« The book's out | Main | On retreat »
February 27, 2007
The Sign
A Protestant writes in CT of discovering an ancient Christian prayer - the Sign of the Cross.
Christians of a variety of traditions have begun to discover the beauty and meaning of this ancient act. Protestant objections to the sign of the cross are seldom articulated beyond the vague dismissal, "It's a Catholic thing," but Martin Luther prescribed the sign of the cross in his Small Catechism, and the sign has long been part of Episcopal and Lutheran practice. As both Andreopoulos and Ghezzi show, the sign of the cross is hardly a uniquely Catholic practice; it has deep roots in the early and Eastern churches and clear ties to Scripture.
After reading these two books, this previously ignorant Protestant, for one, has decided to introduce the sign of the cross into his daily prayer, as a link with the early church, a sign of God's claim on me, and a reminder of the mystery of the Trinity.
Whether we practice it or not, the sign of the cross is one manifestation of how physical—how embodied—worship really is. It can be as simple as raising our hands during a praise song, sitting up straight when the first few chords of a hymn are struck, or closing our eyes and folding our hands to pray. All of these motions have become ingrained in our body language of worship. Like the sign of the cross, they contain great potential for physical demonstration and remembrance of a deeper meaning—and also great potential for becoming so routine that eventually we do them out of mere habit—or worse, for show.
From centuries ago, Chrysostom admonishes us to mean what we do. "You should not just trace the cross with your finger," he wrote, "but you should do it in faith."
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
"As both Andreopoulos and Ghezzi show, the sign of the cross is hardly a uniquely Catholic practice; it has deep roots in the early and Eastern churches and clear ties to Scripture."
Perhaps "this previously ignorant Protestant" will next discover that his disjunction between the "early churches" and Catholic (by which, I suppose, he means Roman Catholic) is also part of an ignorance that needs to be unlearned.
Posted by: Aelric at Feb 27, 2007 4:25:31 PM
As an Anglo-Catholic, I've been crossing myself for years but lately I have been stuggling with the down side mentioned here of catching myself doing it by rote. So needless to say I have been working on this in a few different ways with some success.
But I really got an education last Sunday when we were visited by a youth group with chaperones from a local Methodist church. They just sat there the whole time except for singing a couple of hymns and standing when we did. They stayed in their seats instead of going up to the altar. (Note: Some of the kids seemed really eagar to try following along but sadly, the cues from the adults ruled the day.)
What struck me was how defiant and resistant (and a little rude) this seemed to me after so many years out of the low type churches. I understand that it is perfectly normal (and not intentionally rude) in their normal context, but all that standing on "principle" seemed so stiff and rigid compared to the innumerable ways in which we responded to the liturgy. Making the sign of the Cross being the primary one.
So long story short, I have a new way to appreciate this beautiful prayer. Its another way to say "Amen" or "Praise Jesus" or "I am Thine" or "I live under this Sign" Its another way to talk back to God. The alternative is to sit with crossed arms and sealed lips with a "principled" furrow on one's brow. Seems a no brainer to me.
Posted by: AnglicanPeggy at Feb 27, 2007 4:36:01 PM
the sign of the cross is hardly a uniquely Catholic practice; it has deep roots in the early and Eastern churches and clear ties to Scripture
Boy, talk about making a distinction without a difference...
Posted by: lar at Feb 27, 2007 4:48:39 PM
SOT
PS, I got a kick out of how some of the kids heads snapped around towards the choir when they started singing the Asperges. They had such looks on their faces. I think that was good. I prayed that it was anyway ;-)
Posted by: AnglicanPeggy at Feb 27, 2007 4:49:14 PM
AP: for years RCs were not even allowed to attend non-RC services without prior permission from their priest, which was usually only given for weddings and funerals. Once there, we were not allowed to participate, only to attend.
So don't be too surprised at the same attitudes of what you call "low church types." I'm curious, tho: when would they have gone up to the altar? ... communion?
Posted by: Jimmy Mac at Feb 27, 2007 5:32:22 PM
I read the comments posted to the CT article itself, since I was wondering why the Sign of the Cross had been so easily and thoroughly extirpated from Protestant practice.Even after reading some of the commentors' historical citations, it was difficult to understand the attitude of the Reformers towards centuries-long practice. I can only conclude that the Reformers had overdosed on 'Sola Scriptura' and struck down the use of something extra-biblical ( but not anti-biblical ).
Posted by: Ed at Feb 27, 2007 6:22:05 PM
Well, I guess I'm not too worried about why people stopped doing it, as long as they're willing to start again.
But if you weren't doing a Trinitarian baptism, or if you weren't associating the actions of baptism with the bit in Ezekiel about marking foreheads of the righteous with a tau -- and if you disliked most of the traditional Christian gestures and signs of faith -- I guess you wouldn't really see the point.
Posted by: Maureen at Feb 27, 2007 6:34:17 PM
I think we should stop referring to ourselves as RCs. It is only in the English-speaking/Anglican-influenced world that we are called "Roman Catholic". This was invented to disparage the rest of the Catholic world as opposed to the self-ruling English. Presumably this RC moniker indicates that "Catholics" other than the "Anglican Catholics" were/are slaves to the Romish Pope. To me it's like using the "n" word.
Now, in the era of easy travel and communication when we no longer routinely have Italian heads of the Church, this is really rediculous and should end.
