Sign of the Cross

  • Thread starter Thread starter alms
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

alms

Guest
I’ve heard it said by many protestants that “we worship like the early Christians” or “our church is based on the early church of Jerusalem” or something to that effect. I get the impression that they are implying that their “church” is in the purest Christian form and that the Catholic Church has been corrupted though the years. My question is not a general question concerning the early Christians of the 1st century versus today, but a specific one concerning the Sign of the Cross. My assumption for this question is that early Christians prayed the Sign of the Cross, however in the form we use today just prior to the Gospel reading in Mass.

Is this assumption correct? If so, and If the protestants want to worship like the early Christians, then why don’t they begin by saying/doing the simplest Christian prayer: the Sign of the Cross?

And concerning Scripture and the Sign of the Cross, does this verse in Revelation refer to the Sign of the Cross?

Revelation 7: 2 And I saw another angel ascending from the rising of the sun, having the sign (emphasis mine) of the living God; and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,

If not, could someone please point me to Scriptural verses that reference the Sign of the Cross?

Thanks very much.
 
Very early in the Second Century St. Justin Martyr described the form of worship used by the Church. I’m sure you can find a description of it somewhere on this site. The order of Mass in his day was virtually the same as it is today.
 
Origins of the sign of the cross

The Christian custom of gesturing the sign of the cross was originally with the right hand’s thumb only and across the forehead only. (St. John Chrys., Hom. ad pop. Antioch. xi; St. Jerome, Ep. ad Eustochium.) The custom originated during the second century.
Vestiges of this earliest gesture still exist when Catholics sign a cross on their forehead to hear the Gospels during mass, when their foreheads are marked with ash on Ash Wednesday, when applying the holy oil (called chrism) on the forehead for the sacrament of Confirmation, and so on. Around year 200 in Carthage (modern Tunisia, Africa), Tertullian says: “We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross” (Latin: “Frontem crucis signaculo terimus”) (De Cor. mil. 3). The second century Christians signed the cross on their forehead before taking any risk, such as embarking on a journey, and so on.

Ravenna mosaic, 6th c.: Jesus is portrayed gesturing a sign of the cross like a Christian priest with his right hand facing outward, at the position of et Filii (Christ Pantocrator).
Tertullian points out that the sign of the cross is not commanded in any Holy Scripture. It is only from Christian cultural tradition. A search for a scriptual prooftext for the sign of the cross has required loose interpretations. For examples: “Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark [of ash?] on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable [idolatries] that are done in it” (Ezekiel 9:4). “Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal [with holy oil?] on the foreheads of the servants of our God.” (Revelation 7:3). And so on. Of course, none of these biblical prooftexts prescribe a motion of a cross, but their location on the forehead probably informed the early Christian custom.
By the fourth century, the sign of the cross involved other parts of the body beyond the forehead. (St. Ambrose, De Isaac et animâ, Migne, P. L., XIV, 501-34.) By the sixth century, these variations of smaller signs across the body conflated into one larger sign from forehead to sternum, like the Orthodox Christians use now. At this time, the signing of the larger cross was also choreographed with three fingers (including the thumb) to represent the Trinity and with the phrase in Latin: “In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti”.
Originally, when signing the large sign of the cross on oneself, the movement of the hand was from right-to-left. The Eastern Orthodox Church still preserves this motion today. However, the Western Roman Church soon reversed the direction. This relatively minor difference was mentioned as a factor in the Great Schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Christians in the eleventh century.
 
mommyof4 said:
Origins of the sign of the cross

The Christian custom of gesturing the sign of the cross was originally with the right hand’s thumb only and across the forehead only. (St. John Chrys., Hom. ad pop. Antioch. xi; St. Jerome, Ep. ad Eustochium.) The custom originated during the second century.
Vestiges of this earliest gesture still exist when Catholics sign a cross on their forehead to hear the Gospels during mass, when their foreheads are marked with ash on Ash Wednesday, when applying the holy oil (called chrism) on the forehead for the sacrament of Confirmation, and so on. Around year 200 in Carthage (modern Tunisia, Africa), Tertullian says: “We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross” (Latin: “Frontem crucis signaculo terimus”) (De Cor. mil. 3). The second century Christians signed the cross on their forehead before taking any risk, such as embarking on a journey, and so on.

Ravenna mosaic, 6th c.: Jesus is portrayed gesturing a sign of the cross like a Christian priest with his right hand facing outward, at the position of et Filii (Christ Pantocrator).
Tertullian points out that the sign of the cross is not commanded in any Holy Scripture. It is only from Christian cultural tradition. A search for a scriptual prooftext for the sign of the cross has required loose interpretations. For examples: “Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark [of ash?] on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable [idolatries] that are done in it” (Ezekiel 9:4). “Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal [with holy oil?] on the foreheads of the servants of our God.” (Revelation 7:3). And so on. Of course, none of these biblical prooftexts prescribe a motion of a cross, but their location on the forehead probably informed the early Christian custom.
By the fourth century, the sign of the cross involved other parts of the body beyond the forehead. (St. Ambrose, De Isaac et animâ, Migne, P. L., XIV, 501-34.) By the sixth century, these variations of smaller signs across the body conflated into one larger sign from forehead to sternum, like the Orthodox Christians use now. At this time, the signing of the larger cross was also choreographed with three fingers (including the thumb) to represent the Trinity and with the phrase in Latin: “In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti”.
Originally, when signing the large sign of the cross on oneself, the movement of the hand was from right-to-left. The Eastern Orthodox Church still preserves this motion today. However, the Western Roman Church soon reversed the direction. This relatively minor difference was mentioned as a factor in the Great Schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Christians in the eleventh century.
Click to expand...
👍
 
This comes from something I got off of Steve Ray’s site years ago and edited.
The Sign of the Cross is employed by the Church when it wishes to bestow the blessings of God on animate and inanimate creatures. It has also always been used as a means to mark out Christ’s faithful. In this, it has its prefigurement in the Old Testament: “And the Lord said to him: Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem: and mark Thau upon the foreheads of the men that sigh, and mourn for all the abominations that are committed in the midst thereof…Utterly destroy old and young, maidens, children and women: but upon whomsoever you shall see Thau, kill him not, and begin ye at my sanctuary” (Ezek. 9, 4; 6 [Douai]). Thau is the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet and is in the form of a cross. From the very beginning, Christians have seen in the Thau a prefigurement of Christ’s own Cross, and its application on people’s foreheads, the Sign of the Cross.
Click to expand...
Code: 
 Ezekiel 9, 4 has its echo in Rev. 7, 3: "***Do not damage the earth or the sea or the trees, until we have marked the servants of our God with a seal on their foreheads***." Can this seal be possibly any different from the "***sign of the Son of man***" (St. Matt. 24, 30), which is the Cross?
Click to expand...
Code: 
 The early Christians were always eager to develop signs and symbols which summarized the great mysteries of the Faith. In the Sign of the Cross, two immense truths are signified together, namely the mystery of the Blessed Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the misery and humiliation of the Crucifixion. Spontaneously they drew this holy sign "*on everything*," accompanied by any one of the following words: "*Sign of Christ*"; "*In the Name of Jesus*"; "*In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit*" etc.
Click to expand...
 
I just have to laugh at such claims by evangelical protestants oh yeah St Justin mentioned church services complete with Power Point Presentation and Christian Rock n Roll band and altar calls saying the Jesus prayer; all these are recent innovations of American Evangelicalsim, W

hat the ancient church did do is have recite the Lord Have Mercy in Greek like we do recite A Creed as we Do and celebrate the eucarist as a sacrifice something catholics and orthodox uniquely do and have the liturgy of the word in cyclical manner not the pastor picking and choosing bible verses every week.

Working from just memory Tertullian gives the earliest mention of the sign of the cross. So its a very early custom that was probably influenced by the various signs of the cross passages in scripture although it probably did not exist in the from Tertullian mentioned.
Anyway no doubt the matryrs of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th century Christians gave the sign of the cross before their matyrdom. If modern evangelicals can’t respect that kind of tradition than what am I to think of the tradition of the rather recent WWJD bracelets. Ohh the ancient practice of 1990’s christian marketing ohh the suffering they must have endured paying thier $7 to get one. Look their is no comparision to be made here, they are truly ignorant for even trying to claim they are closer to the tradition of the early christians. We admit some it evolved be unlike their evolution ours came from the same seed that Jesus planted in 33Ad and that is an important point that is not mentioned by them.
 
Also, St . Paul reminds the Ephesians that they received the sign at baptism when he said, “you have been stamped with the seal of the Holy Spirit of the Promise” Eph 1:13

In the third century they made the sign in the air as a blessing over people and things. That may have led to Christians making the larger sign that we see today.

However, opposition to the Monophysite heresy in the 7th & 8th centuries may have popularized the larger sign. They held that Christ had only one nature (divine) and Catholics in the East began signing themselves with two fingers or a thumb and forefinger tracing the sign over the entire body to defend the truth visibly to all.

I got all this from Bert Ghezzi’s book The Sign of the Cross. Which goes into more detail between Eastern and Western practices. It also talks about what a powerful prayer it is.
 
Legal_Eagle said:
Very early in the Second Century St. Justin Martyr described the form of worship used by the Church. I’m sure you can find a description of it somewhere on this site. The order of Mass in his day was virtually the same as it is today.
Click to expand...
If you can’t hear today’s Mass in Justin Martyr’s description, then you ain’t listening!
Though the details of various parts of the Mass have changed over the centuries, its basic structure has always been the same. It goes back to the very dawn of Christian history. Around A.D. 155, Justin Martyr wrote about how the Liturgy was celebrated in his day:
Click to expand...
All [Christians] who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much a time permits. When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things. Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves… and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss [of peace]. *
*
Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren. He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (In Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts. When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying; “Amen.”
*
When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.*

This same fundamental structure is preserved in the Mass of today: All gather; Scripture is read; preaching is done on the readings; prayers are offered; a sign of peace is exchanged among the faithful (In Justin Martyr’s day this was a kiss, as in the New Testament: Rom. 16:16); the elements to be consecrated are brought, the priest consecrates them in prayer; the faithful respond, “Amen”; and Communion is distributed. It is impressive to see how the fundamental structure of Christian worship has remained the same through all the centuries.
Click to expand...
 
