Crossing Gospel Reading with Thumb?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AltarMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AltarMan

Guest
Is it right or wrong to cross the Gospel reading in one’s hand missal or missalette prior to crossing one’s forehead, lips and heart before the proclimation of the Gospel? I have always done this and while I can’t find a rubric for it, it’s not a delict or abuse, is it? I can certainly understand that it’s not required, but is it wrong?

The reason I ask is that I served Mass yesterday and I did what I described above as I always do. It’s never been an issue either in the pews or in the sanctuary (I don’t make a show of it.) A local “liturgist” (who never attends our particular Mass) was there and I thought she was gonna have a stroke after Mass. “There is no reason for you to use a missalette or to cross the reading in it!!” Is this such a big deal? I just walked away, but I felt like telling her to step-off…
 
As far as i know, the priest is the one that crosses the missal. (correct me if i am wrong)
 
That is an interesting question!
:hmmm:

Well, here is the obligatory GIRM citation (with emphasis added):134. At the ambo, the priest opens the book and, with hands joined, says, Dominus vobiscum (The Lord be with you), and the people respond, Et cum spiritu tuo (And also with you). Then he says, Lectio sancti Evangelii (A reading from the holy gospel), **making the sign of the cross with his thumb on the book and on his forehead, mouth, and breast, which everyone else does as well. **The people say the acclamation Gloria tibi, Domine (Glory to you, Lord)… One could interpret this to mean that “everyone else” makes the sign of the cross on their own books (missalettes) and on their own foreheads. One could also rightfully assume it means only the latter. I have been using a missalette for only the last few months, and the thought never crossed my mind (no pun intended).

Maybe our friends who can tell us how faithful the English translation is to the original Latin text:134. In ambone sacerdos aperit librum et, manibus iunctis, dicit: Dóminus vobíscum, populo respondente: Et cum spíritu tuo, et deinde Léctio Sancti Evangélii, **pollice signans librum et seipsum in fronte, ore et pectore, quod faciunt **et ceteri omnes. Populus acclamat, dicens: Glória tibi, Dómine…
 
The Latin is as ambiguous as the English. 😦

I do not think that this is a big deal one way or the other. I can say that the custom has generally been that only the priest or deacon reading or singing the gospel makes the cross on the text, and that everyone makes the sign over their foreheads, lips and chests. The priest or deacon signs the actual text from which the gospel is proclaimed, which is why the others would not.

I was surprised to hear about this being done on a missalette in the sanctuary. Normally those who serve do not use missalettes, the presumption being that they are listening to the proclamation of the Word, and otherwise know all responses to be made.
 
40.png
Chatter163:
The Latin is as ambiguous as the English. 😦
Click to expand...
That’s how it appeared to me with the piecemeal translation that I tried to assemble. Thanks for the clarification!

When one reads the preceding paragraph, it seems the “book” to which 134 refers is the Book of the Gospels that is in possession of the priest at the ambo:133. If the Book of the Gospels is on the altar, the priest then takes it and goes to the ambo, carrying the Book of the Gospels slightly elevated and preceded by the lay ministers, who may carry the thurible and the candles. Those present turn towards the ambo as a sign of special reverence to the Gospel of Christ.Therefore, the wording of 134 likely was never intended to refer to any other book. But could it?:hmmm:

The 1970 Missal states this:

He makes the sign of the cross on the book, and then on his forehead, lips and breast. The people sign themselves in a similar fashion and respond: Glory to you, Lord.Interestingly, the 1975 Missal makes no mention of the people’s action at this particular moment in the Liturgy.
 
Rather than try to interpret what is clearly ambiguous, let’s look at the reason for the actions themselves. The priest/deacon signs the book because it is the word there that he will proclaim. He, and everyone else, sign themselves as a reminder that the Word of God is to be in/on their minds, on their lips and in their heart. Since the missalette is not a source for the proclamation it should not be signed.

Now, there are liturgical nazis who say the misalette should not even be used becuase we recongize the Word proclaimed as the “Word of the Lord” or as the “Gospel of the Lord.” It is not the printed word. However, that notwithstanding, the missalette should not be signed simply because the proclamation is not coming from it (and no priest or deacon should use it for a proclamation of the Gospel).

