www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall St. Elias Website

Everyone's favorite most Eastern parish ever has updated their website quite nicely. Check it out:

http://www.saintelias.com/ca/index.php

Dear UC,

The only question mark I have is their analysis of the Sign of the Cross, when they say that it was only at the Nikonian reforms that Kyivan Rus' adopted the three-fingered Sign.

Ukraine had close ties with Greece and followed the Greek and Orthodox universal customs as a result. It was Muscovy that developed its own customs, including the two-fingered Sign of the Cross from ancient times and hung onto them.

Orthodox scholars, then and now, would disagree that the "Old Rite" is older than the "New Rite" of the three-fingered Sign of the Cross.

But then . . .

Alex

I question highback phelons but hey, it's a great parish with many good people.

I highly enjoyed and gained from my covert visit there.

-uc

If you check the old photos high back vestments were everywhere among the Catholics. It is a much older and simpler style. The backing does not have to be there to make the back so stiff. The same cut at the neck was at one stage used in vestments in the west as well.

Also what today constitutes the modern Republic of Ukraine is only the southern most part of the old Kievan state. Constantinople changed and the Nikonian Reforms were an attempt to bring Rus inline with Constantinople usage. The old ritualists be they in Ukraine or anywhere else still use the old arrangement of the fingers for making the sign of the cross.

UC - the "high backs" apparently originated in Poltava and areas east of Kyiv. They were not originally "Muscovite" per se but were known in the Pecherska Lavra earlier than Moscow and were also known in the Old Rite.

"Highbacks Rule!!!"
DD

Alex writes that "Orthodox scholars, then and now, would disagree that the "Old Rite" is older than the "New Rite" of the three-fingered Sign of the Cross."

All the more shame to such pseudo-scholars! Let them learn better.

Incognitus

Diak,

I've heard that they come from the Poltava region but..... ehh... I just don't like the look but I'm sure I just have to get use to it.

I actually remember seeing a picture with the then Fr. Slypiy wearing one so they can't be all that bad.

Oh well.... high backs it is.

-uc

Dear Incognitus,

So you are calling Saint Dmitri Tuptalenko, Metropolitan of Rostov, a "pseudo-scholar" are you?

There are a few other Orthodox saints that you yourself probably commemorate in your parish litia service that would have also agreed with St Dmitri on this score.

One may disagree, but one doesn't have to be malevolent . . .

Don't you agree?

Alex

Dear Pavel,

You are more than correct, of course, about Ukraine.

What I'm really asking is how we might arrive at a commonly agreed view on how the Sign of the Cross in our tradition developed.

How do we know that the two-fingered Sign of the Cross was used prior to the development of the three-fingered Sign of the Cross?

Even the Old Believers have had to resort to what has been called "intellectual stretches" to try and find evidence that this was so.

The Kyivan Pechersk Psalter's traditional forward has included a disputation on this and a denial that the two-fingered Sign of the Cross was ever used universally, as the Old Believers claim (perhaps the Kyivan Caves Fathers were also "pseudo-scholars" as Incognitus would have it! ).

The only written evidence the Old Believers can come up with to confirm the two-fingered Sign of the Cross in antiquity is a saying ascribed to Bl Theodoret and also from the life of St Meletius who blessed with two fingers and fire proceeded etc. To this the Psalter replies that Meletius used two fingers to bless, as is proper for a priest or bishop to do - this is no proof he would have crossed HIMSELF with two fingers.

Then there is the Stoglav Muscovite Council that actually anathematized ANY Orthodox Christian who would refuse to make the Sign of the Cross with two fingers ("as indicated by Christ"). When did our Lord ever prescribe two fingers for the Sign of the Cross?

I'm asking, not accusing or naming anyone as a "pseudo-scholar" (as Incognitus doubtless would - he's even got Amado upset with him . . . I don't know if Alice and Anhelyna - great fans of his for some reason - even if they worked together, can get him out of this one! ).

How do we know Greece used the two-fingered Sign of the Cross and later changed to three?

Personally, I PREFER the two-fingered Sign of the Cross with the Jesus Prayer and I use it most of the time, especially with the rule of the Prayer.

I just would like to know some answers to the above questions!

You, Pavel, I know won't be dismissory of them as Incognitus would and I look forward to hearing from you (and not necessarily from Incognitus ).

Alex

Dear Alex,
Self-serving scholarship is always suspect - the tobacco companies spend millions in efforts to prove that smoking is unrelated to cancer; this is about as convincing as would be a society of Mafia scholars "proving" that there is no such thing as organized crime.