Wisdom said:
Look their is no comparision to be made here, they are truly ignorant for even trying to claim they are closer to the tradition of the early christians. We admit some it evolved be unlike their evolution ours came from the same seed that Jesus planted in 33Ad and that is an important point that is not mentioned by them.
Click to expand...
Martin Luther didn’t abandon the sign of the cross but recommended it in his Small Catechism in an appendix on family prayer:

“as soon as you get out of bed in the morning, you should bless yourself with the sign of the Holy Cross and say: ‘May the will of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be done! Amen’”
 
does anyone know why the eastern and western differ in their sigining of the cross…

the whole left-right/right-left idea.

does this have any significance and did it cause any bad feeling? It seems such a small thing to bother changing, so it must have some meaning behind it.

S
 
Wisdom said:
If modern evangelicals can’t respect that kind of tradition than what am I to think of the tradition of the rather recent WWJD bracelets.
Click to expand...
I agree with your poset but just curious, what are WWJD bracelets?
 
wisdom_3_5 said:
Martin Luther didn’t abandon the sign of the cross but recommended it in his Small Catechism in an appendix on family prayer:

“as soon as you get out of bed in the morning, you should bless yourself with the sign of the Holy Cross and say: ‘May the will of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be done! Amen’”
Click to expand...
No many Lutherans and Anglicans still do the sign of the cross and Luther and the English Reformers did not think the sign of the cross was unbiblical (its very Biblical). However later Reformers tried to do with any vestiges of catholic tradition and their decendants are the standard evangelical christians who claim to have some direct link to the early church in their form of worhship and we of course don’t. As most protestant in my part of the woods are from these type of churchs this is the framework which I was speaking.
 
Wisdom said:
No many Lutherans and Anglicans still do the sign of the cross and Luther and the English Reformers did not think the sign of the cross was unbiblical (its very Biblical). However later Reformers tried to do with any vestiges of catholic tradition and their decendants are the standard evangelical christians who claim to have some direct link to the early church in their form of worhship and we of course don’t. As most protestant in my part of the woods are from these type of churchs this is the framework which I was speaking.
Click to expand...
Right. I though we were talking about evangelicals and how far they strayed from their “roots” (many claim Luther as a ‘forefather’. I didn’t mean to imply that Lutherans & Anglicans don’t use the sign of the cross.
 
Abira said:
does anyone know why the eastern and western differ in their sigining of the cross…

the whole left-right/right-left idea.

does this have any significance and did it cause any bad feeling? It seems such a small thing to bother changing, so it must have some meaning behind it.

S
Click to expand...
I don’t think it mattered up until the 13th century. “Innocent III directed Christians to sign themselves with two fingers and thumb extended, indicating no preference for either the right cross or the left. Before the end of the Middle Ages, Western Christians favored the large left cross.” The Sign of the Cross pg 22-23.

Also, “The *Mirror of Our Lady, *a late 15th century document taught the Brigittine Sisters (Middlesex England) to cross themselves left to right. It explained that the movement from forehead to breast meant that Christ came down from heaven to earth in his incarnation. And the movement from left to right shoulder indicated that Christ at his death descended into hell and then ascended to heaven to sit at the Father’s right hand.” ibid
 
Ezekeil 9:4-6
saying to him: Pass through the city (through Jerusalem) and mark an X on the foreheads of those who moan and groan over all the abominations that are practiced within it.
To the others I heard him say: Pass through the city after him and strike! Do not look on them with pity nor show any mercy!
Old men, youths and maidens, women and children–wipe them out! But do not touch any marked with the X; begin at my sanctuary. So they began with the men (the elders) who were in front of the temple.
Click to expand...
An X: literally, the Hebrew letter taw, has the form of a cross

cool fact!
 
Back when I was a teenager in the Conference Baptist Church, our dear pastor used a Scripture and traced the Sign of the Cross based on this Scripture.

Ephesians 3: 18 …may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth…

The height is the top of the cross, the depth is the bottom of the cross, and the length and breadth are the crossbeam.

He actually traced the Sign of the Cross, and I drew a little cross in my Bible next to this verse. I never forgot it, and because of this sermon, I never found anything to criticize, but rather, much to praise, when Catholic Christians made the Sign of the Cross. After all, it’s right there in the Bible–the breadth and length and height and depth.

(BTW, this same dear pastor enjoyed a good friendship with the pastor of the parish that we are now members of. Our Baptist pastor often talked about their friendship in his sermons, and over and over again made it clear that Catholics were Christians, too. I was so blessed to grow up there, wasn’t I? The only thing better would have been to grow up Catholic!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top