Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Sign of the Cross
Catholic Education Resource Center CERC ^ | 2003 | FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS

Posted on 08/10/2007 9:39:37 PM PDT by Salvation

The Sign of the Cross    FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS

My friend is Greek Orthodox. In his Church, they make the sign of the cross crossing themselves from the right shoulder to the left, but we do the opposite. Why is there a difference? When did this come into practice?

The sign of the cross is a beautiful gesture which reminds the faithful of the cross of salvation while invoking the Holy Trinity. Technically, the sign of the cross is a sacramental, a sacred sign instituted by the Church which prepares a person to receive grace and which sanctifies a moment or circumstance. Along this thought, this gesture has been used since the earliest times of the Church to begin and to conclude prayer and the Mass.

The early Church Fathers attested to the use of the sign of the cross. Tertullian (d. ca. 250) described the commonness of the sign of the cross: "In all our travels and movements, in all our coming in and going out, in putting on our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupies us, we mark our foreheads with the sign of the cross" (De corona, 30).

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) in his Catechetical Lectures stated, "Let us then not be ashamed to confess the Crucified. Be the cross our seal, made with boldness by our fingers on our brow and in everything; over the bread we eat and the cups we drink, in our comings and in our goings out; before our sleep, when we lie down and when we awake; when we are traveling, and when we are at rest" (Catecheses, 13). Gradually, the sign of the cross was incorporated in different acts of the Mass, such as the three-fold signing of the forehead, lips, and heart at the reading of the gospel or the blessing and signing of the bread and wine to be offered occurs about the ninth century.

The earliest formalized way of making the sign of the cross appeared about the 400s, during the Monophysite heresy which denied the two natures in the divine person of Christ and thereby the unity of the Holy Trinity. The sign of the cross was made from forehead to chest, and then from right shoulder to left shoulder with the right hand. The thumb, forefinger, and middle fingers were held together to symbolize the Holy Trinity — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Moreover, these fingers were held in such a way that they represented the Greek abbreviation I X C (Iesus Christus Soter, Jesus Christ Savior): the straight forefinger representing the I; the middle finger crossed with the thumb, the X; and the bent middle finger, the C. The ring finger and "pinky" finger were bent downward against the palm, and symbolize the unity of the human nature and divine nature, and the human will and divine will in the person of Christ. This practice was universal for the whole Church until about the twelfth century, but continues to be the practice for the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches.

An instruction of Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) evidences the traditional practice but also indicates a shift in the Latin Rite practice of the Catholic Church: "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 (right) He passed to the Gentiles (left)." While noting the custom of making the cross from the right to the left shoulder was for both the western and eastern Churches, Pope Innocent continued, "Others, however, make the sign of the cross from the left to the right, because from misery (left) we must cross over to glory (right), just as Christ crossed over from death to life, and from Hades to Paradise. [Some priests] do it this way so that they and the people will be signing themselves in the same way. You can easily verify this — picture the priest facing the people for the blessing — when we make the sign of the cross over the people, it is from left to right...." Therefore, about this time, the faithful began to imitate the priest imparting the blessing, going from the left shoulder to the right shoulder with an open hand. Eventually, this practice became the custom for the Western Church.

In the classic work, The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite by Adrian Fortescue and J. B. O’Connell, the sign of the cross is made as follows: "Place the left hand extended under the breast. Hold the right hand extended also. At the word Patris [Father] raise it and touch the forehead; at Filii [Son] touch the breast at a sufficient distance down, but above the left hand; at Spiritus Sancti [Holy Spirit] touch the left and right shoulders; at Amen join the hands if they are to be joined." Although this practice may have evolved from the original and still current practice of Eastern Rite, it nevertheless has been the standing custom for the Latin Rite Church for centuries.

No matter how one technically makes the sign of the cross, the gesture should be made consciously and devoutly. The individual must be mindful of the Holy Trinity, that central dogma that makes Christians "Christians." Also, the individual must remember that the cross is the sign of our salvation: Jesus Christ, true God who became true man, offered the perfect sacrifice for our redemption from sin on the altar of the cross. This simple yet profound act makes each person mindful of the great love of God for us, a love that is stronger than death and promises everlasting life. The sign of the cross should be made with purpose and precision, not hastily or carelessly.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Saunders, Rev. William. "The Sign of the Cross." Arlington Catholic Herald.

This article is reprinted with permission from Arlington Catholic Herald.

THE AUTHOR

Father William Saunders is dean of the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College and pastor of Our Lady of Hope Parish in Sterling, Virginia. The above article is a "Straight Answers" column he wrote for the Arlington Catholic Herald. Father Saunders is also the author of Straight Answers, a book based on 100 of his columns and published by Cathedral Press in Baltimore.

Copyright © 2003 Arlington Catholic Herald



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Prayer
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholiclist; prayer; trinity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last
To: Pyro7480; Iscool

I’ll defer to Iscool on that question.


41 posted on 08/13/2007 10:40:12 AM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
Good thing the Church you disdain assembled those New Testament books for you.

Or did they get that part wrong, too? Oh, dear!

Well, yes...Your church is wrong...And you are wrong for quoting your church...

Your church did compile a bible...In fact, most every bible out there in the English language is a Catholic bible...

