What are all the denominations in Christianity that use the sign of the cross and what do the others have against it?

[Publisher]

I am not against it…it simply is not part of my religious tradition. However…“When in Rome…” Those times I have participated in it’s use was in a liturgical worship service at the Episcopal cathedral.

 

[mortonsam]

I would say that I cross myself probably at least a dozen times during a Holy Eucharist on Sunday mornings. I cross myself with my thumb and index and middle fingers together to symbolize the trinity and my ring finger and pinky down to my palm to signify the two natures of Christ. I cross myself from my right to my left in the Eastern fashion because this was the original sign of the cross and it follows in line with our priest’s outward blessing upon us.

I am thinking when I cross myself from my forehead to my chest and then to my shoulders of loving God with my mind, my heart and all my strength in correspondance with those various points.:byzsoc:

 

[ConstantineTG]

As usual from you.always have some sort of negative view or objection about the RCC. The Orthodox always get all the credit. Do ya think your prejudice could be anymore louder?

I don’t think it was an Orthodox vs. RC view. Not sure about the hisotry but the sign of the cross would have originated way before the Great Schism. So its not about being distinctly Orthodox over Catholic, but fact is many traditions did come out of the East. Its as much Orthodox as it is Eastern Catholic. I can attest the number of times we do cross ourselves during Divine Liturgy. At the prayer before Communion alone, we would have crossed 6-times.

 

[cooterhein]

Be careful of generalizing too much about a practice that you yourself admit that you do not do.

This is very true.

What you have said about the hand positions in the “Eastern sign of the Cross” is a bit misleading, insofar as that is not an exclusively Eastern practice. Where it does exist in the West it is most definitely borrowed from the East (as is pretty much everything recognizably Christian; the liturgy of the West was recited in Greek until roughly the fourth century), but this in no way cheapens the connection to these practices. It is merely a fact of history that they were adopted later. I do not think it is wise to make some sort of value judgment out of that.

I’m sorry if I said anything misleading. I was under the impression that the three-fingered way started in the East, was adopted by the West, and then was changed to the five-finger way by the close of the Middle Ages. I found something about a two-finger way that had to do with Russia, too, but that has more to do with something you wrote later on…

Anyway, it would be interesting to find out who on CAF uses three fingers and makes the I, X, C letters. That’s something I don’t know, and I certainly shouldn’t make it seem like I do.

Regarding the form of the action, it may interest you to know if you are not already aware that the Byzantine practice that you are referencing is not at all the default “Eastern way” of doing it, nor does its presence among the Chalcedonian Easterners indicate it being the older tradition. Oriental Orthodox Christians (Copts, Ethiopians, etc.) cross themselves left to right, and will insist that this is the more ancient and proper way of doing it.

I know even less about ancient Christianity in Africa. But yes, that would be quite interesting. For Europe, though, I just have what I’ve found online- nothing in the way of personal experience. It could be anywhere from imperfect to wrong information, and I’m grateful for people who make it more complete. This isn’t really my thing, although it is quite interesting.

I personally don’t care which is older. I do quite like the explanation I once heard for the left-to-right cross (something about God, through the Cross, moving us from His left side, where we were among the wicked, to His right, among the righteous), but that is neither here nor there. The point is that to say one is “wrong” and another is “right” is a little silly. They’re different, but I don’t think any but the most staunch Church partisan among us would condemn another for doing it in a way that is appropriate according to their tradition.

I wouldn’t want to put a value-based judgment on any of these traditions, either. This is one of the few times I’ll ever sound like a relativist, but in this case, I do think the value and importance of the ritual depends on who you are, what it means to you, and how you make use of it. It’s a very personal thing, and in a way, it is kind of relative, too. I agree that it’s silly for people to condemn one another for…for example, using two fingers rather than three, as with the Old Believers in Russia under Patriarch Nikon in the 17th century. Old Believers also had to pay a “beard tax,” and that’s got to be one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard. Peter the Great was good for those kinds of things, though.

oddly the RCIA director saw fit to pull me aside and gently reprimand me for doing it the “Orthodox way” (her words). I should’ve taken that as a sign, I suppose…!

Not a sign of the Cross, but a sign of the…

You know what? I got nothing. There’s a good pun waiting to be made there if anyone wants to finish that thought.

