www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West hand position for sign of cross

Dear Adam,

The discussion is about to get even nicer .

There are many references to the Cross in the Old Testament celebrated by our Church, as you know.

Moses' hands in the air during the battle represented the Cross, as did his use of his staff to part the Red Sea and then bring the waters back together.

The staff itself was often topped by a bar to represent a "T" for the practical reason that one could lean on it. This too represents the Cross, as does Aaron's staff that budded at its head and was kept as a holy relic in the Jerusalem Temple itself.

Jacob's placement of hands on Joseph's two grandsons, cross wise etc.

The Ethiopians regard both the Ark of the Covenant and the Cross as equal bearers of the Presence of God, the Shekinah.

This is why little representations of the Ark are to be found at the base of their hand-crosses.

The Mother of God is also the new "Ark of the Covenant" who bore God Incarnate.

The Egyptian "Ankh" is a cross and is called the "Ansate" Cross in heraldry today.

Greek missionaries to pagan Egypt converted many by their convincing arguments that they already honoured the Cross of Christ. They only needed to believe in Him Who was crucified on it.

Alex

Yes, us non-sacramental Protestants

It's O.K. though, I'm a *Methodist* (forum applause)

Thanks for the info, I understand it better, but if Christ has already sanctified everything by his Passion, Death, and Resurrection, how can we further sanctify things with the Sign?

*Please remember: I'm not advocating to not use the Sign of the Cross, I support it as much as anyone else. I just want to learn more about it so I can better explain if I am ever in the situation.*

Pax Christi,
ChristTeen287

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Glory to Him Forever!

Neat info . I also read about how in King Solomon's temple that the kings of Israel were anointed with oil in the sign of the cross. I thought that was neat.

Also as you know, there is the tradition that the cross of Christ is actually the same tree of the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" in Eden. Connected with this tradition is the vision the Queen of Sheba had when she visited King Solomon to see the tree of knowledge of good and evil. She had a vision of a man suffering on that tree. Solomon had it buried underground after that. (Who wouldn't? ) It was dug up of course, and was supposed to have become the cross of Calvary.

Adam

I apologize if I missed the explanation, but: WHY, exactly, do Old Believers use two fingers instead of three? (This topic actually came up at work, of all places.)

Btw, I've never heard any Franciscan explanation of five fingers representing five wounds. But I guess that make sense. Franciscans of the Holy Land are, of course, fond of the Jerusalem cross or "five wounds" cross. Many of my fellow third order secular Franciscan colleagues wear the Jerusalem cross or the San Damiano cross in addition to our usual tau, esp. since we are so near the monastery in DC.

The Old Believers use the 2 fingers to symbolize the two Natures of OUr Lord, Divine and Human.

Brian in Sacramento

Dear Friends,

Yes, as Brian has said, the two fingers represent the two Natures of the One Christ.

The middle finger is bent down slightly, signifying that the Son of God "bent the heavens" and came down to earth to become man.

So the middle finger is bent to be even with the length of the index finger.

Again, only the Pope in the West formally blesses in this manner.

Alex

Dear Annie,

The symbol of the five fingers was a later interpretation of a practice that Christians in the West took up.

The Western Catholic priests blessed with the whole hand as only the Pope blessed with the two fingers etc.

Pope Innocent III, the Pope who met St Francis, actually wrote a small treatise defending the use of the three-fingered Sign of the Cross that we of the East, Old Rite excepted, use.

This treatise was published in Eastern Catholic prayerbooks in Slavonic beginning in the 18th century as a way of demonstrating the 'correctness' of this Sign of the Cross to Latins.

Alex

Dear ChristTeen,

I too share your enthusiasm for Methodism which is really a way of life dedicated to sanctification.

Christ did indeed save and sanctify us on the Cross.

But we are to appropriate His salvation and sanctification by the Holy Spirit in our lives and become lights and vessels of the Spirit to bring that salvation to the world.

That is the "salvation as process" aspect.

Otherwise, why do we need missionaries? And why do we need to continue in prayer and the Christian life?

Alex

Dear Friends,

This is an excellent discussion and I have learned a lot from it. Sorry for my late response to Francesco. Armenian Christians make the Holy Sign as we call it (Soorp Neeshan) from left to right as Alex has pointed out is the practice of all the Oriental Orthodox Churches. We might be unique in that at the end of the Sign we touch our heart to internalize this Sacred Sign within us. So it goes left to right and then it almost looks as if we are going back to the left again but we aren't. We are just touching our hearts. This can be confusing for people visiting who are trying to figure out which way we make the Sign without being obvious by staring at someone too long.

I once had a very Eastern literate Roman Catholic friend visit our Divine Liturgy. Attempting to be ecumenically sensitive, he went through the whole Divine Liturgy making the Sign from right to left thinking he was doing the right thing. We got a good chuckle later when he reported this to me and I explained our correct practice.

One last thing, I once read that Armenians historically made the sign with one finger to emphasize our belief in the "one incarnate nature of Christ." I'm not sure how true this is but will try to find out.

Oh, and by the way, speaking of Biblical OT prophesies about the Holy Cross, we can't forget the prophecy by St. Ezechiel:

"And the Lord said to him: Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem: and mark Thauy upon the foreheads of the men that sigh, and mourn for all the abominations that are committed in the midst therof." (Ez 9:4)

As the note in the Douay-Rheims Bible states, "Thau, or Tau, is the last letter in the Hebrew alphabet, and signifies a sign, or a mark; which is the reason why some translators render this place "set a mark," or "mark a mark," without specifying what this mark was. But St. Jerome, and other interpreters, conclude it was the form of the letter Thau, which in the ancient Hebrew character was the form of a cross."

IN Christ's Light,

Ghazar

"The West used to use three fingers, as we know Pope Innocent III in the time of St Francis wrote a treatise in its defence. The West soon saw laity bless themselves with the whole hand, going first to the left shoulder. The laity observed the actions of the priest who could only bless with the whole hand - only the Pope could bless with the "Christogram." And the priest went from left to right as he faced the people - to follow their movement from right to left. Soon everyone was going left to right."

"In the Oriental Orthodox Churches, however, the Sign of the Cross is done with three fingers and everyone goes from left to right, from "the darkness of sin to the light of Christ."

-Orthodox Catholic

Der Alex,

Excuse me, but I'm a little skeptical of this explanation. I don't mean to question you but I have also heard this story from Roman Catholics in the exact opposite manor. They claim it was the Byzantines who got it backwards. Fr. Hopko once said that the difference might have existed from the very beginning. What evidence is there that Christians of the Latin Church ever made the Sign from right to left?

The fact that the Oriental Orthodox all make the Sign the same way as the Latins and this after being seperated for over a millenia and a half, makes me also doubt the accuracy of the story. What real evidence is there for this?

Trusting in Christ's Light,

Ghazar

This is VERY interesting, and I'm glad I didn't miss this.

In Orthodox churches in India and in this country among our people, it is common to see folks make the Sign in exactly the way you have described, Ghazar. I've always wondered the significance of such a move to the heart, and the only explanation I ever thought made sense was that it was a practice picked up during triple blessings during the Liturgy. As the priest blessed people with the cross three times during such blessings, the people signed themselves three times, but since they were rather close together, they'd make the cross, and then place their hand near their heart to keep it "closer" to them when they'd have to make the sign again. Perhaps this is the real reason, or perhaps it is the reason you cite, Ghazar, I don't know for sure. But you are not alone, and even if the reason we do it is purely out of convenience, it is good to know that it can be "spiritualised" by the explanation you give. Thanks for mentioning it!

If I am right also in the (Greek) Byzantine tradition we put the hand over our heart after making the sign of the cross.

Dear Ghazarian,

Well, we do have the tract by Pope Innocent III that shows the Latins did, in fact, go from right to left.

In addition, there are the scholars of the Western Orthodox tradition who all agree on the use of three fingers and going from right to left (but only once, not three times as in the Byzantine East).

