Is it okay for Latin Catholics to use the Byzantine Sign of the Cross?

[Zekariya]

We Byzantines still use our thumbs to sign the Cross with blessed and holy oils on our forehead and senses.

 

[dcointin]

We Byzantines still use our thumbs to sign the Cross with blessed and holy oils on our forehead and senses.

Very true, I was chrismated in this way.

 

[Maxime_Indigent]

Thank you for the very informative answers!

I’m already getting used to crossing myself the Byzantine way. Although I wonder how should I explain my new habit simply to another Catholic who notices.

I didn’t know that Zekariya, interesting.

Anyhow, related to the topic although I think all Apostolic ways of signing are of equal value I kind of find it strange a Latin would sign themselves like a Greek. These things start to dip into the realm of ritual-platter Catholics, diverting for the sake of novelty - even if that isn’t the case there’s a way Latins sign themselves and to do otherwise is contrary to the disciplinary tradition of the Church.

I obviously speak with no authority on the matter, but there is something to following the prescriptions of one’s sui iuris Church.

I only have humble intentions, so could you please clarify what you mean by ‘contrary to the disciplinary tradition of the Church’?

 

[malphono]

MorEphrem;11468219:

These things start to dip into the realm of ritual-platter Catholics, diverting for the sake of novelty - even if that isn’t the case there’s a way Latins sign themselves and to do otherwise is contrary to the disciplinary tradition of the Church.

I only have humble intentions, so could you please clarify what you mean by ‘contrary to the disciplinary tradition of the Church’?

It simply means that each Church has its tradition in the way its people sign themselves, and there’s no reason for innovation. One way isn’t “better” than another in absolute terms.

 

[Zekariya]

I only have humble intentions, so could you please clarify what you mean by ‘contrary to the disciplinary tradition of the Church’?

The tradition of the your Church (Latin Catholic) is to sign the Cross from left to right. You do not need to sign from right to left in order to hold your fingers the Byzantine way.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

Just to introduce another bit of information, the Assyrian Church of the East, better known as the Nestorian or Persian church, also makes the sign of the cross from right-to-left. And they remained pretty isolated from other Christian communions until recent times.

But as another poster noted, the way that Latins make the sign of the cross with the thumb on the forehead and whatever else that they do is apparently the most ancient way of making the sign. But I’m not really sure what all is involved with that gesture (forehead, lips, and something else?). Do you say a prayer while you do it?

 

[babochka]

Just to introduce another bit of information, the Assyrian Church of the East, better known as the Nestorian or Persian church, also makes the sign of the cross from right-to-left. And they remained pretty isolated from other Christian communions until recent times.

That is interesting, as the Assyrians in the Chaldean Catholic Church make the sign of the cross from left to right. Does anybody know when the two practices diverged?

 

[Estevao]

In the 1962 Roman Missal, it states that we should do the sign of the cross with 5 fingers extended (which represent the 5 wounds of Christ), going from forehead to chest, then left to right. A private devotion using the Byzantine way would be fine, but keep it out of mass.

Source: this video that looks at the history and significance of the sign of the cross, by an excellent priest with an online apostolate in Brazil. If you put on captions and then translate the captions, you can understand what he says.

youtube.com/watch?v=Bs6fer3Ur6I

 

[steve_b]

I’m a Roman Catholic following the Latin rite – is it okay to cross myself the way Byzantines do (last two fingers tucked in, right to left)?

I think this gesture beautifully captures the central beliefs of our faith, such as the Holy Trinity and the two natures of Christ.

Also, why did we change the way we did the Sign of the Cross, going from left to right instead?

Thanks in advance.

Sign of the Cross

 

[PatrickC]

In the 1962 Roman Missal, it states that we should do the sign of the cross with 5 fingers extended (which represent the 5 wounds of Christ), going from forehead to chest, then left to right. A private devotion using the Byzantine way would be fine, but keep it out of mass.

Source: this video that looks at the history and significance of the sign of the cross, by an excellent priest with an online apostolate in Brazil. If you put on captions and then translate the captions, you can understand what he says.

youtube.com/watch?v=Bs6fer3Ur6I

Keep it out of Mass? If your attention is where it belongs you won’t know who is making the sign of the cross which way or how often. You’re supposed to be in Church, not an army barracks.

 

[Zekariya]

Keep it out of Mass? If your attention is where it belongs you won’t know who is making the sign of the cross which way or how often. You’re supposed to be in Church, not an army barracks.

The note in that 1962 missal is a private devotion.

