized novelties introduced into the New Rite of the Mass have fed the “almost anything goes” liturgical chaos since Vatican II that the Church is still slowly recovering from.

When a Gesture Looks Traditional but Isn’t

However well-intentioned, bowing to the priest as he processes to or from the sanctuary is not part of the Church's traditional liturgy. It seems to have arisen only fairly recently and is now being mistaken for something long-standing, as though it had always been part of the Church’s liturgical tradition.¹ But truly traditional piety delivers us from the temptation to invent such things.

One common objection insists that “there are no rubrics for the laity at the TLM,” so gestures like bowing to the priest must be harmless or even fitting. But that claim evaporates the moment one consults authoritative sources such as Adrian Fortescue and J. B. O’Connell’s The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, long recognized as the standard reference guide to the Mass’s ceremonial norms.

For centuries before Vatican II’s liturgical reforms, the behavior of the laity at Mass was governed by immemorial custom, diocesan norms, and universal law. The absence of printed rubrics is not the same as the absence of binding rules. As Fortescue notes in The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described (e.g., Preface, p. xiii), the congregation’s deportment is regulated by custom, recognized and approved by the bishop, and long tradition, even if not printed in the Missal.

This work outlines in detail when the faithful are to stand, sit, kneel, make the sign of the cross, strike the breast, etc. Chapter XX, The Faithful at Mass, begins with “Rules for the Laity At Mass” and nowhere in the following seven pages of explanation nowhere mentions bowing to the priest (15th ed., pp. 242-248).

The book describes precisely every moment of the Traditional Latin Mass and prescribes down to the minutest details everything that should take place (see especially pp. 242-248, but also 44-45). In every place where bowing or reverence is mentioned, nowhere does it call for, or even contemplate, the lay faithful bowing to the celebrant as he enters or leaves the sanctuary.

The absence of any mention of the lay faithful bowing to the priest as he processes into or out of the sanctuary is not accidental. The Roman Rite directs reverence to the altar, the cross, and above all Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, but never to the priest celebrant moving through the aisle. Had this gesture actually belonged to the traditional Mass, Fortescue and O’Connell would surely have mentioned it, but they don’t.²

A number of other arguments in this article’s comments section have attempted to establish this innovation as something “ancient,” and all of them fail. These include the erroneous claim that bowing to the priest during the processional “is a traditional part of the Eastern Divine Liturgy that some Catholics are ‘borrowing’” (not true), or that the Mass “technically begins with the priest making the opening sign of the cross,” therefore assuming that anything that happens before that moment, such as bowing to the priest, is legitimate (also not true), and several other equally spurious claims.

In the New Rite of the Mass, which is the focus of this article, there are, of course, the prescribed profound bows made by the altar servers at various points during the Mass, for example, when incensing the priest before turning to incense the congregation, or when he hands the cruets to them after he pours the water and wine during the offertory, etc.

How Liturgical Customs Develop Legitimately

Some say that this is how legitimate liturgical traditions actually did develop over the centuries. But that’s not historically true. Catholic Tradition surrounding the Mass falls into three distinct categories.

First, organic liturgical developments that were guided and fostered by the Magisterium of the Church. Things like approved feast days and processional customs that began locally and had to be approved by a bishop, a synod of council, or even the pope himself before they were permitted to be adopted universally. Feast days such as Corpus Christi and eucharistic processions emerged locally and developed organically over time but only under the approval of the local bishops and eventually with the express papal approval before such customs enjoyed that status of universal acceptance.

The second category includes private devotional customs such as lighting candles before icons or other sacred images of Christ, Our Lady, and the saints, making the sign of the cross, genuflecting before entering the pew or when passing in front of the tabernacle, etc. These are legitimate pious devotions practiced by the laity that enjoy episcopal approbation even though they were not formally decreed or codified.