On the issue of the Sign of the Cross - the position of the fingers of the right hand as retained by the Old Ritualists originated, so far as is known, in the Roman Senate; it was a sign or indication that the Senator thus raising his hand had something of importance to say. It is not difficult to find Icons of the Lord Jesus Christ raising His Right Hand in exactly the same way. It is also not difficult to find pictures of the Popes blessing in the same fashion (including Pope Benedict XVI, incidentally). Selah.

Incognitus

17/30 January 2006 A.D. � Saint Anthony the Great

Dear Alex,
Dear, dear Alex. I�ll try to do this gently. You seem to be under the impression that there is no Kyivan source for the position of the right hand used by the Old-Ritualists in blessing oneself or others. I shall not speculate on how you could possibly have arrived at such an impression.

But you surely have access to one or more photographs of the Pantocrator in the center of the dome of Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv. So take a look at the position of the Right Hand of Our Saviour.

If you would like something more up-to-date, you can probably find a nice photograph of the Icon of Our Saviour on the Icon-screen of Saint Sophia Catholicon in Rome (the icons for the icon-screen are the work of Father Juvenaly, of the Studites). Again, note the position of the Right Hand of Our Saviour.

That takes us from the eleventh century to the twentieth century. There are any number of other examples from the intervening centuries. I shall recommend you to the heavenly intercessions of Saint Ambrose of Bila Krinitsia.

As to Saint Dimitry of Rostov, he is in many ways admirable. But on this particular point, if he chose to involve himself on the Nikonian side of the controversy, I can only assume that he had very little choice, and/or that he had not had the opportunity to read what the Old-Ritualists were saying.

There are many indications of the same position of the Right Hand of Our Saviour (and the right hand of this or that other Saint, by the way) in iconography in Byzantine circles through the Paleologan period, but I have no trouble in believing that the Greeks had changed that position in common use well before the seventeenth century. I also have no trouble believing that, as is well known, Greek influence was strong both in Kyiv and in Western Ukraine, so that the �Nikonian� arrangement of the hand for the Sign of the Cross could easily have spread to parts of Ukraine. Until Nikon made an issue of the matter, there does not seem to have been much in the way of polemics on the topic. But there really is no serious room to doubt that the Old Ritualists were correct in their insistence that the older arrangement, which remains in use among them, is indeed the older tradition.

Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

NOW I know your real identity! Your post above just gave you away!

Your secret is safe with me and I consider myself to be under oath!! It comes as a surprise but also as a blessing that you are here on this forum!

O.K., but the Orthodox Church teaches that the two-fingered Sign of the Cross IS the form for the hieratic blessing of the people and so your examples ONLY serve to prove that the two fingers were always used that way.

There is NO evidence that two fingers were ever used to trace the Sign of the Cross on oneself, apart from the testimony of Bl. Theodoret. But, as St John Damscene wrote, "Just because one sparrow has sung does not mean that spring is here!"

I'm only asking for actual evidence to show that Christians, apart from Old Believers, ever historically crossed THEMSELVES with two fingers.

Just asking, not wishing to make controversy since I myself prefer the Old Believer traditions . . .

Spasi Khrystos! (This would be considered bad grammar in Ukrainian . . . ).

Ciao, Big Guy!

I mean, kissing your right hand I again implore your blessing . . .

Alex

Well, I'm glad to plead guilty to being someone who is reasonably familiar with the iconography of the Paleologan period.

Icons are seldom done in some sort of cinematic style, so that we would be able to watch the saints making the Sign of the Cross. Much of the polemic on this issue has to do with the question of whether there should be two different hand positions - one for making the Sign of the Cross on oneself, and another for blessing someone else. But Nikon in fact introduced a double innovation in this regard, so my suggested iconographic references retain their full strength. If you wish, I can suggest some more recent icons from Nikonian sources which show the form Nikon wanted.

Incognitus (who gazes at icons quite often in a variety of places - but mostly in albums of iconography)

Dear (to me) Cognitus!

But surely you are cognizant of the fact that there is NO iconographic example of anyone crossing themselves with two fingers in the Byzantine tradition - apart from Old Believer icons.

You will find the entire issue discussed in the Orthodox Psalter (apart from that issued by Patriarch Joseph of Moscow).

Three fingers for the Sign of the Cross on oneself (and for laity and non-ordained monastics blessing an object/person) and two fingers for the hieratic blessing.

Nikon introduced the "IC XC" formation of the hieratic blessing, did he not? Is that what you are referring to?