 

[MorEphrem]

Keep it out of Mass? If your attention is where it belongs you won’t know who is making the sign of the cross which way or how often. You’re supposed to be in Church, not an army barracks.

Estevao has said nothing wrong; Latin disciplinary regulation is that Latins are to sign like a Latin in Church. Deviation is disobedience. Estevao did not say they had any intention of reprimanding people who diverge, but rather it should be a followed practice. Just because you could get away with it because someone isn’t keeping watch over you doesn’t mean you should.

 

[PatrickC]

Estevao has said nothing wrong; Latin disciplinary regulation is that Latins are to sign like a Latin in Church. Deviation is disobedience. Estevao did not say they had any intention of reprimanding people who diverge, but rather it should be a followed practice. Just because you could get away with it because someone isn’t keeping watch over you doesn’t mean you should.

Man… You guys are a bit uptight.

 

[Zekariya]

In the 1962 Roman Missal, it states that we should do the sign of the cross with 5 fingers extended (which represent the 5 wounds of Christ), going from forehead to chest, then left to right. A private devotion using the Byzantine way would be fine, but keep it out of mass.

Source: this video that looks at the history and significance of the sign of the cross, by an excellent priest with an online apostolate in Brazil. If you put on captions and then translate the captions, you can understand what he says.

youtube.com/watch?v=Bs6fer3Ur6I

GIRM does not dictate how one is to make the Sign of the Cross, ergo, how you choose to make the Sign of the Cross during Mass is up to you.

See: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html

 

[babochka]

Estevao has said nothing wrong; Latin disciplinary regulation is that Latins are to sign like a Latin in Church. Deviation is disobedience. Estevao did not say they had any intention of reprimanding people who diverge, but rather it should be a followed practice. Just because you could get away with it because someone isn’t keeping watch over you doesn’t mean you should.

Could you please quote the Latin disciplinary regulation that you reference? I’ve never seen such a thing, directing the laity in the way in which the sign of the cross must be made in Mass.

My priest is a bi-ritual Byzantine. I’ve seen him say Mass and concelebrate Mass. When he is the sole celebrant, he vests in Latin vestments and makes the sign of the cross in the Latin way. When he is concelebrating, he is clothed in Byzantine vestments and makes the sign of the cross in the Byzantine way. If he, as a Byzantine, or I, as a Byzantine, am permitted to make the sign of the cross in the Byzantine way during Mass, I see no reason why anybody else (except the celebrant) should be prohibited. As far as I know, the GIRM does not regulate these things.

 

[tdgesq]

GIRM does not dictate how one is to make the Sign of the Cross, ergo, how you choose to make the Sign of the Cross during Mass is up to you.

See: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html

I disagree.

1. The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered.[52] Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.GIRM 42.(Emphasis added).

In some ways, this is common sense. I wouldn’t expect it to be permissible to use the Latin way of using the sign of the cross in the Melkite Church.

 

[RyanBlack]

I wouldn’t expect it to be permissible to use the Latin way of using the sign of the cross in the Melkite Church.

Happens all the time.

 

[MorEphrem]

Could you please quote the Latin disciplinary regulation that you reference? I’ve never seen such a thing, directing the laity in the way in which the sign of the cross must be made in Mass.

My priest is a bi-ritual Byzantine. I’ve seen him say Mass and concelebrate Mass. When he is the sole celebrant, he vests in Latin vestments and makes the sign of the cross in the Latin way. When he is concelebrating, he is clothed in Byzantine vestments and makes the sign of the cross in the Byzantine way. If he, as a Byzantine, or I, as a Byzantine, am permitted to make the sign of the cross in the Byzantine way during Mass, I see no reason why anybody else (except the celebrant) should be prohibited. As far as I know, the GIRM does not regulate these things.

I was not arguing there was some definitive Latin directive on how to cross oneself. I was reiterating what the other poster said and why liturgical “novelty” should not be done.

 

[josie_L]

I disagree.

1. The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered.[52] Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.GIRM 42.(Emphasis added).

In some ways, this is common sense. I wouldn’t expect it to be permissible to use the Latin way of using the sign of the cross in the Melkite Church.

Realistically, would it be a sign of disunity if someone simply signed from right to left instead of left to right?

 

[PatrickC]

I’m Orthodox, and on a few occasions I’ve noticed Roman Catholic visitors genuflect before entering a pew and cross themselves left to right in an open handed fashion. I’m not saying that I think it should be adopted by the Antiochian Archdiocese or anything, but I find it quite nice and I’d never think to discourage them from doing it. I find the idea that someone would look at something like that as “disobedience” to be quite baffling.