The third category involves liturgical innovations among the faithful at Mass that were neither approved by the Magisterium or part of the Church’s longstanding traditions and, as in some cases, have been discouraged and even forbidden, but have still flourished in some sectors. This category would include such practices as holding hands during the Our Father and raising hands during the Doxology, and liturgical dance.

The new fad among some of bowing to the priest as he processes in falls into this category. Ironically, given the unfortunate proliferation of holding hands during the Our Father has become in many parishes where the New Rite of the Mass is celebrated, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal’s rubrics specifically prohibit such practices, even if introduced by a priest (see 22:3).

Yes, legitimate custom develops gradually, but not spontaneously. The feasts of All Saints and All Souls began locally and were later adopted by the universal Church after centuries of discernment. The key difference is that such practices unfolded in continuity with liturgical tradition and were ultimately ratified by ecclesiastical authority.

A gesture introduced by lay initiative in the 21st century, even if widely imitated, is not yet a custom in the canonical sense. Canons 24-30 (1917 Code) allows for customs praeter legem (i.e. beyond the law), but only if they are reasonable, uninterrupted for 40 years, and not rejected by competent authority. Popular usage alone does not confer legitimacy.

Appeals to how elements like Psalm 42 and the Last Gospel entered the rite aren’t analogous. Those were organically absorbed into the rite through long ecclesial usage and eventually codified. What we’re discussing here is not something that developed within the liturgical structure, but something introduced from outside it, by the laity, and without canonical or ritual foundation.

The critical distinction is this: Centuries-old customs that emerged slowly across the Latin Church (kneeling for the Canon, standing for the Gospel) cannot be equated with a gesture that has no precedent in the Roman tradition until a few years ago. Treating both as equally “customary” the moment someone starts doing them collapses the category of custom into mere local fashion. That’s not how Catholic liturgical tradition develops.

A few years ago, traditional liturgical commentator Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (widely known among his readers as Fr. Z) addressed the question of laypeople bowing toward the priest as he processes to the altar. He writes:

“These small signs of respect are not harmful. They can be helpful in a time when decorum is at low ebb. While we mustn’t exaggerate by piling them on, these gestures are helpful on the human level.”³

While I appreciate Fr. Z’s pastoral instinct to encourage reverence wherever it appears, I must respectfully disagree with his accommodation of this practice. If Sacrosanctum Concilium 22.3’s prohibition against adding to the liturgy means anything, it must bind us when innovations appear reverent, not just when they appear progressive. The principle matters more than the specific gesture. Traditional Catholics cannot defeat liturgical progressivism by adopting its methodology with different aesthetics. As Sacrosanctum Concilium says, no one, “even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” (see 22.3).

It’s not Eastern either

This particular gesture of respect is also not part of Eastern Catholic liturgical tradition. In rites such as the Byzantine, Maronite, and Chaldean, entrance processions are highly structured and symbolically rich. Reverence is expressed through prescribed actions such as the Sign of the Cross, bows directed toward icons or the altar, and communal responses rooted in centuries of liturgical development. The priest himself is not the focal point of physical gestures from the congregation during these processions.

In the Byzantine Divine Liturgy (of St. John Chrysostom), for example, the Little Entrance (with the Gospel Book) and the Great Entrance (with the Eucharistic gifts) are moments of profound reverence. Congregants typically stand or make the Sign of the Cross at appointed moments, such as when the most holy Names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned, but they do not bow to the priest as he passes. (I know this firsthand because my wife and I were registered parishioners at a Ruthenian Byzantine parish and attended Divine Liturgy every Sunday for three years).

