Making the sign of the cross after receiving

[ncjohn]

“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.

Yes, I had seen those two before. I guess it becomes a matter of how one interprets “immediately”. The cases where I’ve seen those things did not involve someone leaving before consuming the host, or any prolonged actions of any type, but there was that small intermediate step. Clearly devout and reverent and I would not be personally prone to address it, but I did wonder if there was actually a basis to address it or how I would answer the question if someone addressed it to me.

Peace,

 

[eelpis]

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.

1. The sign of the cross comes from apostolic times.
2. What laypeople do during mass is not strictly regulated by liturgical law, it has never been either. What’s regulated is the action of clergy and servers in the sanctuary.
3. Because we are supposed to pray when we have recieved holy communion. The sign of the cross is a prayer with the body. (I could also add, becase we are Catholic and not Protestants who want to remove everything that’s not in the bible.) (I don’t cross myself after communion but I see nothing wrong with doing it, I’ll maybe even start now ; ))

 

[Newbie2]

1. 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.

Although the hand-holding thread got me thinking about crossing ones self, I wasn’t going to bring it up, but since you did, Fr., by your own criteria i.e. adding nothing to the liturgy nor being prescribed nor expressely prohibited in the GIRM, perhaps you can explain just how it is different than the hand-holding during the OF.

 

[thistle]

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.

You are free to make the sign of the Cross anywhere anytime and as often as you feel like it. I can’t see how anybody could possibly have objections to doing it or seeing other people do it.

 

[FrDavid96]

Do you have any personal knowledge that this was validly introduced at whatever time it came into being?

No. And that is exactly the point. The practice is from “time immemorial” and has enjoyed the favor of the Church. This practice has been tried and tested and found worthy of being done as in individual act of piety after receiving Communion.

It stands in sharp contrast to recent innovations which are not in harmony with the Spirit of the Liturgy, not in harmony with the organic development of the Mass, which have been introduced contrary to liturgical norms, and which are not acts of reverence but instead acts of horizontalism and detract from the sacredness and solemnity of the Mass.

I sincerely hope that you see the difference.

 

[FrDavid96]

Although the hand-holding thread got me thinking about crossing ones self, I wasn’t going to bring it up, but since you did, Fr., by your own criteria i.e. adding nothing to the liturgy nor being prescribed nor expressely prohibited in the GIRM, perhaps you can explain just how it is different than the hand-holding during the OF.

Crossing oneself reminds us of the Passion Death and Resurrection of Christ.
Hand holding reminds us of Sesame Street.

'nuff said.

 

[Newbie2]

Based on your reasoning, no, Fr. I don’t understand the difference.

But I don’t object to either practice either.

Anyway, lest this thread get further disrailed, does anyone have any further insight as to when and how crossing oneself started?

 

[Seatuck]

Based on your reasoning, no, Fr. I don’t understand the difference.

But I don’t object to either practice either.

Anyway, lest this thread get further disrailed, does anyone have any further insight as to when and how crossing oneself started?

The early church fathers talk about crossing oneself as an Identifying mark of christians. Do you means specifically at that time of the Mass? I know that when I ask people they say that they do it as a sign of reverence and the start of their prayer of thanksgiving. I myself don’t do it then because my prayer begins before that and I don’t personally feel the need since we start the Mass with the sign of the cross.

I think this is one of those things that the church does not need to put a prohibition in writing. When could it ever be wrong to sign ourselves with the cross? It is a prayer itself . It occupies a highly acceptable place in christianity.

newadvent.org/cathen/13785a.htm

and

holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/williamsaunders/straightanswers/signofthecross.asp

You will not see any such history with holding hands. Surely you can see the difference in that.

My personal opinion is that it is a result of ecumenism . When mixed groups of people pray the Our Father together they kind of wish for that connection that Catholics share in the Eucharist (whether they can identify this lack or not) and so they do someting physical to create the connection.

 

[MaryAnnCath]

In regard to the triple cross at the beginning of the Gospel. At the forehead, when I make my small cross, I say: May Your Word be always in my mind (for God the Father), at the lips, Be always on my lips (God the Son-the Word of God) and on my breastbone: Be always in my heart (God the Holy Spirit). I need all the help I can get

In regard to crossing myself after receiving, it’s like a sign of gratitude to God for this wonderful Gift, small sign of my love and reverence.