However, the Bible I know to be the word of God is not a Catholic Bible...It is the KJV and is not based on your Catholic bibles...

So no, your church did not create nor give me my Bible...

42 posted on 08/13/2007 11:02:57 AM PDT by Iscool (OK, I'm Back...Now what were your other two wishes???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
I’ll defer to Iscool on that question

You making stuff up again or are you quoting someone else??? You certainly aren't quoting anything I said...

43 posted on 08/13/2007 11:04:28 AM PDT by Iscool (OK, I'm Back...Now what were your other two wishes???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
And denying the Cross will? I think not.

Does your statement have anything to do with the topic at hand???

44 posted on 08/13/2007 11:07:31 AM PDT by Iscool (OK, I'm Back...Now what were your other two wishes???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
It is the KJV and is not based on your Catholic bibles...

So no, your church did not create nor give me my Bible...

Except that I'm not Roman Catholic, but the New Testament books of the Bible that you use was compiled by the Ecumenical Councils that were conducted and recognized by the Catholic Church.

By the way, are you asserting that the KJV did not translate from any Latin Bibles but only the Greek ones?

If so, what I said about the Ecumenical Councils still applies.

Ok, so you think they got all of the books of the Bible correct, at least!

45 posted on 08/13/2007 11:16:08 AM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Does your statement have anything to do with the topic at hand???

Absolutely!

Perhaps you should read the referenced article again.

46 posted on 08/13/2007 11:17:17 AM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

It is the KJV and is not based on your Catholic bibles...

...I see...the KJV was based on something totally different and just happened to come up with the same NT books as our Catholic Bibles...just happenstance, I guess...coincidence is an amazing thing, isn’t it...


47 posted on 08/13/2007 11:19:13 AM PDT by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Me? I’m just passing along the question.

“How can a church claim to be a “Biblical church” if it doesn’t believe in the Trinity?”


48 posted on 08/13/2007 11:22:08 AM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib

By the way, are you asserting that the KJV did not translate from any Latin Bibles but only the Greek ones?...

...he can assert no such thing...of course the KJV was translated using primarily Greek and Hebrew texts, but the Vulgate was used as a secondary source to resolve certain translation difficulties in the Textus Receptus...


49 posted on 08/13/2007 11:34:07 AM PDT by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade
...the Vulgate was used as a secondary source...

That's how I understood my history of the KJV as well so the statement that no "Catholic Bible" was used is simply incorrect.

50 posted on 08/13/2007 11:35:54 AM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
“How can a church claim to be a “Biblical church” if it doesn’t believe in the Trinity?”

Well I don't believe it can...But remember, your church didn't have the Trinity figured out til about 350 A.D...

51 posted on 08/13/2007 11:53:41 AM PDT by Iscool (OK, I'm Back...Now what were your other two wishes???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Nonsense...People are saved by accepting Jesus Christ as their Savior...Understanding the process often comes later...

Great comment. Reminds me of what one of my friends said, "Sitting in a church doesn't make a person a Christian any more than sitting in a garage makes him a car." We have to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior first. Good works follow, not as a means to salvation (since all fall way short of the Glory of God) but as a loving expression of that salvation...and for the love of Him who gave us Himself.

52 posted on 08/13/2007 4:57:28 PM PDT by pray4liberty (Watch and pray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

The Trinity is not a process. If you disbelieve the Trinity, then you do not understand the Christian understanding of Jesus. If you do not understand this, then you cannot accept Him as your Saviour because you cannot know what it mean. If you do not accept Him as your Saviour, then you don’t get into Heaven.

There is no Biblical support for the concept that when two or three are gathered, then that is the authorization to create a new Church. And if one studies alone, does that preclude Jesus being there?

The Bible itself precludes private interpretation, at least mine does. Does yours/


53 posted on 08/15/2007 7:19:12 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
There is no Biblical support for the concept that when two or three are gathered, then that is the authorization to create a new Church.

What are you talking about, a new church...

When two or more are gathered together, it IS the church...The church IS saved sinners wherever you find them...

You're confusing religion with church...

The 'church', the body of Christ, attend and belong to various 'religious' organizations such as the Baptist, the Reformed churches and even the Catholic churches...

The Bible itself precludes private interpretation, at least mine does. Does yours

Yes it does...And it even applies to that religion you belong to...

54 posted on 08/15/2007 7:49:36 AM PDT by Iscool (OK, I'm Back...Now what were your other two wishes???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
The Trinity is not a process. If you disbelieve the Trinity, then you do not understand the Christian understanding of Jesus. If you do not understand this, then you cannot accept Him as your Saviour because you cannot know what it mean.

HaHa...If that was true, nary a Catholic went to heaven for the 1st three hundered hears of YOUR religious history since Your religion hadn't 'discovered' the Trinity til then...

But talk about private interpretation, where in the world did you come up with this philosophy??? You didn't get it from the scripture...

Let me guess...Your religion taught you that...

55 posted on 08/15/2007 7:56:50 AM PDT by Iscool (OK, I'm Back...Now what were your other two wishes???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 3: God and the Holy Trinity

56 posted on 08/15/2007 8:49:12 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson