[De Maria]

Merry Christmas!

John 3 16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

The Sign of the Cross has been an icon of Christian worship for many centuries. In the Catholic Church, we pray it thus:

We place our thumb on our forehead and say, "In the name of the Father,"

Then on our heart and say, "and of the son"

Then on our left shoulder and right shoulder and say, "and of the Holy Spirit"

Amen.

We begin and end our prayers with the sign of the Cross and it is a quick blessing which we use to remind us of the presence of God in our lives during any stressful period.

We believe this is from Scripture:

Ezechiel 9

4 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... 6 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. So they began at the ancient men who mere before the house.
Douay-Rheims Bible, Prophecy Of Ezechiel Chapter 9

1 Corinthians 1

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness:
Douay-Rheims Bible, First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians Chapter 1

I know that I've seen Baptist mothers, well one anyway, trace her fingers on a child's forehead in the sign of a cross.

Do any of you also practice making the sign of the Cross? If so, why? If not, why not?

Sincerely,

De Maria

[jakester]

De Maria -

I personally do not make the sign of the cross. It does appear to be predominantly a Catholic ritual... however, given your example of the baptist mother, it logically follows that not only Catholics observe this ritual.

At any rate, I was curious about the reference to Ezekiel 9, so I looked it up and tried to discern what the prophet it saying in that section. My preliminary thoughts on the passage are two-fold:

1) it is a commandment from God to observe a ritual (in this case, the signing of the cross) or

2) it is not a commandant to observe a ritual but a commandment for something else.

As I read the passage, I began to understand what is happening and I further read Chapter 8 to get a better context. From what I understand, God is showing the prophet the extent of the abominations that the nation of Israel had committed in the sight of God. In Chapter 8, the prophet is shown the inner court of the temple of the Lord where there were a plethora of idols and how the elders and the priest maintained that God was not able to see the abominableness of their actions because they were done in the dark—you can read Ch 8 yourself to get a better sense for what was going on.

God then tells the prophet that he will act in wrath. He will not hear the cries of the wicked even though they are loud in his ears. In Ch 9, God begins to lay out his plan for how he is going to act. He calls for executioners and one man also comes in white linen. God instructs the man in the white linen to go through Jerusalem and mark the foreheads of those who groan and sigh over the abominations committed there. What is notable here? God is interested in sparing those who see what is going on and are disturbed by it because as God's people, the nation of Israel is not acting like God's people. These people recognize that God is displeased and are grieved that as a people, they are walking in disobedience to God's ways and are greatly troubled by the fact.

God also instructs the executioners to follow after the man in white linen. Whoever does not have the mark, God tells the executioners to kill. He tells the men to spare no one: not old, not young men, not women, and not children. He then tells them to bring the bodies to the temple to defile it.

De Maria, if this passage implies a command to sign the cross, I don't see it anywhere. I'm not attacking you but I am questioning your use of this verse to support your argument for the ritual observance of signing the cross. My argument is that this passage is not commanding us to partake in some ritual observance. I can see an application in that God is not one to take idolatry lightly and if we are not careful, any ritual observance can be elevated in our thinking to the place of idolatry if we think that by observing the ritual, we are invoking divine power or favor. God is spirit, and we must worship him in spirit and in truth. I can partake in a ritual observance all day long but if my heart is not committed to God, then I am missing the point. God will not have any ritual of mine because rituals in of themselves have no value…what God is really after is my heart and personal devotion.

David said in Psalm 51 “For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering.” According to David's understanding of God, if all God was looking for was the correct, prescribed sacrifice (or ritual—signing of the cross), he would give it…it's not all that much to ask. But David understood that God is after so much more than our rituals or sacrifices; he wants our hearts where in our brokenness, we see our need for God's mercy and forgiveness. I suppose that if I signed the cross with a contrite and tender heart to God I could receive mercy from God…not because I signed the cross, but because of the orientation of my heart. I think it's important to always make a distinction in our minds so as not to be confused and give credence to things that in the end do not matter so much.