This is true as well in the Maronite, Melkite, and Chaldean Rites. As the clergy enter, the faithful remain standing and participate through sung responses and reverent posture. Any bodily gestures of reverence are directed toward the altar, the Gospel Book, at the mention of the Blessed Trinity, the Name of Jesus, the holy icons of Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Holy Eucharist, etc., but none toward the priest personally. See:

• Eparchy of Parma, “The Divine Liturgy”:
  https://parma.org/the-divine-liturgy

• Melkite Greek Catholic Church, “An Explanation of the Divine Liturgy”:
  https://melkite.org/faith/faith-worship/an-explanation-of-the-divine-liturgy

• Chaldean Catholic Rite,

https://chaldeanchurch.org

• St. Maron Church, “Liturgy Guide”:
  https://www.stmaron.org/liturgy-guide

• St. Joseph Maronite Church, “The Divine Liturgy”:
  https://sjmaronite.org/index.php/en-us/the-mysteries/divine-liturgy.html

These authoritative sources undercut claims that bowing to the priest as he enters or exits is a broadly “traditional” Christian practice shared across East and West, or one that some Catholics are “borrowing” from the Eastern Rites. Not true.

Consider also a hypothetical scenario in which Byzantine Catholics suddenly began genuflecting before entering the pew, kneeling to receive Holy Communion, or kneeling throughout the Eucharistic prayer because they had “borrowed” this custom from the Latin Rite. Those practices would rightly be seen as odd and unwelcome and would be rejected. The same principle applies in reverse.

A faux “tradition” in the making?

That’s why I find this emerging fad worth addressing. The gesture is spreading among faithful, well-intentioned Catholics who desire to express reverence, but may not fully realize that although this gesture toward the priest looks traditional, it isn’t. Catholic liturgical tradition is not invented on the fly. It is transmitted faithfully and unfolds organically, deliberately, as rooted in the Church’s lived experience. The Mass is not ours to embellish or customize to suit individual preferences. Its structure and elements do not arise from personal predilections, no matter how pious. Post-Vatican II, attempts to counter modern irreverence by introducing reverent-looking innovations are also wrong.

The very meaning of tradition, properly understood, is embedded in the biblical and apostolic vocabulary of transmission. St. Paul uses the Greek verb παραδίδωμι (paradidōmi), which means “hand on,” “deliver,” “transmit.”

“Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered (παρέδωκα—paredōka) them to you” (1 Corinthians 11:2, RSV-2CE).

A few verses later, he applies the same principle explicitly to the Eucharistic celebration:

“For I received (παρέλαβον—parelabon) from the Lord what I also delivered (παρέδωκα—paredōka) to you” (1 Corinthians 11:23, RSV-2CE).

Understanding the Hierarchy of Signs in the Mass

The traditional Mass is marked by a careful and precise theology of signs. The altar and crucifix receive the bow because they represent Christ directly. The 1962 rubrics direct the congregation’s profound bow to the altar and crucifix, not to the priest (Ritus Servandus II, 1; Caeremoniale Episcoporum).

That theological structure is intentional. The priest acts in persona Christi, but he himself is not the object of public liturgical reverence. The altar represents Christ Himself. Redirecting the congregation's collective bow toward the priest during processions, however well-meaning, shifts the symbolic center of gravity. Over time, such shifts distort the priest-laity distinction that the Traditional Rite protects so well and carefully.

Why Small Things Matter

Some might understandably wonder why, given all the truly urgent problems in the Church today, I would bother writing about something as seemingly inconsequential as this. Isn’t bowing to a priest really a non-issue? Aren’t there more pressing matters to worry about? In one sense, yes, and I would agree. But well-intentioned progressives introduced trends like communion in the hand and extraordinary ministers using the exact same logic: “It’s just a small gesture; why make a fuss?”

If traditional Catholics adopt that same methodology—adding things we personally prefer because they seem reverent—we’ve effectively conceded the argument to those who undermined the Mass in the first place. Either liturgical law binds everyone consistently, or it’s meaningless.

This isn’t an exercise in legalism. It’s respect for the structure, meaning, and theological coherence of the liturgical rites we’ve received. The faithful cannot legitimately alter those rites, sui generis, by introducing new devotional gestures into the Mass, even if well-intentioned, respectful, pious, etc. It’s the same reason that fashions among the lay faithful such as holding hands during the Our Father, laypeople mimicking the priest’s orans posture, or inviting children to gather around the altar during the consecration, are examples of this problematic tendency among some to create their own liturgical customs.