 

[Nicea325]

I don’t think it was an Orthodox vs. RC view. Not sure about the hisotry but the sign of the cross would have originated way before the Great Schism. So its not about being distinctly Orthodox over Catholic, but fact is many traditions did come out of the East. Its as much Orthodox as it is Eastern Catholic. I can attest the number of times we do cross ourselves during Divine Liturgy. At the prayer before Communion alone, we would have crossed 6-times.

I understand what you are saying,but with the other chararcter he always seems to have some sort of issue with the RCC and comes across as though the East is more credible. Second of all, Jesus was still living a lot further East than many Orthodox…

 

[Roy5]

Let me suggest four interrelated reasons why few Protestants cross themselves.

1. The practice is identified with Catholicism, and while many Protestants are ecumenical, certainly ready to have warm relations with Catholicism, they don't want to adopt such practices.

2. Along that same line, there are a variety of sacramentals that are lumped together in the Protestant mind. Crossing oneself, genuiflecting before the altar, blessing themselves with holy water upon entering the church, etc. Some see all this as too much emphasis on trappings and trimmings rather than the heart of the faith. It can become a substitute for true faith and living as much like Christ as possible.

3. Many Protestants won't cross themselves for the same reason they will not wear crucifixes around their necks or have a statue of Christ on the cross in their churches. They emphasis the empty cross, the resurrection, victory over defeat, life over death, joy over sorrow. They want to be Easter Christians.

4. Many Protestants make a strong effort to shy away from what is or easily could turn into a superstition. It used to be that some baseball players or other athletes might cross themselves before batting or make some other move. It was a bit like a 'good luck' charm. They use crucifixes in exorcisms, as though Satan cannot do his worse when confronted by a crucifix. This would be seen by many as a superstition, at least silly, maybe harmful, hardly Christian.

 

[MartinJordan]

Let me suggest four interrelated reasons why few Protestants cross themselves.

1. The practice is identified with Catholicism, and while many Protestants are ecumenical, certainly ready to have warm relations with Catholicism, they don't want to adopt such practices.

2. Along that same line, there are a variety of sacramentals that are lumped together in the Protestant mind. Crossing oneself, genuiflecting before the altar, blessing themselves with holy water upon entering the church, etc. Some see all this as too much emphasis on trappings and trimmings rather than the heart of the faith. It can become a substitute for true faith and living as much like Christ as possible.

3. Many Protestants won't cross themselves for the same reason they will not wear crucifixes around their necks or have a statue of Christ on the cross in their churches. They emphasis the empty cross, the resurrection, victory over defeat, life over death, joy over sorrow. They want to be Easter Christians.

4. Many Protestants make a strong effort to shy away from what is or easily could turn into a superstition. It used to be that some baseball players or other athletes might cross themselves before batting or make some other move. It was a bit like a 'good luck' charm. They use crucifixes in exorcisms, as though Satan cannot do his worse when confronted by a crucifix. This would be seen by many as a superstition, at least silly, maybe harmful, hardly Christian.

IMHO All the above seem to show Protestants do not focus on history and rather use todays context. Ergo, more and more denominations as days pass.

MJ

 

[LittleSoldier]

Let me suggest four interrelated reasons why few Protestants cross themselves.

1. The practice is identified with Catholicism, and while many Protestants are ecumenical, certainly ready to have warm relations with Catholicism, they don't want to adopt such practices.

2. Along that same line, there are a variety of sacramentals that are lumped together in the Protestant mind. Crossing oneself, genuiflecting before the altar, blessing themselves with holy water upon entering the church, etc. Some see all this as too much emphasis on trappings and trimmings rather than the heart of the faith. It can become a substitute for true faith and living as much like Christ as possible.

3. Many Protestants won't cross themselves for the same reason they will not wear crucifixes around their necks or have a statue of Christ on the cross in their churches. They emphasis the empty cross, the resurrection, victory over defeat, life over death, joy over sorrow. They want to be Easter Christians.

4. Many Protestants make a strong effort to shy away from what is or easily could turn into a superstition. It used to be that some baseball players or other athletes might cross themselves before batting or make some other move. It was a bit like a 'good luck' charm. They use crucifixes in exorcisms, as though Satan cannot do his worse when confronted by a crucifix. This would be seen by many as a superstition, at least silly, maybe harmful, hardly Christian.

