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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxime_Indigent
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aramis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thank you! I as a Latin Catholic don’t see much need to rubricize the postures and gesture, unless necessary, so if I may add, Vatican II must have exacerbated this philosophical difference (a necessity to rubricize because of the liturgical abuses)? I assume from what you wrote that this philosophical presupposition was always a part of the Latin Church thinking/understanding?
 
MorEphrem said:
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.
Click to expand...
I must disagree and say the reverse is true… 😃
 
To sum up:
Western and Byzantine Christians used right-to-left way of croosing. Then because of some (unknown?) reason people in West switched to left-to-righ. Byzantines have continued and their clergy wanted to bless congregants’ right shoulder prior to the left one so Byzantines when crossing themselves follow right-to-left way, but when blessing someone else then left-to-right.

Questions:
  • Why did people in the West switch?
    Did western clergy follow the same intention as in the East and then just people started to do it for themselves in the same way as priest and mirror corespondence between congregation and priest just ceased to be followed?
  • What happened firstly? Switch in the West or different way of blessing congregation in the East. If West switched first and so without intention described above, what was the reason?
Assyrians:
There is thread stating that Caldean Catholics do the sign of Cross left-to-right but the Church of East does it right-to-left. What is older and was reason for one church’s switch?

Orientals:
I still live with belief that Orientals (Oriental Orthodox and Oriental Catholics) do it left-to-right and once I read something like “this is not latinization because left-to-right is older and Byzantines switched”. Well, according to what was in other threads rihgt-lo-left is older. Can someone make it more clear? Was there different setting for Byzantines and for Orientals?

Thumb crossing:
Crossing with one finger seems to be the oldest way. In the West for example befor Gospel, in the East to bless senses. But also this style of crossing goes from one side to another; in the West left-to-right. Is this direction for making small cross with one finger common or each tradition makes it just as they do the “big cross”?

If there is someone able to answer, my thanks.
 
I am sorry, i have just realized that this thread does not end with page 2 but 5 and so some of my questions are answered. Namely:
  • So Latin as well as Byzantine clergy blessed left-to-right but people in the East did not switch but people in the West adopted left-to-right.
  • Orientals really have their original left-to-right way.
But I am still interested in
  • Chaldean / ACoE difference and its reason,
  • “thumb crossins”.
And two new ones:
  • Oriental crossing and possible byzantization,
  • what about Maronites? – they are of Syriac tradition but at the same time a little bit “special”… so?
And thanks for the article from OrthodoxWiki.
 
Nestor_kea said:
To sum up:
Western and Byzantine Christians used right-to-left way of croosing. Then because of some (unknown?) reason people in West switched to left-to-righ. Byzantines have continued and their clergy wanted to bless congregants’ right shoulder prior to the left one so Byzantines when crossing themselves follow right-to-left way, but when blessing someone else then left-to-right.

Questions:
  • Why did people in the West switch?
    Did western clergy follow the same intention as in the East and then just people started to do it for themselves in the same way as priest and mirror corespondence between congregation and priest just ceased to be followed?
  • What happened firstly? Switch in the West or different way of blessing congregation in the East. If West switched first and so without intention described above, what was the reason?
Click to expand...
I dealt with most of these in post #46, based on a Byzantine Catholic source. The Latins switched sometime in the Middle Ages from right-to-left to left-to-right due to confusion among the laity when mirroring the action of the priest during the liturgy. It was not a principled change.
Orientals:
I still live with belief that Orientals (Oriental Orthodox and Oriental Catholics) do it left-to-right
Click to expand...
We Oriental Orthodox certainly do, and always have. This has to do with our distinctive theology behind what the motions themselves signify (so it’s not a change on our part in the first place, but it is principled. :))
and once I read something like “this is not latinization because left-to-right is older and Byzantines switched”. Well, according to what was in other threads rihgt-lo-left is older. Can someone make it more clear? Was there different setting for Byzantines and for Orientals?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “setting”? I don’t know if we can say conclusively which is older (or why that should matter), as each communion has its own tradition regarding this which may or may not be influenced by outsiders (cf. the Latin/Western example, which was apparently not based on anything anyone else was doing), but our priests do say that left-to-right is older, and that we’ve never done it the other way.
 
Nestor_kea said:
Assyrians:
There is thread stating that Caldean Catholics do the sign of Cross left-to-right but the Church of East does it right-to-left. What is older and was reason for one church’s switch?
Click to expand...
Nestor kea,

Many Chaldean Catholics cross themselves left to right, but there are other Chaldean and Assyrian Catholics who do so right to left. I myself cross from right to left, because that is the traditional way for us to do it. The members of the Assyrian Church of the East have preserved this traditional way of doing it, that is, right to left.

The reason why you might see Chaldean Catholics cross themselves left to right is because of our historic tendency to imitate our Oriental and/or Latin neighbors. In other words, it is an Orientalization and/or Latinization.

God bless,

Rony
 
Personally, I don’t see how it matters much whether you go left to right or vice versa. You are making the sign of the cross. That’s the importance of it. If your spirit is moved to go right to left then why not. When you’re in church you might confuse others though if they are doing it different. THat’s probably the only reason it is standardized by a group so that it is consistent. Thus, its probably better to do it the way others in your parish are for consistency. But it would hardly be wrong to do it different. You would just stick out. I’d have to question your motives for doing it different though. Remember Paul says we are justified by faith and not works of the law, and certainly not works of the flesh or conceit. But if the spirit is moving you that is ok. Its not important which way you do it. Its just good to be consistent with others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top