Is it an abuse? Probably in the most technical sense since it is the introduction of a new rite (the Signing of the Missalette) into the Mass. What it really is would be more correctly called a “personal action” rather than an abuse. It is like the Hispanic Catholics who tend to make a very formal, mutli-action sign of the cross.

My suggestion is to not do this when in front of a congregation as a server, but if you feel the need when in the pews and, therefore, less visable – I wouldn’t stop you!

Deacon Ed
 
40.png
Chatter163:
The Latin is as ambiguous as the English. 😦

I do not think that this is a big deal one way or the other. I can say that the custom has generally been that only the priest or deacon reading or singing the gospel makes the cross on the text, and that everyone makes the sign over their foreheads, lips and chests. The priest or deacon signs the actual text from which the gospel is proclaimed, which is why the others would not.

I was surprised to hear about this being done on a missalette in the sanctuary. Normally those who serve do not use missalettes,** the presumption being that they are listening to the proclamation of the Word**, and otherwise know all responses to be made.
Click to expand...
One can listen and read at the same time. That’s the only reason I use a missalette – it helps me to absorb.

By the way, the Bible is the "word of God. The “Word of God” however is Jesus Christ…
 
Deacon Ed:
Rather than try to interpret what is clearly ambiguous, let’s look at the reason for the actions themselves. The priest/deacon signs the book because it is the word there that he will proclaim. He, and everyone else, sign themselves as a reminder that the Word of God is to be in/on their minds, on their lips and in their heart. Since the missalette is not a source for the proclamation it should not be signed.

Now, there are liturgical nazis who say the misalette should not even be used becuase we recongize the Word proclaimed as the “Word of the Lord” or as the “Gospel of the Lord.” It is not the printed word. However, that notwithstanding, the missalette should not be signed simply because the proclamation is not coming from it (and no priest or deacon should use it for a proclamation of the Gospel).

Is it an abuse? Probably in the most technical sense since it is the introduction of a new rite (the Signing of the Missalette) into the Mass. What it really is would be more correctly called a “personal action” rather than an abuse. It is like the Hispanic Catholics who tend to make a very formal, mutli-action sign of the cross.

My suggestion is to not do this when in front of a congregation as a server, but if you feel the need when in the pews and, therefore, less visable – I wouldn’t stop you!

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
When sitting in literature classes in college where the professor would read, all of us always followed in our own books – it was a given that the best way to understand was to use both our eyes and ears to absorb the material. Given that background I am certain those that denigrate the use of missalettes are stone-cold wrong.

I think I will take your advice and make a conscious effort not to cross the gospel in my booklet when I serve – unless I happen to notice that “liturgist” is in attendance…
 
The Ceremonial of Bishops makes it clear that the person reading the Gospel signs the book and that others only make the crosses on forehead, lips and breast.

“74. … At the ambo the deacon stands facing the people and, with hands joined, says the greeting; then with his right thumb he makes the sign of the cross, first on the book at the beginning of the gospel passage that he is about to read, then on his forehead, lips, and breast, saying,
A reading from the holy gospel. The bishop signs himself in the same way on forehead, lips and breast, and all present do the same.” (Ceremonial of Bishops, Liturgical Press, 1989, ISBN 0-8146-1818-9, page 37.)

The separate sentence about the bishop reflects the Latin in Caeremoniale Episcoporum: “Episcopus autem eodem modo signat se in fronte, ore et pectore, idemque faciunt ceteri omnes.” (Caeremoniale Episcoporum, Liberia Editrice Vaticana, 1995, ISBN 88-209-4217-8, page 30).

The 2002 GIRM is not as clear. But if the intention was for everyone to sign their books it would have “on the book, his forehead, mouth and breast, which everyone else does as well.” In fact n. 134 has: “on the book and on his forehead, mouth and breast, which everyone else does as well.”
 
John Lilburne:
The Ceremonial of Bishops makes it clear that the person reading the Gospel signs the book and that others only make the crosses on forehead, lips and breast.