As far as holding hands during the Our Father, I don’t. I was told it’s a sign of community. I heard that the non-catholic christians do this as a sign of community and it may be one of those ecumenical things some do. For Catholics, the sign of community is reception of the Eucharist, in which we are all one in the Body of Christ in each of us. Non-catholic christians do not have this sacrament. I heard this question on “Web of Faith” on EWTN. Father Bob and Father John answered wonderfully. The questioner doesn’t hold hands either and found himself being grabbed.

I keep in mind that after I receive Our Lord, there are many angels and saints surrounding me. Heaven is right there. The closest I will get while on earth. And to each of us. I cannot comprehend how this is, but accept it as a Divine Mystery.

After I receive, I say the Animi Christi. More often than not, tears flow. I go back to my pew and kneel. Most keep standing. I don’t understand how people can stand with Christ within them, but everyone is different. Maybe they are so happy they have to stand, I don’t know. I just do what I feel but try not to be ostentatious or showy.

Another nice prayer to say is the Adoro te Devote, also the St. Gertrude prayer for the Holy/Poor Souls.

But I digress.

Thank you all for your postings, I am new so please forgive my rambling.

Blessings, Mary Ann

 

[ncjohn]

No. And that is exactly the point. The practice is from “time immemorial” and has enjoyed the favor of the Church. This practice has been tried and tested and found worthy of being done as in individual act of piety after receiving Communion.

It stands in sharp contrast to recent innovations which are not in harmony with the Spirit of the Liturgy, not in harmony with the organic development of the Mass, which have been introduced contrary to liturgical norms, and which are not acts of reverence but instead acts of horizontalism and detract from the sacredness and solemnity of the Mass.

I sincerely hope that you see the difference.

No, I really and truly don’t see a bit of difference.

I’m willing to bet a whole bunch that making the sign of the cross at some random point during Mass did NOT come from any legislation of the Vatican. I’m totally willing to bet a whole bunch that at some point it was some spontaneous act of individuals, not sanctioned by the Church but never reprobated either. Eventually it might have even been found to be prefered though I’ve never seen anything from the Church that says so or any official statement from the Church directing it or approving it.

In that I see a direct parallel to the handholding in that it too started as a spontaneous action of the faithful, which the faithful found worthy and to be a genuine sign. Some don’t agree but then even within this thread we see that some don’t agree that making a sign of the cross after receiving is a good thing either. You may see it as “horizontalism” and detracting from the sacredness of the Mass but those who prefer that stance see it as directly focused on God and I have never heard a single person who actually DOES it express any kind of focus on anything but God.

You say that there is no history to holding hands, but the truth is that it has now a 40 year history that tracks the change in the Mass to the people praying the Our Father as a community. As such it is indeed an organic development that springs directly from the way the Our Father is said in the Mass.

You stated that “arguments from silence” don’t holdup, yet here you are making an “argument from silence” on making the sign of the cross after receiving. The only difference is in the length of time it has been around and the fact that you don’t personally find this one objectionable. Neither one has any direct support that I can find unless you have some documentation calling for making that sign after communion which I haven’t seen.

You stated previously that holding hands was unacceptable because it is not cited in any of the liturgical books, yet you have no problem with this one that is also cited in no liturgical books.

You refer to holding hands as a “corporate gesture” yet it is no such thing unless led and directed by a third party. It is individuals making individual choices as their act of piety to do it or not do it. Similarly, even though (in my experience) the majority of Catholics make the sign of the cross after receiving, it is not a corporate gesture but an “individual act of piety” as you described it.

Canon law specifically allows for spontaneous actions of the faithful to occur outside of legislation and to become customs by virtue of being “received” by the faithful—the "sense of the faithful–over periods of time and not reprobated by being found to be “unreasonable” by the Church. Both of these situations fall into that category, however much the time frames may differ. We just don’t really get to overrule what Canon Law allows for.

I really have no desire to get back into the handholding issue again as we’re just never going to agree. I had no intent to bring it up at all as it not the subject of this thread, so to not further dreail the thread I will go no further with this line of discussion. I only brougt it up because of this idea that there is a difference between the two issues.

