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

[Zekariya]

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.

Pope Innocent III taught (what is now called) the Byzantine Sign of the Cross as the traditional practice of the Latin Church. He did not speak negatively about the innovators changing it from left to right.

"The sign of the cross is made with three fingers, because the signing is done together with the invocation of the Trinity. … This is how it is done: from above to below, and from the right to the left, because Christ descended from the heavens to the earth, and from the Jews (right) He passed to the Gentiles (left).

“Others, however, make the sign of the cross from the left to the right, because from misery (left) we must cross over to glory (right), just as Christ crossed over from death to life, and from Hades to Paradise. [Some priests] do it this way so that they and the people will be signing themselves in the same way. You can easily verify this — picture the priest facing the people for the blessing — when we make the sign of the cross over the people, it is from left to right…”

• Pope Innocent III (1198-1216)

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

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.

Get those pews outta there!

 

[babochka]

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.

Sorry, I misunderstood. When you said “Latin disciplinary regulation”, I thought you referred to an actual regulation. It seems what you mean is “custom”. As other posters have shown, Latin custom in this matter is by no means fixed and has changed throughout the centuries. I don’t really see how this would be liturgical novelty, as the people making the sign of the cross is a matter of custom, but not prescribed by the liturgy. It certainly doesn’t disrupt unity, any more than unity is disrupted when Latins come to Byzantine churches and make the sign of the cross in the Latin manner.

 

[PatrickC]

Get those pews outta there!

I know. I joked with the priest once about it and got the impression that such a thing would never fly. Theres actually only a handful of converts in the parish. The people have grown up with them and seem quite comfortable with the status quo. Oh well.

 

[Zekariya]

I go to weekday (Roman Rite) Mass about once or twice a week and I always do the Byzantine Sign of the Cross. Latin Catholics who visit my Melkite parish do the Roman Sign of the Cross during the Divine Liturgy. It should not be a problem to do it either way.

 

[MorEphrem]

Sorry, I misunderstood. When you said “Latin disciplinary regulation”, I thought you referred to an actual regulation. It seems what you mean is “custom”. As other posters have shown, Latin custom in this matter is by no means fixed and has changed throughout the centuries. I don’t really see how this would be liturgical novelty, as the people making the sign of the cross is a matter of custom, but not prescribed by the liturgy. It certainly doesn’t disrupt unity, any more than unity is disrupted when Latins come to Byzantine churches and make the sign of the cross in the Latin manner.

No problem, I could’ve been more clear.

But each particular Church has particular custom. It is, in a sense, liturgical novelty when one does something contrary to the Church they’re part of because they like it. A Latin signing differently at a Byzantine Church would not be problematic because that’s just habitual to the Latin. However, if a Latin decided they wanted to sign themselves like an Ethiopian because the gesture was cooler that’s attempting to be innovative - despite established custom that person is trying to be individualistic and creates a break of continuity in the system.

I wouldn’t want to see Latins signing themselves like Byzantines for the same reason I don’t want to see the Divine Mercy chaplet in a Maronite Church. Decontextualized, the DM chaplet is just an obtrusive redundancy which only served to replace things like the New Sunday or pre-established Tradition of Divine Mercy. In the Latin Church, however, it was an appropriate response for a need of supplementing the existing devotion to God’s mercy. Ritual has developed organically over the centuries to keep equilibrium - individualistic novelty breaks with continuity from that equilibrium.

 

[dzheremi]

According to the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Parma’s video “A Brief Explanation of the Eastern Catholic Churches” (1992), the Latins used to cross themselves from right to left as the Byzantines do, but switched sometime in the Middle Ages (I don’t have a VCR anymore so I can’t watch the video to get the exact wording) due to the tendency of the people to cross themselves that way when incorrectly mirroring the action of the priest during the Mass. (The ones who originally crossed themselves left to right, and still do, were not the Latins but the Oriental Orthodox: Copts, Ethiopians, Syriacs, etc. This has to do with different theological perspectives than the Byzantines regarding what the motions of the sign mean.)

So you don’t need to think of the sign in terms of “Byzantine” or “Latin” one way or another, as your practice as a Latin Catholic was historically the same as that of the Byzantine East, and didn’t change out of any principled disagreement, but a mere confusion. Every Latin could go back to doing it the “Byzantine way” tomorrow and be no worse off in terms of their fidelity to Latin tradition. Some could say, in fact, that they’d be better off.

 

[josie_L]

Why I have the song “Walk like an Egyptian” zipping through my head, I don’t know?

 

[josie_L]

Why I have the song “Walk like an Egyptian” zipping through my head, I don’t know?

 

[Zekariya]

No problem, I could’ve been more clear.

But each particular Church has particular custom. It is, in a sense, liturgical novelty when one does something contrary to the Church they’re part of because they like it. A Latin signing differently at a Byzantine Church would not be problematic because that’s just habitual to the Latin. However, if a Latin decided they wanted to sign themselves like an Ethiopian because the gesture was cooler that’s attempting to be innovative - despite established custom that person is trying to be individualistic and creates a break of continuity in the system.

