The right Sign of the Cross is done by the Catholics. It consist of putting the right hand on the forehead while saying "in the name of the Father", because Pater in Cæli, Deus is at the "head", then we put the right hand on the heart, while saying "the Son", because Filii Redemptor mundi, Deus is "in our heart". Then the Catholic puts his right hand on the left shoulder and says "and the Holy Ghost", because Spiritu Sancti, Deus is the third person of the Holy Trinity, who does not stand directly at the right hand of the Father. Finally the faithful says "Amen" while putting his right hand on his left shoulder because the faithful may become a part of the Mystical Body of the Christ.This is the right Sign of the Cross as taught by the catechism.
The Eastern Church is performing its own Sign (of the Cross) in a nearly similar manner, with however a grave error: When pronouncing "and the Holy Ghost" the Eastern Christian puts his right hand on the right shoulder. This is a grave error because it reverses the order of the Holy Trinity by placing the Holy Ghost in front of the Son. The Sign of the Cross performed by the Christians of the Eastern Church consequently becomes invalid, if not insulting to the Godhead.
This said grave error from the Eastern Church roots from the Filioque of the Credo. Back in the ninth century, the patriarch of Constantinople, Photius condemned the Western Church because Rome said that the Paraclete proceed from the Son, in the Credo. The patriarch of Constantinople stated that it was an "innovation" demanded by the Emperor Charlemagne. His (erroneous) explanations comes from an encyclical. Subsequently Photius excomunicated the Roman Pope Nicholas. This was the Great Schism.
The proof that the Eastern Church became heretical from this very moment may not be found in the various interpretations of the Holy Scrip, but more simply in history: Constantinople fell to the Muslims, and became Istanbul.
This is the godly, and irrefutable response to the dispute between the Roman Church and the Eastern Church: Constantinople fell, as Rome will fall soon because it has reunited with the Eastern Church heretics since the pontificate of Paul VI. The soon to come fall of Rome will be the brutal response from God against Ecuмenism.
 
The simple Sign of the Cross is far away from any theological disputes, but it has a significant importance because it is done everyday by millions in the world. We the Catholics are doing the right Sign of the Cross, while the Eastern faithful of the Russian, Greek, etc churches are doing a Sign of the Cross that is false towards the hierarchy of the Holy Trinity and are therefore displeasing to God at the begining, and at the end of each one of their prayers.
 
The spirit of V2 has tarnished the intelligence of many who no longer see the difference. I personally spoke to some priests who do not know this subject of the Sign of the Cross. Some of those priests (non traditionalists) are even inviting heretical Eastern priests in their church. The heretical Sign of the Cross is then done in front of the Crucifix and our holy statues, and it inevitably will bring calamities upon us.

The Sign of the Cross, as we are being taught in catechism, is to be done as often as possible by us, the true Catholics, in order to nullify the heretic Sign of the Cross that will continue to be done by millions of unaware heretics of the Eastern Church, that until Russia will be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as per the demands made in Fatima.

Greetings Anthony Benedict: I am not a scholar, and I cannot enter into the debate. I'll cite my sources for this posting:
ORTHODOXY AND CATHOLICISM What Are the Differences? by Father Theodore Pulcini. Conciliar Press www.conciliarpress.com
It is a well written and thoughtful little book -which is tradgically constructed on a capital error. The "Sign of the Cross" is not talked about, but I used this small book to explain why the Sign of the Cross practiced by the Orthodox is false. It is a blatant violation of the 1st Commandment because by this wrong Sign (of the Cross), the Eastern Church is de-ranking Jesus Christ Our Lord in regard to the Holy Trinity, and consequently does not worship the Godhead as it should. My words are not exagerated because we are addressing God Almighty, who cannot accept the slightest compromise. Let's not forget the fate of one of Aaron's son who had tempered with the rites.
The adoption of the Orthodox Sign of the Cross by Benedict XVI, that I just learn from you, is an other sign of capitulation. It is grave for the reason that by the capitulation of B16 to the Eastern Church, which has been de-ranking Jesus Christ Our Lord, Rome is simply paving the way for the coming of the Antichrist.

You will find in this little book, which appears reasonable while being a thread of heresies, that the Orthodox are also denying the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception; of the Assumption; and of the infaillibility of the Pope. Those errors of the Eastern Church are apparently reasonable because they all come from their early error of tampering with the Mystery of the Incarnation, which, in fine, roots from the Filioque.

I'll cite you an other source of mine for this posting:
A handbook on Guadalupe, Imprimature: +Most Rev. Sean Patrick O'Maley, OFM. Cap. Bishop of Fall River, MA
In this book cited, I found the verbatim words of Our Blessed Mother who appeared on Dec. 9, 1531 to San Juan Diego. Those words are important to debunk the heresy of the Eastern Church, and follow.
"Know for certain, littlest of my sons, that I am the perfect and perpetual Virgin Mary, Mother of the True God through Whom everything lives, the Lord of all things near and far, the Master of Heaven and earth."

The wrong Sign of the Cross made by the Eastern Church, which de-ranks Jesus Christ in regard to the Holy Ghost, and therefore diminishes the role of His mother the Virgin Mary is proven to be a heresy by the simple words by Our Lady of Guadalupe to San Juan Diego, who by those sweet words proves who she is.

Our Pope Benedict, by adopting the false Sign of the Cross is one step closer to total apostasy! Also let's not forget that if the Roman Catholic Church officially adopts this heretic Sign of the Cross, then millions will apostacize everyday. We are entering into a critical situation.

