The Proper Way to Cross Oneself

[Augustus24]

Is this subject to abuse? What I mean is, can’t the justification " x is not a matter of Doctrine of Dogma" be exploited by an individual Catholic who wants to “vary up” for him/herself a certain gesture or practice x? It doesn’t necessarily have to be an individual Catholic either.

To give a close-as-I-can example, consider this Ask an Apologist question: Should school graduation be part of Mass?

First part of the answer:

(emphasis mine)

Or the question: Should we sing “Happy Birthday” during Mass?

Answer:

(emphasis mine)

Clearly, even outside of Doctrine or Dogma, which are strict and definitive, we have a concept of what is appropriate/proper/correct when it comes to practices.

I’m sorry if some people are annoyed then, at the the subject/title of the thread, perceiving it to be of non-importance, but hopefully the bigger-picture reasoning/concern behind it, can be understood.

How would an individual Catholic alter the sign of the cross in such a way as for to make it inappropriate in your opinion? And have you ever seen such a thing?

I mean, this is a question of right to left, or left to right. Neither are vulgar or taking away from the reverence of the Sign of the Cross. And the position of the fingers is certainly nothing to go into schism over as the Russian Church did. Again, straining out gnats and swallowing camels.

As for signing Happy Birthday in the Mass, I am aware of no place in the GIRM that allows for this, so yes its a liturgical abuse.

 

[Ana_v]

How would an individual Catholic alter the sign of the cross in such a way as for to make it inappropriate in your opinion? And have you ever seen such a thing?

Using a closed hand to cross oneself (no I don’t know someone who actually does this). I’m simply using it as hypothetical example of deviation, to show that a person could try and rationalize this with something like a “well, my doing it this way doesn’t concern a matter of Doctrine or Dogma,” line of reasoning.

 

[Vico]

Using a closed hand to cross oneself (no I don’t know someone who actually does this). I’m simply using it as hypothetical example of deviation, to show that a person could try and rationalize this with something like a “well, my doing it this way doesn’t concern a matter of Doctrine or Dogma,” line of reasoning.

Actually that is done, but crossing with the thumb, for the small crosses on the forehead, etc.

 

[Ana_v]

Actually that is done, but crossing with the thumb, for the small crosses on the forehead, etc.

I realize that is done (I do that), but that’s not what I was referring to. By closed hand, I was referring to a fist (like, clenched) used for a full-body sign. Such a thing, I’ve never seen.

 

[5Loaves]

Cross yourself, slowly, with reverence, and pray God’s blessing. Anything else is “from the evil one”.

God bless,

Don

Amen.
As we say about fasting-- we don’t look at someone else’s plate…

 

[Cecilianus]

The East has never really employed the Tradition/tradition distinction, largely because the former always refer to beliefs (the expression of which is much more culturally conditioned than either the East or the West often realizes - hence the prevalences of apparent divergences in doctrine between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox, which turn out to be non-issues), while the latter always refer to the way the Faith is practiced. Since lex orendi, lex credendi, “traditions” are just as essential and non-negotiable (though culturally variant) as Tradition. It is true that tradition evolves and grows organically, but you can’t just start experimenting around with tradition, or you end up denying the authority of Faith because that is where we get our Faith from - from our Liturgy, from our practice. The West has a much more school-theology oriented approach, which mitigates the gravity of the post-conciliar liturgical experimentation somewhat.

Swiss Guy: IMHO you are correct in that the West would be deviating from its tradition by returning to the original way of crossing oneself, but that tradition is only 800 years old, not 1000. Pope Innocent III (who describes the Sign of the Cross the Eastern way, but notes that some people were starting to do it left to right) lived in the early 13th century.

This question is directed mainly at Marduk: I have read from Roman Catholic sources (The Sign of the Cross, by some Italian-American guy whose name eludes me at the moment) that the reason for the change from a small sign of the cross with the thumb to a big, full-body cross was to emphasize in a more obviously visible manner that we were crossing ourselves with two fingers to emphasize the two natures of Christ, as a manner of refuting the non-Chalcedonians who were crossing themselves with only one finger. Is this true, and with how many fingers do the Copts today cross themselves?

 

[akemner]

Letter 437. Question-If I perform the sign of the Cross with my left hand, because I am unable to do so with my right hand, is this improper?

Response by St Barsanuphios:
Well, as for me, whenever I want to perform the sign of the Cross over my right hand, I certainly have to use my left hand to do so.

From Letters from the Desert (Sts Barsanuphios and John), p. 134 St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood NY, 2003

Thus we have an answer from the Old Man of the Egyptian desert, (6th cent). We even have flexibility on which hand is used, as need warrants. We have to be practical about things, but many of these forms stem from a particular expression of faith. If form changes, it should give us pause to consider if the faith changed in the process, or prior too. The differences of form are not irrelevant, but provide us with opportunities to challenge and examine our faith and that of others. We’ll come to a deeper understanding of our own, correct our own misconceptions in the process if need be. There’s beauty in diversity that comes from God, but we need to reject abberations that do not come from Him as well.

Christ saves,
Adam