In answer to the OP though, I have no particular problem with people making the sign of the cross after receiving communion. If a priest does and thinks it shouldn’t happen, to me the best approach would be for him to explain the reason why to his parish and ask them to refrain. I tend to think they would tend to comply since many who do so likely do it out of habit or from having seen others do it somewhere along the line and deciding it to be a worthy thing to do.

Peace,

 

[Seatuck]

No, I really and truly don’t see a bit of difference.

I’m willing to bet a whole bunch that making the sign of the cross at some random point during Mass did NOT come from any legislation of the Vatican. I’m totally willing to bet a whole bunch that at some point it was some spontaneous act of individuals, not sanctioned by the Church but never reprobated either. Eventually it might have even been found to be prefered though I’ve never seen anything from the Church that says so or any official statement from the Church directing it or approving it.

In that I see a direct parallel to the handholding in that it too started as a spontaneous action of the faithful, which the faithful found worthy and to be a genuine sign. Some don’t agree but then even within this thread we see that some don’t agree that making a sign of the cross after receiving is a good thing either. You may see it as “horizontalism” and detracting from the sacredness of the Mass but those who prefer that stance see it as directly focused on God and I have never heard a single person who actually DOES it express any kind of focus on anything but God.

You say that there is no history to holding hands, but the truth is that it has now a 40 year history that tracks the change in the Mass to the people praying the Our Father as a community. As such it is indeed an organic development that springs directly from the way the Our Father is said in the Mass.

You stated that “arguments from silence” don’t holdup, yet here you are making an “argument from silence” on making the sign of the cross after receiving. The only difference is in the length of time it has been around and the fact that you don’t personally find this one objectionable. Neither one has any direct support that I can find unless you have some documentation calling for making that sign after communion which I haven’t seen.

You stated previously that holding hands was unacceptable because it is not cited in any of the liturgical books, yet you have no problem with this one that is also cited in no liturgical books.

You refer to holding hands as a “corporate gesture” yet it is no such thing unless led and directed by a third party. It is individuals making individual choices as their act of piety to do it or not do it. Similarly, even though (in my experience) the majority of Catholics make the sign of the cross after receiving, it is not a corporate gesture but an “individual act of piety” as you described it.

Canon law specifically allows for spontaneous actions of the faithful to occur outside of legislation and to become customs by virtue of being “received” by the faithful—the "sense of the faithful–over periods of time and not reprobated by being found to be “unreasonable” by the Church. Both of these situations fall into that category, however much the time frames may differ. We just don’t really get to overrule what Canon Law allows for.

I really have no desire to get back into the handholding issue again as we’re just never going to agree. I had no intent to bring it up at all as it not the subject of this thread, so to not further dreail the thread I will go no further with this line of discussion. I only brougt it up because of this idea that there is a difference between the two issues.

In answer to the OP though, I have no particular problem with people making the sign of the cross after receiving communion. If a priest does and thinks it shouldn’t happen, to me the best approach would be for him to explain the reason why to his parish and ask them to refrain. I tend to think they would tend to comply since many who do so likely do it out of habit or from having seen others do it somewhere along the line and deciding it to be a worthy thing to do.

Peace,

I think you are being rigid where there was no intention to be rigid.We have the norms and the language is often quite rigid. But there are areas where the intention is not so.Mosts priests seem to understand this where as some laypeople do not. There’s a world of difference between the pius sign of the cross as a custom and secular handholding.
For example from EWTN -

Finally, a lay woman from Canada asks: “At the opening of the Mass and its closing we are blessed by the priest. I have traditionally blessed myself following reception of the Eucharistic species. However, I recently read that this is inappropriate in that it interferes with the unifying theme of the initial and closing blessings by the priest. What is the meaning of blessing oneself after reception of Eucharist? And, what is considered appropriate at this time in our Church’s history?”

Strictly speaking, the priest does not bless us at the beginning of Mass; rather, we all make the sign of the cross together as a sign of faith. The only proper blessing is that at the end of Mass which is a concluding blessing before the faithful are sent forth to continue their Christian mission in the world.

Your custom of crossing yourself (also sometimes called blessing oneself) after receiving Communion is simply an act of private devotion and an expression of faith in what one has received. It does no harm whatsoever to the symbolism of the Mass and probably does you a lot of spiritual good.

