Exaltation of the Holy Cross
Posted on 05/16/2006 1:40:04 PM PDT by NYer
Exaltation of the Holy Cross
Semi on topic.
Why do the Orthodox cross themselves head/heart/right/left? This former Baptist/ Former Nun/ Practicing Greek Orthodox told me that we(RC) were the ones that changed to do exactly what the priest did. So that would have been in the 60's. I've never in my life heard that, is she making stuff up? IMO, she's remarkably anti-RC for a "former nun".
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by sionnsar, Huber and newheart.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue (by Huber)
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
AU bump!
If I can be of help or answer any questions, please let me know!
"Former nun" may explain the "remarkably ant-RC".
I wonder if the Ambrosian rite is licit in the U.S.
In any case here is a link to a video of the Ambrosian Mass in its traditional pre-1980s incarnation.
http://www.traditionalmass.net/mass_rome.nsf/9718a7111239e83c86256cfc0010c283/229ce6e7ddfbf58c86256d47005d7357?OpenDocument
Your former nun is correct that the Latin Church changed how the sign of the Cross is made.
On the whole it seems probable that the ultimate prevalence of the larger cross is due to an instruction of Leo IV in the middle of the ninth century. "Sign the chalice and the host", he wrote, "with a right cross and not with circles or with a varying of the fingers, but with two fingers stretched out and the thumb hidden within them, by which the Trinity is symbolized. Take heed to make this sign rightly, for otherwise you can bless nothing" (see Georgi, "Liturg. Rom. Pont.", III, 37). Although this, of course, primarily applies to the position of the hand in blessing with the sign of the cross; it seems to have been adapted popularly to the making of the sign of the cross upon oneself. Aelfric (about 1000) probably had it in mind when he tells his hearers in one of his sermons: "A man may wave about wonderfully with his hands without creating any blessing unless he make the sign of the cross. But if he do the fiend will soon be frightened on account of the victorious token. With three fingers one must bless himself for the Holy Trinity" (Thorpe, "The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church" I, 462). Fifty years earlier than this Anglo-Saxon Christians were exhorted to "bless all their bodies seven times with Christ's rood token" (Blicking Hom., 47), which seems to assume this large cross. Bede in his letter to Bishop Egbert advises him to remind his flock "with what frequent diligence to employ upon themselves the sign of our Lord's cross", though here we can draw no inferences as to the kind of cross made. On the other hand when we meet in the so-called "Prayer Book of King Henry" (eleventh century) a direction in the morning prayers to mark with the holy Cross "the four sides of the body", there is a good reason to suppose that the large sign with which we are now familiar is meant.
At this period the manner of making it in the West seems to have been identical with that followed at present in the East, i.e. only three fingers were used, and the hand traveled from the right shoulder to the left. The point, it must be confessed, is not entirely clear and Thalhofer (Liturgik, I, 633) inclines to the opinion that in the passages of Belethus (xxxix), Sicardus (III, iv), Innocent III (De myst. Alt., II, xlvi), and Durandus (V, ii, 13), which are usually appealed to in proof of this, these authors have in mind the small cross made upon the forehead or external objects, in which the hand moves naturally from right to left, and not the big cross made from shoulder to shoulder. Still, a rubric in a manuscript copy of the York Missal clearly requires the priest when signing himself with the paten to touch the left shoulder after the right. Moreover it is at least clear from many pictures and sculptures that in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the Greek practice of extending only three fingers was adhered to by many Latin Christians. Thus the compiler of the Ancren Riwle (about 1200) directs his nuns at "Deus in adjutorium" to make a little cross from above the forehead down to the breast with three fingers". However there can be little doubt that long before the close of the Middle Ages the large sign of the cross was more commonly made in the West with the open hand and that the bar of the cross was traced from left to right. In the "Myroure of our Ladye" (p. 80) the Bridgettine Nuns of Sion have a mystical reason given to them for the practice: "And then ye bless you with the sygne of the holy crosse, to chase away the fiend with all his deceytes. For, as Chrysostome sayth, wherever the fiends see the signe of the crosse, they flye away, dreading it as a staffe that they are beaten withall. And in thys blessinge ye beginne with youre hande at the hedde downwarde, and then to the lefte side and byleve that our Lord Jesu Christe came down from the head, that is from the Father into erthe by his holy Incarnation, and from the erthe into the left syde, that is hell, by his bitter Passion, and from thence into his Father's righte syde by his glorious Ascension".