I have a copy of Pope Innocent III's explanation in Church Slavonic - it was published by Metropolitan Ilarion Ohienko and mentioned by him several times throughout his books.

The Sign of the Cross underwent development from the earliest times, as you know.

I just received the Psalter of the Old Believers from Kyiv that contains a quite lengthy explanation of the Sign of the Cross at the beginning.

They quote various early Fathers, including Bl Theodoret, St Meletius of Antioch and even the later St Maximos the Greek - all of whom agree that the early Church:

1) referred to making the Sign of the Cross "over one's face" and that this meant on one's forehead and elsewhere that soon included the main part of the body;

2) That the only form of the fingers to make the Sign of the Cross mentioned was that of the two fingers with middle finger bent - based on the Roman senatorial practice of exclaiming symbolically to the senate that they are about to say or do something very solemn.

It COULD be (and neither of us were there:)) that the one finger Sign of the Cross, once popular in Egypt too, could have been the two-fingered Sign of the Cross in actuality . . .

The movement to the right shoulder spoke of the sitting at the right hand of God the Father of Christ. It COULD have been that the Oriental Churches changed this to differentiate themselves from those who excommunicated them - just as they developed their own form of holding the fingers - this is possible and I don't think we can ever know for sure.

The use of the fingers to signify Christ, rather than the Trinity, is actually older.

The use of one finger reflects that as does the other Ethiopian practice of crossing the thumb and index finger.

The argument of "sacerdotalism" taking over practices once fulfilled by laity and deacons may be true.

In the East, every priest blesses with the two fingers and also the argument can be made that at one time everyone crossed themselves with a form of the Christogram until this was reserved to the priests.

In the West, only the Pope uses the two fingers.

(Deacons used to prepare the Proskomide and that was later usurped by the priests so now only they do it - deacons do everything else though ).

The placement of one's hand over the heart has more to do with the original position of one's hands in prayer, however.

The early Church used the "X" symbol, the first letter of Christ's Name in Greek, as an identity symbol and that of prayer.

If you met a Christian in the streets during the times of persecution, you would draw a line on a wall and the other person would complete the "X" as a form of greeting!

In addition to praying with hands uplifted, Christians also made the sacred "X" symbol by crossing their hands and arms over their chest or heart to indicate one's dedication to Christ.

There are some differences of practice that we may only discuss and will never really know about for sure.

In my old age, I've taken up the Old Believers' Sign of the Cross as I've found it to be deeply meaningful.

But I like to cross myself using other traditions, depending on who I'm praying with and on my mood!

The Tau Cross was truly venerated not only by the Israelites, but by the Egyptians who carried the "ankh" with them as you know.

The Greeks who missionized among them kept referring to their Tau crosses and told them that God had already planted faith in the cross among them.

The ancient Coptic Christian symbol placed on their homes was the Cross on top of a heart that later became the symbol of the Sacred Heart of Jesus devotion in the West.

I've also seen 3,000 year old statues of Assyrian Kings in the British museum - each of which is wearing a "+" Cross on a cord around their necks as we do today.

There are, in fact, over 300 forms of the Cross in heraldry and the Armenian Church has its national Khatchkar Cross.

Isn't this the 1,700 anniversary of Armenian Christianity?

Did you want to enlighten us all about that?

Alex

Brother Mor Ephrem,

you wrote:

"In Orthodox churches in India and in this country among our people, it is common to see folks make the Sign in exactly the way you have described, Ghazar."

reply: Thank you for the feedback, I did not know this. I'm glad we aren't the only ones who do this.

you wrote:
I've always wondered the significance of such a move to the heart, and the only explanation I ever thought made sense was that it was a practice picked up during triple blessings during the Liturgy. As the priest blessed people with the cross three times during such blessings, the people signed themselves three times, but since they were rather close together, they'd make the cross, and then place their hand near their heart to keep it "closer" to them when they'd have to make the sign again. Perhaps this is the real reason, or perhaps it is the reason you cite, Ghazar, I don't know for sure. But you are not alone, and even if the reason we do it is purely out of convenience, it is good to know that it can be "spiritualised" by the explanation you give. Thanks for mentioning it!"

reply: You're welcome. In your Church, this theory may indeed be correct to explain this action. In our Divine Liturgy, I don't recall a point where we sign ourselves three times in a roll. Therefore, I don't know if this is the reason for the practice. Perhaps there was a pragmatic reason originally. If so, I've yet to find it. So, the spiritual one suffices for me in the meantime.