Happy New Year!

[JoeT777]

Always.

I just read something interesting; it seems the Lutherans use the sign of the Cross - see answers.com “sign of the Cross”


JoeT

[Wondergirl]

Always.

I just read something interesting; it seems the Lutherans use the sign of the Cross - see answers.com “sign of the Cross”


JoeT

Most of the Missouri-Synod Lutherans don't unless they are "high church." The ELCA might.

Which Lutheran branch are you referring to?

[JoeT777]

THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION OF
SIGNING OF THE CROSS:
THE CHURCH OF CARTHAGE, 200-250 CE

[The following testimonies from the Church of Carthage provide a theological background to the ancient Catholic devotion of signing the cross (upon one's forehead). Though these texts date to the early third century, they reflect an ancient “tradition” practiced in at least the second century CE.]

Tertullian (Presbyter?)

“Cast not,” saith He, “your pearls to swine, lest they trample them to pieces, and turn round and overturn you also.” “Your pearls” are the distinctive marks of even your daily conversation. The more care you take to conceal them, the more liable to suspicion you will make them, and the more exposed to the grasp of Gentile curiosity. Shall you escape notice when you sign [the cross on] your bed, your body; when you blow away
Some impurity; when even by night you rise to pray? (To His Wife 5; c. 205CE)

Premising, therefore, and likewise subjoining the fact that Christ suffered, He foretold that His just ones should suffer equally with Him-both the apostles and all the faithful in succession; and He signed them with that very seal of which Ezekiel spake: “The Lord said unto me, Go through the gate, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set the mark tau upon the foreheads of the men.” Now the Greek letter tau and our own letter T is the
Very form of the cross, which He predicted would be the sign on our foreheads in the true Catholic Jerusalem…. (Against Marcion, Book III:22; c. 207 CE)

[Mentions the use of the sign in initiation rites:] And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed, in order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed (with the cross), that the soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul also maybe illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may fatten on its God. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 8; c. 210 CE)

At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign. If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer. (De Corona 3-4; c. 211 CE)

[When bitten by poisonous creatures:] We have faith for a defence, if we are not smitten with distrust itself also, in immediately making the sign and adjuring, and besmearing the heel with the beast. Finally, we often aid in this way even the heathen, seeing we have been endowed by God with that power which the apostle first used when he despised the viper's bite.(Scorpiace 1; c. 213 CE)

Cyprian (Bishop)

Thus also Uzziah the king,-when he bare the censer and violently claimed to himself to sacrifice against God's law, and when Azariah the priest withstood him, would not be obedient and yield,-was confounded by the divine indignation, and was polluted upon his forehead by the spot of leprosy: he was marked by an offended Lord in that part of his body where they are signed who deserve well of the Lord. (Treatise I, On the Unity of the Church, 18; c. 250 CE)

For that those only can escape who have been new-born and signed with the sign of Christ, God says in another place, when, sending forth His angels to the destruction of the world and the death of the human race, He threatens more terribly in the last time, saying, “Go ye, and smite, and let not your eye spare. Have no pity upon old or young, and slay the virgins and the little ones and the women, that they may be utterly destroyed. But touch not any man upon whom is written the mark.” Moreover, what this mark is, and in what part of the body it is placed, God sets forth in another place, saying, “Go through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark [tau] upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.” And that the sign pertains to the passion and blood of Christ, and that whoever is found in this sign is kept safe and unharmed, is also proved by God's testimony, saying, "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses in which ye shall be; and I will see the blood, and will protect you, and the plague of diminution shall not be upon you when I smite the land of Egypt." What previously preceded by a figure in the slain lamb is fulfilled in Christ, the truth which followed afterwards. As, then, when Egypt was smitten, the Jewish people could not escape except by the blood and the sign of the lamb; so also, when the world shall begin to be desolated and smitten, whoever is ound in the blood and the sign of Christ alone shall escape. (Treatise V, An Address to Demetrius, 18; c. 250 CE)