The manual act of tracing the cross with the hand or the thumb has at all periods been quite commonly, though not indispensably, accompanied by a form of words. The formula, however, has varied greatly. In the earlier ages we have evidence for such invocation as "The sign of Christ", "The seal of the living God", "In the name of Jesus"; etc. Later we meet "In the name of Jesus of Nazareth", "In the name of the Holy Trinity", "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost", "Our help is in the name of the Lord", "O God come to my assistance". Members of the Orthodox Greek Church when blessing themselves with three fingers, as above explained, commonly use the invocation: "Holy God, Holy strong One, Holy Immortal One, Have mercy on us", which words, as is well known, have been retained in their Greek form by the Western Church in the Office for Good Friday.
It is unnecessary to insist upon the effects of grace and power attributed by the Church at all times to the use of the holy sign of the cross. From the earliest period it has been employed in all exorcisms and conjurations as a weapon against the spirits of darkness, and it takes its place not less consistently in the ritual of the sacraments and in every form of blessing and consecration. A famous difficulty is that suggested by the making of the sign of the cross repeatedly over the Host and Chalice after the words of institution have been spoken in the Mass. The true explanation is probably to be found in the fact that at the time these crosses were introduced (they vary too much in the early copies of the Canon to be of primitive institution), the clergy and faithful did not clearly ask themselves at what precise moment the transubstantiation of the elements was effected. They were satisfied to believe that it was the result of the whole of the consecratory prayer which we call the Canon, without determining the exact words which were operative; just as we are now content to know that the Precious Blood is consecrated by the whole word spoken over the chalice, without pausing to reflect whether all the words are necessary. Hence the signs of the cross continue till the end of the Canon and they may be regarded as mentally referred back to a consecration which is still conceived of as incomplete. The process is the reverse of that by which in the Greek Church at the "Great Entrance" the highest marks of honour are paid to the simple elements of bread and wine in anticipation of the consecration which they are to receive shortly afterwards.
Byzantine Catholics, like the Greek Orthodox, also make the sign of the Cross from right to left.
The Armenians, Copts, Syriacs and Ethiopians make the sign of the Cross from left to right like the Latins.
Dr. Alex Roman and Ukrainian Catholic theology professor in Canada says:
Dr. Alexander Roman alex.roman@unicorne.org
Until the 14th century, Orthodox and Catholics made the Sign of the Cross in the same manner.
They joined the thumb, index and middle fingers to symbolize the Holy Trinity and then invoked the Trinity as they touched their head then their stomach and then went from right to left.
The Sign of the Cross symbolized a compendium of the life of Christ and the touching of one's stomach when one said "And the Son" symbolizes the Incarnation of Christ in the womb of His Mother.
By going to the right shoulder, we confess that Christ, after His death on the Cross and Resurrection, ascended to heaven where He sits at the Right Hand of the Father. This is also a confession of Christ's Deity, since only equals may sit in the Presence of the King - in this case, God the Father.
Pope Innocent III, who met with St Francis of Assisi, also taught the Sign of the Cross in this way. Western Christians, however, only made the Sign once, whereas Eastern Christians made it three times.
Later Catholics began crossing from left to right. The reason for this was that the laity began imitating their priests who, when they blessed their congregations, moved their hands from left to right (they were facing the congregation and so moved their hands in unison with their flock who were going from right to left). Soon, laity began doing as the priests did and a new practice was born, different from the ancient Latin one which was formerly the same as that of the Eastern Orthodox.