None of these practices are permitted, much less prescribed, by the Church’s liturgical rubrics, and in some cases (such as the orans gesture or the faithful gathering around the altar), are explicitly prohibited (GIRM).¹

This isn’t nitpicking or “straining at gnats.” Every ad hoc novelty introduced into the Mass has the potential to obscure, rather than enrich it.

My thesis is that liturgical soundness is not determined by popularity or random folk innovation. It is measured by fidelity to the received rites and the theological meaning they embody. If a practice lacks grounding in the structure of the Mass itself and has not been received by the Church, it remains dubious, regardless of how many individuals or communities adopt it.

That other TLM communities may practice this gesture does not validate it. In the wake of Vatican II, many inappropriate practices, such as hand-holding during the Our Father, applause in church, spontaneous lay blessings, spread by imitation before being eventually curtailed by the Church (even if not entirely).

Authentic Reverence Doesn’t Need Embellishment

The traditional Mass and the New Rite are something we receive, not a folk expression the lay faithful are at liberty to customize ad hoc. The liturgical patrimony Catholics have received is far richer than anything we could add to it.

The Church already calls for many traditional, theologically grounded gestures that express reverence without need for innovation: genuflect before Our Lord in the tabernacle, bow reverently when receiving Holy Communion, make the sign of the cross slowly and deliberately. These are real, time-honored, and truly traditionally Catholic forms of liturgical piety.

Catholic liturgical tradition is not invented or improvised, it’s handed down. The Mass is not ours to embellish or customize based on individual preferences. We owe it the kind of Catholic fidelity that resists the impulse to add to its signs, even ones that seem pious, if they have not been received through Holy Mother Church's own organic, traditional development and history.

Let’s not confuse reverent-looking innovations with the Church’s time-honored traditional customs. Those who bow to the priest often do so because they genuinely long for a deeper experience of the sacred and perceive this gesture to be a way to honor that longing. I share and deeply respect that longing. But those same good instincts need guidance.

---

1. ¹ On prescribed bows during the liturgy, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (section 275) states:

   “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 . . . made 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.”
   There is no mention of the congregation bowing toward or nodding to the priest.
   — United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. General Instruction of the Roman Missal: Chapter II: The Structure of the Mass, Its Elements, and Its Parts, section 275. https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/girm-chapter-2.

   ² Adrian Fortescue and J. B. O’Connell, The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, 15th ed. (London: Burns & Oates, 2009).

   ³ John Zuhlsdorf, “ASK FATHER: Bowing to the priest when he enters for Mass,” Fr. Z’s Blog, October 2023. https://wdtprs.com/2023/10/ask-father-bowing-to-the-priest-when-he-enters-for-mass.

   ⁴ See The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Byzantine usage rubrics.

   ⁵ Byzantine Daily Worship, ed. Archbishop Joseph Raya (Alleluia Press, 1969).

   ⁶ Alexander Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1986).

   ⁷ “Explanation of the Maronite Divine Liturgy and Its Traditions,”

   https://sjmaronite.org; Beggiani, Chorbishop Seely. “A Guide to the Maronite Divine Liturgy,” Eparchy of Saint Maron of Brooklyn, https://www.stmaron.org/liturgy-guide.

   ⁸ The Order of the Mass: The Liturgy of the Blessed Apostles According to the Chaldean Church of the East. Chaldean Catholic Eparchy. https://chaldeanchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Mass-English-People-with-Maran-Isho.pdf.

Copyright © 2025 Patrick Madrid. All rights reserved. All text, images, and other original content are the property of the author.

I hope you enjoyed this post. If so, please tap the Share button above to post it on X or Instagram or to send it to someone who might be interested in it. And if you enjoy thoughtful, friendly, faith related content, you’ll appreciate my daily program on Relevant Radio. Listen here or get the free Relevant Radio app.