 

[Seatuck]

Continued

There are those rare instances when there is flexibility.

One reader proposed that accepting the possibility of this blessing of non-communicants went against the principle that “liturgical documents are prohibitive of all that they do not prescribe.”

While in no means in favor of liturgical inventiveness, I do not believe this to be a valid principle in interpreting liturgical law.

Liturgical norms have several levels ranging from the Divine decree (such as the essential elements of the sacraments) to precepts descriptive of prevalent customs, the latter constituting the vast majority of liturgical norms.

The different levels do not lessen their value as true laws, which require obedience. But they are usually content to set out a general scheme with no desire to rigidly set every gesture to the exclusion of all others.

For example, in a recent controversy regarding some bishop’s forbidding the faithful to kneel after Communion until everybody had received, the Holy See stated: “The … prescription of the ‘Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani,’ no. 43, is intended, on the one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass, and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.”

The same could be said about other acts of private fervor such as making a sign of the cross after receiving Communion.

Since much liturgical law is grounded in custom, canonists generally admit that, according to canons 23-28, some ecclesial communities have the capacity to introduce customs that either interpret the law, or fill a vacuum or silence regarding the law.

ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur81.htm

I often get very enthusiastic about know church teachings etc but am often surprised at places there are limits and places where there is room to be flexible. A lot has to do with how the law is written. Most of us laypeople are not fluent or experienced with the underlying intention and flavor of laws written in italian, latin etc and what might or or might not be conveyed in the translation to english.

 

[puzzleannie]

shortly after moving to this diocese, we were instructed from the pulpit to give a profound bow before receiving, and make the sign of the cross afterward. We actually practiced this. It was announced as one of the new changes. Since they are always throwing new changes in every couple of years, we just shrugged and went along. At the same parish, the same priest instructed them to cease the hand-holding during the OF (there was more reaction and bad feelings over this change than anything I have ever seen in a parish) and raise the hands, also raise the hands during the preface dialog. whatever.

then we move to this parish, and are instructed all this is wrong, not in the rubrics, so don’t do it. whatever. When in Rome.

 

[ncjohn]

I think you are being rigid where there was no intention to be rigid.We have the norms and the language is often quite rigid. But there are areas where the intention is not so.

I think I am being exactly the opposite of rigid. My whole point is that there is no prescription for or against either practice and that they are expressions of individual piety that other people should not be getting involved in.

 

[thistle]

Father Serpa was asked this question.

QUOTE

Euthyphro
Junior Member

Is the sign of the cross improper after receiving communion?
The RCIA director at our parish said it was liturgically improper to bless yourself with the sign of the cross after receiving holy communion.

The GIRM indicates that the recipient is to say “Amen” but is silent the sign of the cross.

Can you point me to a church document defining the appropriateness of this gesture?

Fr. Vincent Serpa
Catholic Answers Apologist

Is the sign of the cross improper after receiving communion?
Dear E,

The burden of proof lies with your RCIA director. Ask him or her to show you a Church document that states that the sign of the cross is improper after receiving the Eucharist. Such a document does not exist. The sign of the cross is always appropriate–like breathing in and out!

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

UNQUOTE

 

[Sir_Knight]

The 70+ year old nun who prepared us for First Holy Communion in the mid-1960’s told us that immediately after receiving our Lord on our tongue we should bless ourselves saying/thinking: *“Please bless me, Lord, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. May this Holy Meal not bring me condemnation but strength and health in mind, body and spirit.”

A sign of reverence is called for, and the one recommended by the GIRM is a bow of the head.

When waking back to the pew, my head is already bowed. Bowing if further might cause a problem.

 

[anon77300002]

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 just wonder why some people do it and others not.

I’m a convert – I came into the Catholic Church and attended a Tridentine Mass. My understanding is that you make the sign of the cross as a gesture of reverence if you do not kneel to receive.

 

[thistle]

I’m a convert – I came into the Catholic Church and attended a Tridentine Mass. My understanding is that you make the sign of the cross as a gesture of reverence if you do not kneel to receive.

There are no conditions required in order to make the sign of the cross. You are free to do it any time you want and as often as you want and that includes during Mass.