The Oriental Orthodox also cross themselves from left to right, and they understand this to mean that Christ brought us from the darkness of sin (the left, in Latin "sinister"), to the Light of His Grace on the right.
The RC practice of crossing with the whole hand also derived from an imitation of their priests who blessed with their whole hand rather than with the Christogram (shaping the fingers to represent the letters of Christ's Name, IC XC). This was because the popes of Rome reserved to themselves the sole right to bless the faithful using the Christogram.
"...remarkably anti-RC for a 'former nun'."
That's unremarkable.
The only Orthodox person I know is very anti-Catholic, to the point of being bigoted.
"'A man may wave about wonderfully with his hands without creating any blessing unless he make the sign of the cross. But if he do the fiend will soon be frightened on account of the victorious token. With three fingers one must bless himself for the Holy Trinity'..."
I assume this would rule out the now-popular (and disgusting) practice of raising the arm in a Hitler-esque salute when "the people" are bestowing a "blessing" (when there is a priest present, even).
Sounds like you are an ignorant fellow. You mean giving a salute in a Roman fashion.
You're right. I'm ignorant about many things. Thanks for educating me.
The AU conference is becoming quite a gathering these days. I would be there but instead this year am going on pilgrimage to the Holy Land and from there to Rome for the Pentecost meeting of the ecclesial movements with the Holy Father. I ask for the prayers of all for our safety and greater conversion.
Might make it out to the Foro Italico (Stadio Olimpico) as well.
I'm reading a book written by Chorbishop Seely J. Beggiani entitled The Divine Liturgy of hte Maronite Church _ History and Commentary. It delves back through time into the origins of the Syriac and Maronite liturgies and shows the evolution of the Church interior, the altar and its furnishings. 18th century Patriarch Stephen AdDuwaihy, in his foundational work on the liturgy, Manarat al-Aqdas ("the lamp of the holy mysteries"), cites examples of Maronite churches such as those of Mar Saba of Sharri and the Church of Our Lady of Aleppo which had a cupola built over the altar resting on four figures cited in the Book of Revelation, namely the lion, the ox, the man, and the eagle. Back then, the use of a curtain which covered the altar in the Antiochene church seems to have had a practical liturgical purpose. The curtain was closed during the preparation of the gifts and during the Liturgy of the Word at the time when it did not take place in the sanctuary.
According to Patriarch Ad-Duwaihy, the altar signifies Christ and all the places where he resided: the manger in which he was born, the boat in the rear of which he slept, the mountain where he was transfigured, the cross on which he shed his blood, and the tomb in which he was laid. Altars were originally made of wood to symbolize the Cross and also to be portable during times of persecution. At the Council of Nicea, the Fathers ordered altars made of stone, as was the tomb of Christ, and to signify the permanence of the Holy Sacrifice until the end of time. The altar should be rectangular because it is a place of repast.
The Fathers do not allow that the altar be attached to the wall but have ordained that it should stand independently. Thus the altar resembles the wood of the cross on which the Lord was raised. This position of the altar enables processions to take place around it at its consecration, at the ordination of subdeacons, and at the burial of priests. So as not to render the sanctuary too narrow, it is ordered that there be an apse in the wall as one sees in the churches of hte East.
In the Chapter - Preparation and Service of the Word - he further explains that the Divine Liturgy is made up of two parts: the Service of the Word and the Service of the Eucharist. The Jewish synagogue service which was the root from which the Service of the Word sprang, consisted of public readings from the Scripture, the singing of psalms, a sermon and a number of set prayers. In all Christian churches from the earliest time that we have definite evidence, these prayers were universally placed last, after the homily, and have remained there ever since.
It's absolutely fascinating to move through time and watch these liturgies evolve into their present formats.
Oh, my GOODNESS, pravknight!! That is so beautiful it makes me tear up! So LOVELY!
Great post, thanks! That was so very interesting.
Most old Latin high altars (at least the main altar in the church) are not completely flush with the wall, since the bishop has to be able to walk completely around it during the consecration of the church.
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.