You are not only NOT providing evidence (except in the sense of "they MUST have" crossed themselves with two fingers since they blessed this way)but you also appear to contradict the teaching of the Orthodox Church outside the tradition of the Old Believers, which tradition is set out quite clearly in the Psalter that Jordanville publishes.

That is not evidence. That is stretching and redefining evidence that has NEVER been accepted by mainstream Orthodoxy as conclusive of the two finger Sign of the Cross.

I am not against that form. And I venerate St Ambrose of Bila Krinitsa.

In fact, Reverend and Revered Sir, I have also helped produce a little video on the history of the Old Believers in Kyiv - which video indicates my name under the credits.

So . . . THERE!

Other than Old Believer sources, can you show ONE Orthodox source that would defend your position, other than yourself? If you have published a paper on this, could you direct me to it as well?

It's rather incredulous that you would make this a personal thing with me, as if I am somehow responsible for coming up with the entire argument!

Anyway, apart from making the spurious conclusion that because there are many icons indicating the hieratic blessing with two fingers, that this MUST mean they crossed themselves that way too, I await any further rational argument/presentation from you.

When you have time, of course. I appreciate you must be very busy!

Alex

Dear Alex,
Your video sounds as though it would be interesting.
Your argument appears to rest on the assumption that people used a different position of the hand to bless themselves than they used to bless others. But the sources you refer me to are all Nikonian; it is hardly surprising that Nikonian sources defend Nikonian ideas. Have you any pre-Nikonian sources for that suggestion?
Meanwhile you inspire me to think that I should finally learn how to create an avatar - and use the great Pantocrator from Saint Sophia in Kyiv for the purpose.

Incognitus

When the reforms were officially brought online were there not instuctions issued as to what had to change, to bring the Rus lands in line with the Greek lands? Are there not lists that scholars can read?

That the Old Believers made such an issue of no changes I would think it was likely that what they wont change or deviate from was the norm in those days. After all they were prepared to suffer and die for these matters.

Spasi Khristos!

Alex, I don't disagree that areas near the Black Sea and southwest Ukraine certainly had direct ecclesiastical influence from the Bulgarians and Greeks, and even Romanians and Moldavians in Bukovina, all using Greek or heavily Greek-influenced practice.

There are definitely pre-Nikonian books of piety in existence which definitely instruct the layman in the use of the true (I mean Old Rite... ) way of making the sign of the Cross, and not just the hierarchy. The original Slavonic "Son of the Church" from before the Nikonian reforms has a little drawing clearly showing the two-fingered Sign of the Cross.

The received traditions of many of the Bezpopovtsy groups are fairly "pure" in this way, and they likely would not have adopted something proper to the priest or bishop for lay use.
DD

n.b. I am suprised it took you that long to deduce the identity of Incog, considering your erudite ways. Slainte.

Those who attend Divine Liturgy at Saint Elias are truly blessed!

It seems that the Eastern Catholic Church in Canada has recovered/maintained the traditions more!

Glory to God!

Laka, you aren't that far from Ohio, just a hop and skip past Toledo, across the Ambassador Bridge and a few hours later you are there.

Archpriest Roman and the parish family are known for great hospitality and any visit you make will be cherished.
DD

Yes, a visit to St. Elias is well worth the drive. Make a weekend out of it and take some of your Franciscan friends. Do Vespers on Saturday and Matins/Liturgy on Sunday.

Plus, its a good excuse to stop are Duty Free

-uc

This should be the MODEL church for all Byzantine Catholics!

What they are doing is everything right!

What a blessing...

Dear Father DIAKon,

It would appear that I am wrong again about Incognitus' identity - each time, though, I'm told why it has taken me so long to find it out, and that really adds insult to injury!

But who cares who he is anyway? What's the big deal? :p

You know I would always raise two fingers up for you!

Incognitus (and I don't care who he is, really . . .) makes eminent sense when he says that the two fingered Sign of the Cross would have been used for all kinds of blessings, including on oneself.

However, this is just not what mainstream Orthodoxy affirms.

His division of Orthodoxy into "Nikonian" and "Old Rite" camps is ONLY appropriate for Russia where, as it would seem, the development of the two fingered Sign of the Cross became, as Metropolitan Ilarion Ohienko often wrote, the "Russian national rite of crossing oneself."

The Old Rite schism really only affected the Russian Church in a big way - down to our times as well, involving "biritual" Russian parishes and the like.

Metropolitan Ohienko also wrote that the reason the Russians divided over the Old Rite traditions has more to do with Russian spirituality than anything else.

