The Sign of the Cross

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lucretius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lucretius

Guest
Which way was the original way of making the Sign of the Cross?

Thank you 🙂

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
It is generally accepted that a few hundred years ago, the people started following the hand of the priest as he blessed them, resulting in the people crossing from left (the priest’s right) to right.

hawk
 
IMHO right to left or left to right is a custom of the lowest significance and importance.

I don’t know the actual history of the gesture, but the “cross” was initially a “+” on the forehead, which was later expanded to a larger gesture. Then, later, for polemical reasons, it became an east versus west issue of infinitesimal significance except for annoyance.
 
There’s a lot of exposure of private practices on EWTN. Some people make the sign of the cross with the crucifix of their rosary, and then they kiss the crucifix.

Then, there’s the priest on EWTN who makes the sign of the cross and then just kisses his fingers sans crucifix.

With SO many people watching, it seems like they should give good example, especially to non-Catholics who may be watching and asking themselves why he kisses his own fingers? Where’s that in the Bible?
 
Lucretius said:
Thank you. This response explains the history of the Sign or the Cross among Chalcedon Christians, but what about non-Chalcedon Christians, who also move left to right?
Click to expand...
That is a very good question.

To those who say right to left is the original (this is a rather tired assumption I see, especially here), that’s rather dubious seeing as how Mor Dionysius Bar Salibi in the 12th century writes [in “Against the Melkites”] polemically against the sign being made from right to left as a seemingly recent innovation. If I get the time to go through the discourse in depth tomorrow, I will post anything I find relevant (e.g. like how he talks about the change being likened to people who were on the right hand of Christ choosing to move to the left hand of the goats).

Of course, this discourse does not address the fact that the Assyrians make the sign of the cross right to left since they were not Melkites (or “Franks,” i.e. Romans, of whose practices Bar Salibi was also familiar with).

Certainly the finger configuration of three fingers together and two tucked into the palm was a development, but a rather early doctrinal response at that. John Chrysostom prescribes it in the 4th century. To figure out the initial sign of the cross, though, is guess work. To figure out which direction (which assumes there was unanimity) is more guess work. It’s a lot of conjecture simply because a lot of the expansions and development of the sign of the cross were reactionary and you don’t have people writing polemics in the 1st century about a very specific practice is more important than an innovation (or the original).
 
sirach2v4 said:
With SO many people watching, it seems like they should give good example, especially to non-Catholics who may be watching and asking themselves why he kisses his own fingers? Where’s that in the Bible?
Click to expand...
The Bible is a product of the Tradition of the Church and must be considered AN authoritative source, but if you ask “where’s that in the bible” there’s a good deal of Apostolic Christianity you won’t find. Luckily, that’s not our hermeneutic for reading Scripture and we understand its correct role.

Kissing one’s fingers is a pietistic practice. There’s nothing wrong with it per se. It’s analogous to Eastern Christians who finish the sign of the cross by touching one’s chest and/or bowing their head. It is supposed to serve as a personal reminder that the symbol one is signing themselves with has a divine reality and it is nothing less than sacred in itself. Pertaining to the topic of the thread, this kissing of the hand is certainly not the original sign of the cross but, as I stated above, it is difficult if not impossible to infer the original nor is a primordial state of something necessarily better. Organic development occurs for a reason and the archeology principle is a silly one.
 
dochawk said:
It is generally accepted that a few hundred years ago, the people started following the hand of the priest as he blessed them, resulting in the people crossing from left (the priest’s right) to right.

hawk
Click to expand...
Makes sense to me. I am quite positive this is the reason why my daughter always did right to left for the longest time. She was usually facing me and I go left to right.
 
In the early Church for the sign of the cross anytime they did a + on the forehead-- I still use this personally in addition to the common form now…

“Be the cross our seal, made with boldness by our fingers on our brow and in every thing; over the bread we eat and the cups we drink, in our comings and in goings; before our sleep, when we lie down and when we awake; when we are travelling, and when we are at rest”. St. Cyril of Jerusalem

And regarding the sign of the cross per se:

“Making the sign of the cross – as we will do during the blessing – means saying a visible and public “yes” to the One who died and rose for us, to God who in the humility and weakness of His love is the Almightly, stronger than all the power and intelligence of the world.”

-Pope Benedict XVI
Angelus
September 11, 2005

He also talks about it when he was Cardinal in the Spirit of the Liturgy…as a renewal of baptism…as a shield…etc…go read that chapter
 
Pp. Innocent III (1198-1216):
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 He passed to the Gentiles.
Click to expand...
The pope then went on to say that some priests made the Sign of the Cross from the left to the right, so that he’d mirror the faithful, what some speculate was what led the faithful to imitate the order performed by the priest and the current practice
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top