How did you ever manage to write this post in such a respectful way? I think this post is remarkably charitable. I’m impressed!! You presented your points (which I think are all valid) but made no value judgments.

 

[Izdaari]

I have nothing at all against it. I was just never a regular at a church where it was the custom.

 

[Hesychios]

Hesychios;7356163:

The Sign of the Cross originated as an eastern Christian practice, and was borrowed into the Roman Catholic (western) church at a later date.

As usual from you.always have some sort of negative view or objection about the RCC. The Orthodox always get all the credit. Do ya think your prejudice could be anymore louder?

I don’t know what you are complaining about.

I simply stated the fact in as neutral way as possible, and I didn’t even mention the ‘Orthodox’ church.

But since you brought it up, from my perspective, anyone who has a problem with Catholic practices or are against Catholic practices should have at least as much (if not more) of a problem with Orthodox practices. I am going to make this clear to all Protestants: If you abhore Catholicism, stay clear of Holy Orthodoxy, because you will get it in spades. If you hate Catholics, you should hate Orthodox all the more.

Anyway, this is not an “Orthodox get all the Credit” kind of statement. I am a westerner, born and raised. It is a historical fact that the sign of the cross started in the east (which is what I said) when we were all one church (so long ago).

I first learned this fact from an Eastern Catholic priest. If you want references, call an eastern Catholic priest and ask.

Your reaction tells a lot about you, jumping to conclusions as you do.

 

[Hesychios]

http://www.saintelias.com/foto/big/handcruxsign_illu.jpg

It appears on the whole probable that the general introduction of our present larger cross (from brow to breast and from shoulder to shoulder) was an indirect result of the Monophysite controversy. The use of the thumb alone or the single forefinger, which so long as only a small cross was traced upon the forehead was almost inevitable, seems to have given way for symbolic reasons to the use of two fingers (the forefinger and middle finger, or thumb and forefinger) as typifying the two natures and two wills in Jesus Christ. But if two fingers were to be employed, the large cross, in which forehead, breast, etc. were merely touched, suggested itself as the only natural gesture. Indeed some large movement of the sort was required to make it perceptible that a man was using two fingers rather than one. At a somewhat later date, throughout the greater part of the East, three fingers, or rather the thumb and two fingers were displayed, while the ring and little finger were folded back upon the palm. These two were held to symbolize the two natures or wills in Christ, while the extended three denoted the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. At the same time these fingers were so held as to indicate the common abbreviation I X C (Iesous Christos Soter), the forefinger representing the I, the middle finger crossed with the thumb standing for the X and the bent middle finger serving to suggest the C. In Armenia, however, the sign of the cross made with two fingers is still retained to the present day. Much of this symbolism passed to the West, though at a later date.

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).

 

[StevenFrancis]

I am an Anglican who crosses quite often during prayers such as Compline and also at Holy Eucharist on Sunday mornings. It is an important part of my worship and meditation. Who are all of the folks who cross and what do the ones that don’t cross have against it? Your thoughts please. Thank you

Hmmm. You’re ahead of me. I thought all Christians had the practice of crossing themselves, and didn’t know anybody had anything against it. I know a lot of people just don’t do it out of some kind of unfortunate shame, or fear of being snickered at, or some such thing. That’s a sad thing. But having something actually, doctrinally against it? Doesn’t seem like there’d be any reason. I’ll read the thread with interest.

Peace, and a blessed advent season to you and yours,

Steven

 

[T_More]

JW’s think the cross was/is a pagan symbol and therefore pagan itself. They don’t believe he died on a cross, rather on a “torture stake” because of this very reason. Despite the overwhelming evidence against them on this, they refuse to acknowledge any data showing them otherwise, despite the fact that in the early stages of their religion (early 20th century) they used the cross in their publications. “New Light” from Rutherford removed any reference to the cross in the publications, a move to make them different and seperate themselves from everyone else. It was also a move that tried to remove any kind of Catholic overtones, as they are amongst the most anti-Catholic religions around.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Friends - my two cents’ worth,

Early Christians, as me know from Tertullian (circa 200 AD) and others wrote that Christians “wear out their foreheads” by making the Sign of the Cross over them with their thumb or index finger.

Christians also signed everything with the Cross using their hands, their food etc. That practice has continued to this day in various sacramental blessing.