That sign [of circumcision] did not avail women, but all are sealed by the sign of the Lord. (Treatise XII, First Book of Testimonies Against the Jews, Testimony 8; c. 250 CE)

****************************************

I located the above at the following link. http://www.diesdomini.com/Papers/Q_C...fcrosspatr.pdf

I thought it was important to show that this tradition isn't one that was just made up after the Protestant schism, which is usually the charge. I suppose it's OK to post it with proper acknowledgment; however no author was noted on this page.

Every time I look into the history of our faith, it amazes me at how the Catholic faith is practiced today identifies to the teachings and the traditions of Christ over 2,000 years ago. The only difference seems to be language. To me it attests to how close one can get to the real presence of Christ – no more than a walk to the alter!

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

I can partake in a ritual observance all day long but if my heart is not committed to God, then I am missing the point. God will not have any ritual of mine because rituals in of themselves have no value…what God is really after is my heart and personal devotion....because of the orientation of my heart. I think it's important to always make a distinction in our minds so as not to be confused and give credence to things that in the end do not matter so much.

No, I don't make the sign of the cross at all.

Christianity is a religion which allows great freedom in the way one approaches God.

Isaiah's words (quoted by Jesus in Mt. 15:8,9): "These people draw near to Me with their mouths and honor Me with their lips, but have removed their hearts far from Me, and their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men" (Isa. 29:13). On more than one occasion, in exhorting the ritualistic and self-righteous Pharisees, Jesus quoted Hos. 6:6, where God had said, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." Cf. Mt. 9:13; 12:7.

It is always a danger with rituals that they quickly become meaningless. The liturgy is sung automatically, prayers are intoned but are not from the heart, during the sermon/homily one's mind wanders to grocery lists and car repairs and the cute girl or guy sitting two rows ahead, Communion is taken with no preparation or thought for its meaning. Even the sacrament of Baptism can be more of a naming celebration rather than what its real meaning and purpose are.

Conclusion: No matter what our religious rituals are, at home and in church, the more we must stay mindful of the reasons behind them. In so doing, the more valuable any rituals will be as we connect with the divine.

[450donn]

And yet, none of this is actually spelled out in the Bible as a must do. This is simply another example of the laws of man being thrust upon the church. How is this any different that the old testament laws of sacrifices, observing the sabbath day, or any of the hundreds of other laws that the Jews were required to follow? All of which were fulfilled at the cross!

[JoeT777]

Most of the Missouri-Synod Lutherans don't unless they are "high church." The ELCA might.

Which Lutheran branch are you referring to?

The article didn't seem to go deep enough to tell me which branch. The article said that the Lutheran’s continued the practice from its founding until the mid to late 1800’s. It seems the tradition of the sign of the Cross fell out of favor at that time. It was just 2 or 3paragraphs in a much larger article. Sorry I didn't get more.

JoeT

[Akoue]

And yet, none of this is actually spelled out in the Bible as a must do. This is simply another example of the laws of man being thrust upon the church. How is this any different that the old testament laws of sacrifices, observing the sabbath day, or any of the hundreds of other laws that the Jews were required to follow? All of which were fulfilled at the cross!

There's plenty of ritual in the NT. The Lord's Prayer is a ritualized prayer. Communion. Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The singing of hymns during worship. Almsgiving. The laying on of hands. These are all ritual acts. There's nothing unreasonable, or spiritually suspect, about Christians today following the example set forth in Scripture.

And lots of Anglicans make the sign of the Cross. Along with Orthodox, and all the Lutherans I saw in Germany.

[artlady]

I do make the sign of the cross and I have done so without much consideration as a preface to prayer.It has been ingrained in me by my Catholic rearing and sad to say I don't think about it much even thought I pray daily.
I will be more conscious in future.. thank-you!

