The Sign of The Cross (A Sign of Papist Anger?)

Patristic theology, and traditional teachings of Orthodoxy from the Church fathers of apostolic times to the present. All forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.


User avatar
尼古拉前执事
Archon
Posts: 5127
Joined: Thu 24 October 2002 7:01 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Phylitist
Location: United States of America
Contact:

The Sign of The Cross (A Sign of Papist Anger?)

Post by 尼古拉前执事 »

The revealing article that follows is from a Roman Catholic periodical, The Pilgrim (Jan.-Feb., 1998, Brooklyn, Missouri).

Not too long ago someone asked me why I make the sign of the Cross from the right to the left. It was pointed out to me that, in the West, it is from the left to the right. I pointed out to this person that in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Sign of the Cross was always from the right to the left: “I will go to the right,” “Thine own right hand can save thee,” “Thy right hand is full of righteousness,” and “Thy right hand hath upheld me.” These are but a few references to the right hand as the hand of honor. I am sure that we can all think and quote many more references well known from Scripture. Also, it was the Good thief, who confessed Christ and was crucified with Him on His right side. It is interesting that when the Church was undivided, both East and West shared many things in common; one of them was the Sign of the Cross.

I just recently came across the following information. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, “In the thirteenth century we find Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) directing that the sign is to be made with three fingers from the forehead to the breast and from the right to the left shoulder. Later the whole hand with fingers extended was used, and the direction changed from the left to the right.” On page 250 of the book The Mass and Vestments of the Catholic Church: Liturgy, Doctrine, History and Archeology, by the Rt. Rev. Monsignor John Walsh, published by Benziger Brothers in New York in 1916 [a renowned Roman Catholic publishing house], the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are included, and it says: “The Sign of the Cross. This is made always with the right hand on the forehead, breast, left and right shoulder, with the following distribution of the formula: “In the name of the Father” on the forehead; “and of the Son” on the breast; “and of the Holy Spirit, Amen,” as the hand passes from the left to the right shoulder. Until the sixteenth century and Pope Pius V [1566-1572], the custom was to carry the hand from the right to the left shoulder, which still continues in the Greek Church [emphasis added by the Roman Catholic editor]. The Pope, bishops, and members of the Carthusian and Dominican Orders follow the primitive arrangement of the fingers in signing the Cross by closing the little and ring fingers of the right hand, and extending the other three. The three extended fingers symbolize the Blessed Trinity and the two folded ones the twofold nature of Christ” (both God and Man). When one reads the reason for Pope Pius V’s decision, we find that the reason was that he was angry with the Eastern Church, and made this decision on the basis of anger and for the purpose of increasing the division of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

After reading this information I began to think that, by making this simple Sign of the Cross, I am making a profession of faith as did the early Christians and Martyrs. . . and the many other Saints who made the Sign of the Cross in the same way, and that while I cannot equal their sanctity or life, I do share with them this symbol of faith of the undivided One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, unchanged until the sixteenth century.

User avatar
Mor Ephrem
Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Fri 8 November 2002 1:11 am
Location: New York
Contact:

Re: The Sign of The Cross (A Sign of Papist Anger?)

Post by Mor Ephrem »

Nicholas wrote:

When one reads the reason for Pope Pius V’s decision, we find that the reason was that he was angry with the Eastern Church, and made this decision on the basis of anger and for the purpose of increasing the division of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

It would be interesting, I think, to see what Pius V actually wrote regarding his reasons for altering the Sign of the Cross. Nevertheless, while the article is interesting regarding the older Latin practice compared with the regular Greek practice, it doesn't definitively settle the matter for me. The Oriental Orthodox Churches have, to my knowledge, always used the same hand positioning as the Greeks (thumb, index, and middle fingers joined, with the ring and little fingers closed), but from left shoulder to right. This is because the Son of God came down from Heaven (forehead) to earth (somewhere around the belly button) to redeem those who stood condemned (left shoulder) and bring them to salvation (right shoulder).

LatinTrad
Jr Member
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu 25 September 2003 6:55 pm

Post by LatinTrad »

Thanks Phil!

The story about Pius V doesn't seem too plausible to me. If the R-L practice was not identified specifically with the Byzantines at that time, why would it make sense for him to reverse it as a statement of anger against the Byzantines?

LatinTrad

OrthodoxyOrDeath

Post by OrthodoxyOrDeath »

LatinTrad,

I cannot think of any aspect of the faith and practice the Latins have not changed. Why should this be any different? :)

LatinTrad
Jr Member
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu 25 September 2003 6:55 pm

Post by LatinTrad »

Hello, Mr. Death.

What the hell are you talking about? :)

I've had arguments with Orthodox about contraception, divorce, the Dormition of the most holy Theotokos, etc. etc., so who's "changing"?

The "Latins" have maintained the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith "as handed down from the Apostles through the Orthodox Fathers, always with the same meaning and in the same purport" (Pope St. Pius X).

I agree with you that even those things that belong not to the essence of the Faith, but to its expression, should remain as immutable as possible--otherwise they do not reflect the immutable Faith too well. Nevertheless, it is absurd to assert that the "Latins" have altered the dogmas of Faith.

The modern liturgical debacle is simply a gross mistake in the practical order, that threatens the Faith by its implications--it is not an alteration in the Faith itself.

Sometimes you just have to step back and distinguish between dogmas that are universal and unchanging (the Faith itself), and things like calendars that are meant to help us live the Faith.

Making the sign of the cross "backwards" does not imply anything against the Faith. As Mor Ephrem noted, the Oriental tradition does it that way (and it doesn't have anything to do with Monophysitism!). Over the past 5 centuries, it has become pretty ingrained in the Latin tradition as well.

God bless!

LatinTrad

User avatar
Joe Zollars
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed 30 October 2002 5:16 pm
Location: Podunk, Kansas
Contact:

umm

Post by Joe Zollars »

if you have had arguments about these things more than likely you were not speaking with true Orhtodox Christians but only those which have hijacked the name.

Also, the devil rejoices when people make the sign of the cross differently. St. Mary of Egypt I think it was said the sign of the Cross is our protection from Evil if done properly.

Joe Zollars

User avatar
Jakub
Member
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu 29 May 2003 10:39 pm

Post by Jakub »

Personally I have changed to the old way of making the sign of the cross, however I will not condemn others for their practice.

The Lord knows their hearts intention, is'nt that what matters ?

james

Post Reply