“74. … At the ambo the deacon stands facing the people and, with hands joined, says the greeting; then with his right thumb he makes the sign of the cross, first on the book at the beginning of the gospel passage that he is about to read, then on his forehead, lips, and breast, saying,
A reading from the holy gospel. The bishop signs himself in the same way on forehead, lips and breast, and all present do the same.” (Ceremonial of Bishops, Liturgical Press, 1989, ISBN 0-8146-1818-9, page 37.)

The separate sentence about the bishop reflects the Latin in Caeremoniale Episcoporum: “Episcopus autem eodem modo signat se in fronte, ore et pectore, idemque faciunt ceteri omnes.” (Caeremoniale Episcoporum, Liberia Editrice Vaticana, 1995, ISBN 88-209-4217-8, page 30).

The 2002 GIRM is not as clear. But if the intention was for everyone to sign their books it would have “on the book, his forehead, mouth and breast, which everyone else does as well.” In fact n. 134 has: “on the book and on his forehead, mouth and breast, which everyone else does as well.”
Click to expand...
Inconclusive at best. In any event it’s clear that it’s not a big deal – I thought that perhaps I was missing some sort of instruction from the Church and I obviously have not.

BTW, the latest GIRM is the 2000 edition.
 
40.png
AltarMan:
Inconclusive at best. In any event it’s clear that it’s not a big deal – I thought that perhaps I was missing some sort of instruction from the Church and I obviously have not.

BTW, the latest GIRM is the 2000 edition.
Click to expand...
Why is it inconclusive? Do you appreciate that the Ceremonial of Bishops is an official liturgical book?

The Vatican published a GIRM in 2000 called Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (published by Liberia Editrice Vaticana, ISBN 88-209-7012-0). In 2002 they published a different GIRM in Missale Romanvm (ISBN 88-209-7271-9). You can read about the differences between the two at romanrite.com/igsummary.html and romanrite.com/GIRMS.html .
 
John Lilburne:
Why is it inconclusive?** Do you appreciate that the Ceremonial of Bishops is an official liturgical book?**

The Vatican published a GIRM in 2000 called Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (published by Liberia Editrice Vaticana, ISBN 88-209-7012-0). In 2002 they published a different GIRM in Missale Romanvm (ISBN 88-209-7271-9). You can read about the differences between the two at romanrite.com/igsummary.html and romanrite.com/GIRMS.html .
Click to expand...
Yeap. but I don’t appreciate your interpretation…
 
You are all arguing about whether you cross the missal or not. Think yourselves lucky to have missals to argue over. I live in the Philippines which has 76 million Catholics (more than USA) and we have no missals in the churches. People are more concerned about how they will be able to feed their families!
 
40.png
thistle:
You are all arguing about whether you cross the missal or not. Think yourselves lucky to have missals to argue over. I live in the Philippines which has 76 million Catholics (more than USA) and we have no missals in the churches. People are more concerned about how they will be able to feed their families!
Click to expand...
I bring my own – I saved up my lunch money.
 
40.png
thistle:
You are all arguing about whether you cross the missal or not. Think yourselves lucky to have missals to argue over. I live in the Philippines which has 76 million Catholics (more than USA) and we have no missals in the churches. People are more concerned about how they will be able to feed their families!
Click to expand...
Amen that.
Third-world countries (such as here in the Philippines) really need help. many call themselves Catholics but do not live the faith. 😦
 
You are all arguing about whether you cross the missal or not. Think yourselves lucky to have missals to argue over. I live in the Philippines which has 76 million Catholics (more than USA) and we have no missals in the churches. People are more concerned about how they will be able to feed their families!
Click to expand...
Who was arguing?
 
40.png
AltarMan:
When sitting in literature classes in college where the professor would read, all of us always followed in our own books – it was a given that the best way to understand was to use both our eyes and ears to absorb the material. Given that background I am certain those that denigrate the use of missalettes are stone-cold wrong.
**
I think I will take your advice and make a conscious effort not to cross the gospel in my booklet when I serve – unless I happen to notice that “liturgist” is in attendance**…
Click to expand...
But this behavior would be confronational and counterproductive - would you really want to risk your spiritual graces by seeking to annoy someone during Mass?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top