[Akoue]

Perhaps I'm a bit confused. Is the idea supposed to be that making the sign of the Cross is a *bad* thing? The Bible doesn't tell me to cross my hands when I pray, but I typically do. It doesn't tell me to close my eyes, but I typically do. Are these *bad* rituals?

[450donn]

Not necessarily bad, but yes they are rituals. Like has already been mentioned any ritual can become mundane and therefore meaningless in your daily conversations with the Lord. I think it is better to actually have a conversation with God rather than a "Lord, please take care of my needs" sort of prayer. If you are comfortable enough to carry on a conversation with Him, then all the rest is really meaningless is it not?

[Akoue]

You might be able to carry on a conversation with your young daughter. Does it follow from that that the ritual of tucking her into bed at night, or giving her a hug, is meaningless? I would have thought not.

If ritual is meaningless, then why do we find it in the NT? (See my earlier post.) If I meet my friend each Tuesday for lunch, that is a ritual. If I pray to God every day, that too is a ritual.

[Tj3]

If ritual is meaningless, then why do we find it in the NT? (See my earlier post.) If I meet my friend each Tuesday for lunch, that is a ritual. If I pray to God every day, that too is a ritual.

Where is making the sign of the cross found in the NT?

[Akoue]

Where is making the sign of the cross found in the NT?

See above, #11. Does it's absence from the NT make it a *bad* thing? (The NT also doesn't tell me to tie my shoes, but that's another ritual I follow. Doesn't seem like a *bad* thing either.)

[Tj3]

See above, #11. Does it's absence from the NT make it a *bad* thing? (The NT also doesn't tell me to tie my shoes, but that's another ritual I follow. Doesn't seem like a *bad* thing either.)

I did not say that it did. You made a claim that it was in the NT and I was interested to see where that was. Please answer the question.

[Akoue]

I did not say that it did. You made a claim that it was in the NT .

No, I didn't. I said, in response to another's post, that there are rituals in the NT. I listed some. The sign of the Cross was not among them.

[Tj3]

No, I didn't. I said, in response to another's post, that there are rituals in the NT. I listed some. The sign of the Cross was not among them.

Ah, okay so it is not found in the Bible. That is what I wanted to see made clear. Your comments appeared to suggest that you were claiming that it was in the NT, as De Maria is erroneously claiming that it is in the OT.

[De Maria]

De Maria -

Hi,

I enjoyed reading your post. Thanks.

I personally do not make the sign of the cross. It does appear to be predominantly a Catholic ritual... however, given your example of the baptist mother, it logically follows that not only Catholics observe this ritual.

At any rate, I was curious about the reference to Ezekiel 9, so I looked it up and tried to discern what the prophet it saying in that section. My preliminary thoughts on the passage are two-fold:

1) it is a commandment from God to observe a ritual (in this case, the signing of the cross) or

2) it is not a commandant to observe a ritual but a commandment for something else.

... De Maria, if this passage implies a command to sign the cross, I don’t see it anywhere.

I apologize if I implied that it was. I didn't mean to say that Ezekiel 9 was a command that we must sign the Cross. Ezekiel didn't even mention the Cross, but the Thau which means "T".

But, we believe in the foreshadowing aspect of the OT vis a vis the NT.

Adam foreshadowed Jesus.
Eve, the Virgin Mary.
Joseph of Egypt, St. Joseph spouse of Mary.
etc. etc.

And we believe the Thau foreshadowed the sign of the Cross.

I’m not attacking you but I am questioning your use of this verse to support your argument for the ritual observance of signing the cross...

No problem. I enjoyed reading your post. Thanks for considering mine so thoughtfully.

Happy New Year!

To you as well,

Sincerely,

[Akoue]

Your comments appeared to suggest that you were claiming that it was in the NT, .

Can't fairly see how, since I've been asking people why it's absence from the NT makes it a bad thing. But whatever.