May I ask you your Church affiliation? Are you Syrian or Indian. And, if you don't mind, are you a cleric? I recall Alex referring to you as "Catholicos" but I never knew if he was serious or only fooling around (as he is admirably prone to do).

Good hearing from you,

Trusting in Christ's Light,

Ghazar

Der Alex,

you wrote
Well, we do have the tract by Pope Innocent III that shows the Latins did, in fact, go from right to left.

reply: This is very interesting to me, Alex. How can I get my hands on it or access it in English?

you wrote:
The Sign of the Cross underwent development from the earliest times, as you know.

...They quote various early Fathers, including Bl Theodoret, St Meletius of Antioch and even the later St Maximos the Greek - all of whom agree that the early Church:

1) referred to making the Sign of the Cross "over one's face" and that this meant on one's forehead and elsewhere that soon included the main part of the body;

reply: Add Tertullian to this list. I have read a powerful statement of his about the Christian's constant use of the Holy Sign upon himself.

you said:
It COULD be (and neither of us were there:)) that the one finger Sign of the Cross, once popular in Egypt too, could have been the two-fingered Sign of the Cross in actuality . . .

reply: Good point.

you said:
The movement to the right shoulder spoke of the sitting at the right hand of God the Father of Christ. It COULD have been that the Oriental Churches changed this to differentiate themselves from those who excommunicated them - just as they developed their own form of holding the fingers - this is possible and I don't think we can ever know for sure.

reply: I wish there were an exhaustive study of this. But then again I like having the difference as it exists today. I think we can draw a very great spiritual lesson out of the difference. It once occured to me (hopefully via the Holy Spirit and not another spirit) that the diffence underlines the difference between East and West. Although our Tradition of the Sign of the Cross is not the same it signifies the same reality: the effective power of Christ's Cross in our lives.

It may even be significant that in the Sign we are an exact mirror reflection of one another, East, West and Oriental Orthodox. So, therefore, our seeming disagreement (to those who have the eyes to see it) is rather a profound, mysterious manifestation of our true concord. Just maybe, this is what the Holy Spirit wants us to learn from many, if not all of our differences.

Thank you for your very learned post!

In Christ's Light,

p.s.

you said:
Isn't this the 1,700 anniversary of Armenian Christianity?

Did you want to enlighten us all about that?

reply: I get it... do I want to "enlighten" you all about the 1700th anniversary of our "enlightenment." Nice one, Alex.

Actually that was 2001. You missed it. Check back in three hundred years and I'll tell you about our 2000th anniversay.

Just kidding. We had a tremendous year. Armenians of all stripes had great celebrations and lasting projects which will impact our Churches for years to come. Some noteworthy things were:

1. The Canonization of Archbishop Ignatius Maloyan by H.H. John Paul II of Rome. St. Ignatius of Mardine was martyred during the Armenian Genocide. This was another historic recognition of the Genocide by Rome.

see
http://au.geocities.com/yesarka/maloyanspl.html

2. The publishing of the new second edition of "The Teaching of St. Gregory" by the renowned Armenian scholar Robert Thompson. This an ancient Armenian catechism attributed to St. Gregory the Illuminator and is certainly a reflection of the faith Soorp Kreekor the Illuminator brought to our people (if not his actual composition).

see
http://www.armenianchurch.org/resources/bookstore/index.html

There were many other works published by the Armenian Apostolic and Armenian Catholic Churches
designed for the revitalization of the faith of
Armenians. All in all, it was a very wonderful experience. I am thankful I had the priveledge to live during this time. Thanks for asking.