He affirmed, and I know many have agreed with him, that Russian spirituality places an emphasis on the external rite even OVER the theology that it expresses as if the external rite is written in stone and ensures the Orthodoxy of the theology - to change the external rite would be to introduce heresy etc.

The Old Believers (apart from the Edinovertsy, of course) certainly do affirm that Orthodox Christians who cross themselves with three fingers are expressing an heretical concept - that the entire Holy Trinity suffered and died on the Cross!

They also believe that there is a directive from Christ Himself to sign oneself in this manner - something about a dream one of the bezpopovtsy leaders had.

They also believe that the liturgical books they have, grammatical errors and all, cannot even be corrected since this would be to tamper with the Orthodox theology expressed therein (!).

Even the change to the way the Name of our Lord is written iconography is considered heretical.

They are absolutely convinced that these external rites are not only "their traditions" or "one among others," but that they are "THE traditions" that alone guarantee the Orthodox "lex orandi, lex credendi" process inviolate.

This is why they don't like "uniatism" among their ranks - Old Rite Orthodox who join the ROCOR or the MP as "Edinovertsy" seem to affirm that they are "one among other" rites etc.

I've no problem with the Old Rite as an Orthodox tradition, rite and Particular Church.

But to affirm, as they are serious about doing, that their ways are the only Orthodox ways raises some serious problems, no?

Likewise, the discourse in the Orthodox Psalter from the Kyiv Caves Lavra is quite serious about countering their claims regarding the historicity and "oldness" of their Sign of the Cross and traditions.

The Old Rite Orthodox themselves ONLY point to Bl. Theodoret's quote and to St Meletius - both of which have dubious origins, as Fr. Dr. Paul Meyendorff also discusses in his published doctoral dissertation on the Old Rite.

The only real argument they have (and it is one that is rejected not only by "Nikonians" but also by Orthodox who have not had anything to do with Patriarch Nikon - whom they are thinking of advancing as a saint, as I understand . . .), the only real argument they have is what Incognitus has advanced, namely, that because icons always portray the hieratic blessing with two fingers, then this means that the laity also must have blessed themselves with two fingers.

Mainstream Orthodoxy, Nikonian and otherwise, simply rejects that argument and one may ask any Orthodox priest or bishop about it (I have, several times, and my question has all but been laughed off each time).

Moreover, that the "IC XC" form of the hieratic blessing was reserved to the upper clergy alone is also seen, one might argue, in the fact that in the West, the Pope of Rome, over time, reserved this form of blessing to HIMSELF ALONE.

The argument that Roman Senators also used this form of shaping one's hand is NO proof that Christian laity must have used this - Bishops also imitated the Senatorial traditions, as we know, and both groups had no reason to see these traditions as something that the laity or, in the senators' case, the plebeians, could or should imitate.

I, for one, do hope Incognitus gets an avatar and I'm happy to have inspired him in this respect.

I respect and use the Old Rite traditions, the Prayer of the Publican before and after services etc.

I also respect and use the Ethiopian traditions.

Each time Incognitus responds to me, he sounds as if I'm somehow the stick in the mud that won't change what is my personal view on this matter.

It is not my personal view, it is the view of the mainstream of Orthodoxy and also ECism. That there are Edinovertsy in both camps changes nothing either.

Incognitus is wrong to think that way and he is also unable to provide any real proof that the laity ever used the two-finger Sign of the Cross in any Orthodox context outside that of Old Rite/Pre-Nikonian Muscovite Rus'.

It doesn't matter that there is none. It is a beautiful Rite and tradition nevertheless.

I just wish Incognitus would stop pretending that I represent a dissident minority view on this (I'm not representing anything) and that the Orthodox Church agrees with his take on history here.

It clearly does not and if Incognitus doesn't believe me, he should ask any Orthodox bishop or priest here or elsewhere, if he cares to hear an authoritative view that is not his own.

Alex

I never thought me posting about the newly redone St. Elias website would turn into a huge historical debate about how to make the sign of the cross.

Since this thread has gone off on such a huge tangent, I will offer my 2 cents, for whatever they are worth.

I cross myself right to left, while keeping my thumb, index, and middle finger pressed together in a point, and the other two fingers pressed down into the hand. It is how I was taught, it is how everyone else I know does it, and it is how it is done these days. That's all.

And that is my highly academic and theological disseration on the making of the Sign of the Cross in the UGCC/Kyivan Tradition.

