Making the sign of the cross after receiving

  • Thread starter Thread starter Newbie2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Newbie2

Guest
Many Catholics will cross themselves immediately after receiving communion. A few questions:
  1. Where/when did this originate?
  2. Is it “approved” as part of the rite? “Disapproved”?
  3. Why do it, as one has just received Christ into their body; does
    it add something? Habit? Tradition?
Personally, I’ve never done it, but don’t have any opinion one way or the other, I jus wonder why some people do it and others not.
 
OMG…it sounds like another one of those things that is “adding to the liturgy” since it isn’t specified in the GIRM.
 
A sign of reverence is called for, and the one recommended by the GIRM is a bow of the head.
 
It is Pius tradition that goes back longer than I’ve been a Catholic. This is not one of these recent innovations. Catholics were taught to do this in school .
 
I used to do it, but I haven’t in the past few years. It seems a bit “excessive” or “redundant”, having a) just made a sign of reverence to the Blessed Sacrament and b) just received the Blessed Sacrament Itself. I’m not saying others shouldn’t do it, but it doesn’t seem necessary to me.
 
Newbie2 said:
Many Catholics will cross themselves immediately after receiving communion. A few questions:
  1. Where/when did this originate?
  2. Is it “approved” as part of the rite? “Disapproved”?
  3. Why do it, as one has just received Christ into their body; does
    it add something? Habit? Tradition?
Personally, I’ve never done it, but don’t have any opinion one way or the other, I jus wonder why some people do it and others not.
Click to expand...
  1. It is one of those practices that goes back to “time immemorial” I don’t know the history of it, but perhaps someone else does.
  2. If it is done as a private, individual act of piety it’s fine. In fact it’s a very good thing.
  3. It adds nothing to the Eucharist per se, but it helps to remind us to show due regard for the awesome Mystery which we have just received.
If people do this, they should do it carefully: more than once, I’ve almost had the ciborium knocked out of my hand by someone who tries to cross himself.

PS And no, it is not the same thing as the corporate gesture of holding hands during the Our Father, which is a liturgical abuse. Nice try though.
 
This is probably in the same class of “why do we do that” as the triple cross at the Gospel.
 
Thanking and giving Glory be to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in a physical motion as the sign of the cross is the most natural response I can do at the time; considering the overwhelming union that has just accured.
=mv=
 
buffalo said:
It is redundant.
Click to expand...
Nothing is redundant if what you do is to glorify the Lord. One can glorify the Lord with the sign of the Cross to give Him thanks for the great Union with Him. It is the same way when you receive Him and pray - it is just different form.

I personally do that when I get back to the pew as part of my prayer.
 
withwind said:
Nothing is redundant if what you do is to glorify the Lord. One can glorify the Lord with the sign of the Cross to give Him thanks for the great Union with Him. It is the same way when you receive Him and pray - it is just different form.

I personally do that when I get back to the pew as part of my prayer.
Click to expand...
Follow-up: When to Bow Before Communion

A religious from Boston, Massachusetts, asks: “Some people make the sign of the cross after receiving holy Communion. Some even go to the side and genuflect. Why is this? This person was taught that the sign of the cross and genuflection after Communion is unnecessary because the Lord is in the person already. But what about when we receive the Lord in two species: We make a sign of reverence (a deep bow) before receiving his Body, and again a deep bow before receiving his Blood. Is the second bow all right/proper to do even though the Lord is already within the person? At that point the Lord is before the person and within the person, or rather the person is in God.”

Here we are dealing with the meaning of signs, and certain signs are not strictly necessary after receiving Communion.

With respect to the first part of the question, while there is no real need to make a sign of the cross after receiving holy Communion, many people do so for several reasons. For some, making a sign of the cross is a spiritual reflex action for any moment of prayer. For others, it represents an act of faith in the mystery they have received.

Whatever the cause, I personally see no reason to bother people about such a simple gesture, even if it does not form part of the liturgy at this moment.
 
buffalo said:
Here we are dealing with the meaning of signs, and certain signs are not strictly necessary after receiving Communion.
Click to expand...
Being not strictly necessary is not as same as being redundant; it is to you, I agreed - but not necessarily to others.
 
FrDavid96 said:
  1. It is one of those practices that goes back to “time immemorial” I don’t know the history of it, but perhaps someone else does.
  2. If it is done as a private, individual act of piety it’s fine. In fact it’s a very good thing.
  3. It adds nothing to the Eucharist per se, but it helps to remind us to show due regard for the awesome Mystery which we have just received.
Click to expand...
Do you have any personal knowledge that this was validly introduced at whatever time it came into being?

That it has been specifically approved by the Vatican?

What about people who elevate the host and maybe say a small prayer such as “my Lord and my God” before consuming the host, or kiss the host before consuming it? Or simply gaze at it in prayer before consuming it?
 
ncjohn said:
What about people who elevate the host and maybe say a small prayer such as “my Lord and my God” before consuming the host, or kiss the host before consuming it? Or simply gaze at it in prayer before consuming it?
Click to expand...
The Host should be consumed immediately. Unnecessary handling is not permitted. The Host is placed in our hands for the singular purpose of being placed directly into our mouths. We are not permitted to kiss the Host or hallow our sensory organs by its touch (as is reported in one of St. Cyril’s catechetical lectures).
 
japhy said:
The Host should be consumed immediately. Unnecessary handling is not permitted. The Host is placed in our hands for the singular purpose of being placed directly into our mouths. We are not permitted to kiss the Host or hallow our sensory organs by its touch (as is reported in one of St. Cyril’s catechetical lectures).
Click to expand...
Thanks japhy. That was my sense also though I’ve not seen documentation on it.
 
ncjohn said:
Thanks japhy. That was my sense also though I’ve not seen documentation on it.
Click to expand...
“With attention to the norms concerning the distribution of Holy Communion, ordinary and extraordinary ministers should take care in a particular way that the host is consumed at once by Christ’s faithful, so that no one goes away with the Eucharistic species in his hand.” (Response to dubium on Communion in the Hand)

“However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.” (Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 92)

That’s the most I’ve seen about it.
 
As I understand it, it hasn’t always been that way, however GIRM 134 does indeed direct the faithful to make the triple cross.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top