Merci, QVP.

As I read your post it came back to me that it was Innocent III of whom I heard in the matter.

And thank you, Jack.  A most interesting topic.

That is not true: the Latins did it like the Easterns at first; the current way we do it is a later development. Here is an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Sign of the Cross:

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:

Icons from the ancient traditions showing Our Lord Jesus Christ as Authority,
Teacher or King, depicts him with thumb, index and middle fingers extended,
and the ring finger and sometimes also the smallest finger bent inwards toward his
palm.  




This tradition did not make a lot of sense to me until I read about the
commentary a medical doctor made of the image found on the Shroud of Turin,
where the doctor explains that a nail penetrating the wrist in the place where
the Shroud has the wound showing would touch the median nerve of the hand,
and would therefore cause an uncontrollable clenching of the two smaller
fingers on the side furthest from the thumb during the crucifixion, as the
weight of the body pulls down on the hands.  I figured this must have been the
image that St. John and Our Lady and St. Mary Magdalene saw while Our Lord
hung on the cross.  And if that is all true, it makes perfect sense that this is
the basis for the Catholic tradition of a priest giving a blessing with the index
and middle finger extended.  Also, if the thumb is also extended, that makes
three fingers, the number of persons in the Blessed Trinity.  

I am only left wondering why so many icons show only the thumb and ring
fingers bent in, and the middle finger slightly bent, but effectively three
fingers extended straight:  the index finger, the 5th or smallest finger, and
the thumb - the latter being touched on the tip by the bent ring finger.  One
Byzantine priest told me this is meant to convey the act of "teaching."  I am
left wondering if Our Lord may have bent his fingers thus while hanging on
the cross at the moment he had spoken certain words, such as "...Woman,
behold thy son... to the disciple: Behold thy mother" (Jn xix. 26-27).  

Alternatively, perhaps Our Lord was wont to make particular gestures with his
hands as he spoke to his disciples, especially during those 40 days after the
Resurrection and before His Ascension into heaven.  Or, perhaps even when He
appeared in the visions St. Paul had, for we have icons of St. Paul making these
same hand signs:




And Saint Luke:




There are others with various contemporaries, even St. John the Baptist:








When I read the words above, "At this period the manner of making it in the
West...,"  it isn't certain to me which three fingers they're talking about.  For
any Boy Scout knows that the three fingers used for the Scout Oath are the
middle three, with the thumb used to hold the smallest finger in to nearly touch
the palm.  That's "three fingers," but I highly doubt that's what the Catholic
Encyclopedia article was intending to describe; nonetheless, the article is not
certain to clarify this is NOT what it intends to communicate.

Nor is it too difficult to hold in the ring finger and the middle finger, leaving the
thumb, index finger and pinky extended:  that makes "three fingers extended,"
does it not?  Is that what the article is talking about?  An uninformed reader
may think so.  Because the article is VAGUE and AMBIGUOUS.  

"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".

And with this, misspellings on CI reach a new 'low' - even if it is historically accurate!

Quote

I am only left wondering why so many icons show only the thumb ring fingers bent in, and the middle finger slightly bent, but effectively three
fingers extended straight:  the index finger, the 5th or smallest finger, and
the thumb - the latter being touched on the tip by the bent ring finger

Neil, I've heard, or read, that the gesture is a mystical indication of the Holy Name of Christ ( I C X C ), formed naturally by the hand.

As well, a gesture I use myself, the uniting of the thumb, index and middle finger tips, with the ring and small fingers tucked together against the palm, is and indication of the Three Sacred Persons and the Two Natures of Christ.

I use it when taking up Holy Water.

The "uniting of the thumb, index and middle finger tips, with the ring and small
fingers tucked together against the palm,"  reminds me of the priest's finger position
when handling the Blessed Sacrament, and he keeps those three fingers together
while raising the chalice and touching other things during that center portion of the
Mass.

I was also taught that it's the proper way to position one's fingers when taking
up Holy Water, and for making the Sign of the Cross.  Thank you for the reminder.

Quote from: Sigismund

Speaking as an actual Eastern Catholic, neither the Eastern or Western form is right or wrong.  They are just different. It is really a matter of rite, not right.   :smile:

When you refer to yourself as an "Eastern" Catholic do you mean Orthodox? Byzantine? Melkite?

Just wondering.

 Byzantine Catholic.  I attend a Ruthenian Byzantine parish, of which my son is the priest.

The story of how I ended up Byzantine is on the Questions for Sigismund thread on the Anonymous sub forum if you are interested.  

Greetings, Jack.

I saw a docuмentary years ago which mentioned that a Roman Pontiff had actually confirmed that the proper way to make the Sign is the one used in the Eastern Rites, citing historical precedence and theological arguments.

It went on to explain that the gradual introduction of going to the "Latin" way of making the Signresulted from pewdwellers imitating ( wrongly ) the direction the priest's hands moved in conferring the Final Blessing at Mass.

I'm not claiming a superior argument, just presenting one.

It would be nice to get a scholarly, definitive ruling on this.

And if it was the reverse and the Easterns did it like the Roman Rite does today, and the Romans like the Easterns do it today, the Vatican II progressivists would tell us that the Romans have it wrong. It's all about denigrating the Roman Rite Catholic Church. Only like 5% of Catholics are Eastern Rite. This is really all about kissing up to the Eastern Orthodox heretics and denigrating Roman Catholics. The Catholic Church was wrong all 1200 years. NOT.

You have less than no idea what you are talking about.