-uc

Dear Alex,
I've yet to figure out why you think I am persecuting you. For all of me, you may make the Sign of the Cross in any manner that pleases you.
But I would be interested in knowing, for example, the date of the Orthodox Kyivan Psalter which you've mentioned at least twice.
As to the Old Rite, I think we have a good deal to learn from that source. If you have discerned grammatical errors in the pre-Nikonian texts, that would be interesting.
But this has little connection with the Saint Elias Website. Perhaps a separate thread would be appropriate.
[For that matter, I've also yet to discern any connection between my mentioning several icons and my name and address! But that's a small matter - as Saint Thomas Aquinas famously said, the content is more important than the author.]
What you might consider doing is translating the Canon of Saint Ambrose of Bielaia Krinitsa into modern liturgical Ukrainian.

Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

I never said you were persecuting me . . .

I only said you were speaking about this matter as if I had made up the three fingered Sign of the Cross - words to that effect.

I use two forms of the Sign of the Cross, two fingers and three - thank you for your blessing for this!

The Kyivan Psalter is published by Jordanville and is readily accessible from them. I have both the Slavonic and Ukrainian translations.

I don't see what the date has to do with it, unless you will continue to contend that it is a biased Nikonian book. I don't see how Nikon has much to do with influencing the practice of the Kyivan Church in this respect.

I thought I had discovered your identity based on a phrase you used that is very familiar to me.

But I was wrong again.

St Ambrose is not recognized by the Ukrainian Catholic Church nor is he recognized by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada and elsewhere - he's not in their calendars. He would not be liturgically commemorated by these churches in any event.

I've no trouble recognizing St Ambrose as a saint or venerating him.

But St Ambrose did become an Old Rite Orthodox because he came to see the "New Rite" as heretical.

Are you saying you agree with this, O Great Unknown One?

Alex

Dear Incognitus,

I've considered this at length and will have to (at last) finally agree with you that you are right here!

What has convinced me that the two-fingered Sign of the Cross is the more ancient form (for blessing oneself as well) is precisely the entire controversy over the Miaphysites at Alexandria.

There can be little doubt that the two fingers were employed in the Byzantine Church to oppose the "One Nature" issue etc.

In addition, the fact that all icons using the hieratic blessing would indicate continuity in blessing everything else makes eminent sense.

I apologise for any grief or annoyance I may have caused you in this lively discussion.

I like to think that I'm sufficiently flexible intellectually to change my position and also to view things differently once I see that that position is untenable.

Alex

C'mon guys,

I have enough trouble crossing myself now, right/left-left right...please don't complicate it with more finger variations...have some pity on a mid 50ish Latin with Byzantine tendencies...

james

Oh James - for ages before I started my move I had been crossing myself Right--> Left - they gave up asking me about it

Just do what comes naturally

UkrainianCatholic the way you describe is the 'new' way to bless youself. The 'old' way is to touch the thumb, little finger and the next one up together, while the 2 left overs are moved against each other but sticking up.

I think from reading postings on this site that St Elias church might be quiet traditional compared with other most other Canadian churches. Yes it does look like they are the way that the rest should follow. The information there is very helpful.

Dear Alex,
No need to apologize - you have caused me no grief or annoyance whatever. All you've caused me to do is look carefully at albums of icons and other sources, and that is to my good, so please accept my thanks.

Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

O.K., you are welcome!

However, despite the ancient tradition of the two-fingered Sign of the Cross, this does not mean that we of the "New Rite" can follow the Old Rite - or does it?

Alex

Dear Alex,
I am aware of nothing at all that restricts the use of the Old-Rite form of the Sign of the Cross among Greek-Catholics.

Incognitus

New Rite, Old Rite?
What is that all about?

Has anyone noticed that the St Elias church website has been revamped? Not quite as pretty as the previous one, I think.

Yes Edward there is whole chain of posting here somewhere on just that. It will take while to get used to.

Me I think Edward's been celebrating Chinese New Year

And very successfully to I suspect

Yes, it is very different. But now the Galician Octoechos melodies are available as mp3s:

http://www.saintelias.com/ca/music/restonescd.php

Many years to Archpriest Roman and the parish family. Mnohaja i blahaja lita!
DD

Pavloosh asks: "New Rite, Old Rite?
What is that all about? "

In this terminology, these expressions refer to the liturgical practice of the Russian Churches - "New Rite" is that specific version of the Slav-Byzantine tradition mandated by Patriarch Nikon of Moscow in the middle of the seventeenth century; "Old Rite" is the specific version of the Slav-Byzantine tradition before the reign of Patriarch Nikon.

The best - indeed almost the only - book on this subject in English is Paul Meyendorff's Russia, Ritual and Reform, published by Saint Vladimir's Seminary Press.

Incognitus