Until a certain time in the East when an influence from Greece came to Russia, the Russians blessed themselves with the two fingers (where the index and slightly bent middle finger together represent the Divine-Human Christ and the other three fingers brought together signify the Holy Trinity).

Under Patriarch Nikon, the two fingered sign of the Cross was replaced by three fingers and the order was reversed. The Old Believers refused this as an innovation and today BOTH forms are accepted in Russian Orthodoxy (and in Roman Catholicism since both Russian Rites are recognized by Rome). When making the Sign with two fingers, one uttered the Jesus Prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.”

The Greeks later used the Trinitarian invocation “In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” That the three-fingered Sign of the Cross was prevalent in the West is shown by Pope Innocent III’ encycal (he is the pope who met St Francis) where he explains and defends the sign of the Cross with three fingers and moving to the right shoulder first. Western Catholics made such a sign only once. Greek Christians did so three times and Old Believers could make the two fingered Sign of the Cross twice (but also three times) again in honour of the Divine-Human Christ.

In Ethiopia, they have a similar two fingered configuration where the the middle finger comes down to the index finger to form a cross. They go from left to right to signify that Christ has brought us from darkness to Light. I believe that the Copts use one finger.

The move from left to right in Western Catholicism came in the 13th century, when people began following the movements of the priest when he blessed them. The priest, as in the East, would bless the people by going from left to right. He did this, in both East and West, to move with the people’s sign of the Cross which went from right to left. The people began imitating the priest and the practice became the norm.

There are also local variations, such as in Spain, where people will make a Cross using the index finger and thumb before signing themselves.

The use of the whole hand in the West signifies the five main Wounds of Christ and devotion to the Five Wounds was widespread.-

Anglicans and Lutherans certainly had no problem continuing with the use of the Sign of the Cross (as we can see from Luther’s Small Catechism). The High Church Movement that affects other Evangelical denominations has also led to the introduction of the Sign of the Cross or at least its recommendation. I recently read an article by a Disciples of Christ minister who explained and recommended the Sign of the Cross.

We should bless everything with the Sign of the Cross as well, our food, ourselves when we leave and enter our home or church, our work, others, especially those in trouble or who are sick. This is a fundamental exercise of our Priesthood in Christ!

We should frequently bless ourselves during the day, even at the beginning of every hour we are awake. I have been in situations where I heard unseen voices and sounds, and also movements, and these were banished by me simply making the Sign of the Holy and Precious Cross of our Lord! It is our armour and shield!

We should not only wear a Cross on our necks, but have one on the wall of wear we live and work. We should try to wear a lapel Cross as well. I know people who carry small metal or wood Crosses in their pockets and will give them to people they meet who are in trouble or who need consolation. The first thing I do in my religion classes is to explain to everyone how to make the Sign of the Cross, what it signifies etc. There is no better gift than a Cross too!

There are different forms of the Cross - 285 different forms in heraldry.

Interestingly, the Star of David is figured as a form of the Cross in Christian heraldry.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word given for the sign that the Children of Israel made on their doorposts with the blood of the lamb the night they fled Egypt is . . . “TAU.” The Tau letter, the last in the Jewish alphabet, was once likened to the “T.” It was Pope Innocent III who taught that the Cross was the “Tau” and that Christians would be saved by it. St Francis heard that sermon and forever after adopted the “T” or “Tau” which is still the emblem of his order.

There are one or two other places in the Hebrew Scriptures that also make reference to the religious significance of the “Tau.” Of course, this is a Christian interpretation and it is not my purpose to begin a polemic on this.

As for those Protestant Christians who won’t look at the Sign of the Cross because of its association with Roman Catholicism - have no fear since the Sign was made by Christians from the earliest times.

The Sign of the Cross should always be made reverently and slowly - when we make it, we as Christians wield immense Power through Christ. We would be very careful moving a live electric wire - we should be even more careful making the Sign of the Cross.

Alex

 

[StevenFrancis]

Let me suggest four interrelated reasons why few Protestants cross themselves.

genuiflecting before the altar,

Quite a few anti Catholic digs in your post. Not sure if they were necessary. But you have one bit of misinformation here. We genuflect to the blessed sacrament. The living presence of Jesus Christ in the reserved sacrament in the tabernacle. The tabernacle in most Catholic Churches used to be in the vicinity of the altar, and many Catholics, who weren’t adequitely catechized, DO genuflect before the altar, whether the sacrament is kept in that vicinity or not. We BOW in front of the altar of sacrafice.