I wouldn’t want to see Latins signing themselves like Byzantines for the same reason I don’t want to see the Divine Mercy chaplet in a Maronite Church. Decontextualized, the DM chaplet is just an obtrusive redundancy which only served to replace things like the New Sunday or pre-established Tradition of Divine Mercy. In the Latin Church, however, it was an appropriate response for a need of supplementing the existing devotion to God’s mercy. Ritual has developed organically over the centuries to keep equilibrium - individualistic novelty breaks with continuity from that equilibrium.

Ah, I see what you mean now (emphasis mine). I agree with what you are saying.

 

[Estevao]

Thanks for the clarifications MorEphrem.

 

[PatrickC]

Ah, I see what you mean now (emphasis mine). I agree with what you are saying.

From my own observation, it seems like the Latin Church has a lot more to be concerned about in the liturgical realm than a couple of genuine, well-meaning parishioners emulating ancient customs.

 

[sabrefan]

You can do it the Byzantine way if you want; it is still Catholic. You could even hold your hand the Byzantine way but continue sign from left to right if it is just the hand posture that you particularly like.

I went to a Catholic grade school in the 60’s and we too learned it OK to do the Byzantine way.

 

[Aramis]

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

Not by Byzantine sensibilities.

Heck, there’s not even a standard rubric for WHEN byzantines make the sign of the cross. (There are guidelines, but not firm rubrics.)

It’s a roman issue to rubricize the postures and gestures of the faithful. Byzantines generally trust to people adhering to tradition because of their orthodoxis.

Actually, it’s a philosophical difference, as well. Roman philosophy includes a presupposition that othodoxis arises from orthopraxis; Byzantine has it that orthopraxis flows from orthodoxis. While both believe that the two go hand in hand, the difference underscores and explains the difference in approaches to rubricization.

 

[babochka]

I went to a Catholic grade school in the 60’s and we too learned it OK to do the Byzantine way.

I went to a Catholic grade school in the 70s and was continuously (and kindly) corrected by the sisters until I learned to make the sign of the cross like a good little Roman Catholic.

 

[MorEphrem]

Actually, it’s a philosophical difference, as well. Roman philosophy includes a presupposition that othodoxis arises from orthopraxis; Byzantine has it that orthopraxis flows from orthodoxis. While both believe that the two go hand in hand, the difference underscores and explains the difference in approaches to rubricization.

Perhaps this is just him, but Pope Benedict would disagree with you. One of the counterpoints to Marxism [and liturgical innovation] that he wrote was how orthopraxis comes from orthodoxy and trying to achieve orthodoxy through sifting through different praxis is essentially hopeless. I think all Apostolic Christians would say orthodoxy precedes orthodoxy.

 

[Aramis]

Perhaps this is just him, but Pope Benedict would disagree with you. One of the counterpoints to Marxism [and liturgical innovation] that he wrote was how orthopraxis comes from orthodoxy and trying to achieve orthodoxy through sifting through different praxis is essentially hopeless. I think all Apostolic Christians would say orthodoxy precedes orthodoxy.

Pope Benedict was Theologically unusual for the Roman church.

 

[malphono]

Pope Benedict was Theologically unusual for the Roman church.

It seems to me Benedict XVI’s theological orthodoxy is unquestionable. Perhaps you meant “theologically unusual for the post-conciliar” Roman Church?

 

[Yeoman]

According to the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Parma’s video “A Brief Explanation of the Eastern Catholic Churches” (1992), the Latins used to cross themselves from right to left as the Byzantines do, but switched sometime in the Middle Ages (I don’t have a VCR anymore so I can’t watch the video to get the exact wording) due to the tendency of the people to cross themselves that way when incorrectly mirroring the action of the priest during the Mass. (The ones who originally crossed themselves left to right, and still do, were not the Latins but the Oriental Orthodox: Copts, Ethiopians, Syriacs, etc. This has to do with different theological perspectives than the Byzantines regarding what the motions of the sign mean.)

So you don’t need to think of the sign in terms of “Byzantine” or “Latin” one way or another, as your practice as a Latin Catholic was historically the same as that of the Byzantine East, and didn’t change out of any principled disagreement, but a mere confusion. Every Latin could go back to doing it the “Byzantine way” tomorrow and be no worse off in terms of their fidelity to Latin tradition. Some could say, in fact, that they’d be better off.

Perhaps observing the Priest is why my daughter, at Mass, uses right to left.

I’ve ever corrected her on it and didn’t find there to be a reason to do so, and I’m glad there isn’t.

 

[Aramis]

It seems to me Benedict XVI’s theological orthodoxy is unquestionable. Perhaps you meant “theologically unusual for the post-conciliar” Roman Church?

No, for the historical Roman church. It’s not a matter of orthodoxis - Roman theology is far more wide ranging (and non-uniform) than byzantine theology, or especially coptic theology.

I meant exactly what I said: unusual. As in, non-normal, atypical, not the common point of view. Not unorthodox - most mainstream Roman theology isn’t unorthodox either, but Pope Benedict wasn’t mainstream.

Which is part of why so many have their knickers in a knot over his theological approach to many things.