Many Churches have taken to keeping the tabernacle in a separate area of the Church. Ours isn’t even in the worship space. So, in spite of the weird looks I get from my fellow parishioners, I genuflect in the hallway every time I pass the little chapel which houses our tabernacle. This chapel is on the left side of the building as I walk into the front entrance. When I cross myself with holy water upon entering the Church, I even turn to my left, (so that I’m facing the tabernacle), and genuflect.

There are doctrinal explanations for virtually everything you’ve criticized here, however I’ll refrain from the apologetics lecture, and let someone with much more experience deal with that. Obviously, we don’t feel we’re pagan, superstitious, idol worshipers, who don’t acknowledge Easter. Easter is the sacred core point of our entire liturgical calendar. We live out the Gospels over the course of the liturgical year in joyful anticipation of Easter. We celebrate, and experience the full spectrum of the life of Christ. His life, passion, death, and resurrection. It’s beautiful, full and rich. But as St. Paul proclaimed. We preach Christ crucified. There is no Easter without a Good Friday.

God bless you, and a blessed advent to you and yours,

Steve

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

There’s a non-biased, reliable source!

It is a historical fact that the sign of the cross started in the east (which is what I said) when we were all one church (so long ago)…

I first learned this fact from an Eastern Catholic priest. If you want references, call an eastern Catholic priest and ask.

 

[LittleSoldier]

JW’s think the cross was/is a pagan symbol and therefore pagan itself. They don’t believe he died on a cross, rather on a “torture stake” because of this very reason. Despite the overwhelming evidence against them on this, they refuse to acknowledge any data showing them otherwise, despite the fact that in the early stages of their religion (early 20th century) they used the cross in their publications. “New Light” from Rutherford removed any reference to the cross in the publications, a move to make them different and seperate themselves from everyone else. It was also a move that tried to remove any kind of Catholic overtones, as they are amongst the most anti-Catholic religions around.

I’m sure they find it pagan as they don’t believe Jesus is God, yet Christians worship Him. I don’t really think JWs are Christian, even if they try to follow what they believe is Jesus’ example. Jesus being God is so fundamental to our faith that it can’t be ignored.

Note: This doesn’t mean that I don’t respect JWs or think they are bad people or anything like that. Jesus died for them, too.

 

[Hesychios]

There’s a non-biased, reliable source!

Well, I did suggest asking a Catholic priest. Whatever bias the man has should be toward Catholics, I think.

But the next post was copied out of the Old Catholic Encyclopedia (I forgot to mention that) under the “Sign of the Cross” article.

The illustration is from the St Elias of Brampton website, a Catholic parish.

The fact is, the Sign of the Cross originated in the east. Is it better not to tell people this kind of historical fact? Are we here to preserve some kind of RC mystique, even to the point of witholding information?

I repeat, people who don’t like catholic practices will not like Holy Orthodoxy.

Eastern Christians sign themselves at every mention of the Holy Trinity, in every way it is mentioned. So as one poster (John VIII) commented, during liturgy they do it “maybe 33 times” . I never counted, so I don’t know but it’s a lot, sometimes with prostrations of one sort or another.

I was saddened to read dzeremi state that he was reprimanded by a catechist for signing “the Orthodox way”. In fact, it is also the eastern Catholic way and no one should object.

 

[LittleSoldier]

This is very true.

Not a sign of the Cross, but a sign of the…

You know what? I got nothing. There’s a good pun waiting to be made there if anyone wants to finish that thought.

Sorry. I’ve been trying to think of something and I come up with absolutely nothing.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Quite a few anti Catholic digs in your post. Not sure if they were necessary. But you have one bit of misinformation here. We genuflect to the blessed sacrament. The living presence of Jesus Christ in the reserved sacrament in the tabernacle. The tabernacle in most Catholic Churches used to be in the vicinity of the altar, and many Catholics, who weren’t adequitely catechized, DO genuflect before the altar, whether the sacrament is kept in that vicinity or not. We BOW in front of the altar of sacrafice.

God bless you, and a blessed advent to you and yours,

Steve

How can two people read the exact same post and one believes it has been written with charity and the other finds anti-Catholic digs in it?