We are Catholics (from all around the world) of the Roman Rite. It was "Christendom" for lo those many years before the reformation, not "Roman Christendom". Also - many Catholics besides those of the Roman Rite recognize the authority of the Pope who occupies the chair of Peter in Rome and are not tagged as "Roman".
Don't help to perpetuate the goofy idea that Anglicans are just the same as "RC"s except they have the Archbishop of Canterbury as head instead of the Pope.
Whenever I have a form to fill out that has "Roman Catholic" as one of the choices for my religious affiliation it infuriates me. I either cross out the "Roman" or check "other" and call myself simply "Catholic" as a write-in.
Rant over.
Posted by: Julia at Feb 27, 2007 8:02:47 PM
Once there, we were not allowed to participate, only to attend.
If by "participate" you mean share in their communion services, you still are barred from doing so.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Feb 27, 2007 8:40:40 PM
Odd practice of the day: Lutheran clergy use the sign of the cross at every service. The vast majority of the worshippers in attendance don't follow along in it. Very odd to watch, as though it's some clerical act that the body in attendance don't take part in. But Luther was clear in describing how it is to be done and what is to be said, so Luther clearly was behind using it.
Posted by: MarkAA at Feb 27, 2007 9:02:42 PM
I find the Sign of the Cross a wonderfully succint prayer.....Often when I make it, I think back to early times and wonder, who was the first person who had the ingenious idea of tracing the Cross on their own body? What a marvelously artistic creation!
Posted by: cmb at Feb 27, 2007 9:36:46 PM
Rich-I think Jimmie Mac means that Catholics were not allowed to say the prayers or sing the hymns or in any way give any indication that they were participating in worship with Protestants. The Catholic kids I knew when I was a kid were taught that it was a sin even to enter a Protestant church. One Catholic priest whose mother was an Irish Catholic but whose father was Norwegian and an Evangelical Lutheran, never once set foot inside his father's church. Later, in seminary, he was rebellious and went over the wall (literally) to visit Protestant churches near the seminary and listen to especially good preachers. (He considered preaching missions to be his vocation.) He said he considered leaving the church and becoming a Protestant minister. Then he heard about the upcoming ecumenical council and decided to stay and see what happened. He was overjoyed by the decree on ecumenism, especially that it gave some validity not only to the faith of individual Protestants, but to their churches or ecclesial communities. He knew, he said, that his grandparent's church nourished them in their Christian life.
Later on, by the way, he became quite a "conservative" and deplored what had happened to the liturgy and to churches. He even baptized one of my babies using the old rite, with salt and exorcisms. I don't think this was strictly speaking allowed....) But I don't think he ever would have wanted to go back to the days when we could share no worship at all with Protestants.
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Feb 27, 2007 9:57:54 PM
AP-I also wondered why they would have gone up to the altar. If you are really an Anglo-Catholic, then you believe you have real priests in the apostolic succession, and a real sacramental presence of Our Lord. And Methodists quite clearly do not, and do not understand the Eucharistic presence in a Catholic fashion. So they really shouldn't be encouraged to receive communion in your church..not discerning the Body of the Lord...should they?
I see no reason why they shouldn't cross themselves, but if their teachers feel uncomfortable with it and convey that to the kids, well I suppose that is how they are passing on their tradition (no matter how recent and how deprived a tradition it might be.) It does seem odd, though, that Methodists these days, who have no trouble playing with Buddhism and even stranger things, would scruple at crossing themselves!
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Feb 27, 2007 10:09:42 PM
Sometimes when people call us just "Romans" they are deliberately denying us the word "Catholic.' For instance, when the Orthodox do it, that is what they mean by it. They want to claim Catholic for themselves, as indeed they must, since they assert that they are The Church. Some self conscious Anglo Catholics do this also. But most folks use Catholic and Roman Catholic interchangeably and mean nothing by it more than that those are two alternative names of our "denomination." You could take pride in the "Roman" meaning that we have adhered to the see of Peter, to the bishop of Roman. You know, like taking pride in the insult word "papist." (which is the n word for Catholic.) At least they are not calling us the "Italian mission" as some AngloCatholics in England did.
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Feb 27, 2007 10:16:27 PM
I grew into adulthood making the Sign of the Cross automatically, casually even sloppily. I remember laughing at actors/actresses in movies or on TV touching their heads, chests and each shoulder reverently, saying, "They could never be Catholics, making the Sign of the Cross like that." It was so perfect it was ridiculous.
Somewhere in the past few years, I read something or heard something about its importance and sacred character. How it is a sign of our baptism and belonging to Christ and how we pray not only with our spirits but with our bodies. I now sign myself like the actors/actresses I used to laugh at. And though I usually do it unconsciously, I know it matters a great deal - for it is no small thing to pray with our bodies, no matter how scattered our thoughts.
Posted by: Judy at Feb 28, 2007 11:26:48 AM
Well, "Roman" Catholic also helps to distinguish us from "Byzantine Catholic", "Melkite" Catholic, etc. I agree with Julia, if people would learn to say "Catholic of the Roman Rite" that would do the trick but that's not likely to happen.
Mark AA says:
Odd practice of the day: Lutheran clergy use the sign of the cross at every service. The vast majority of the worshippers in attendance don't follow along in it. Very true. In two of my former (Lutheran) congregations a young Asian woman used to make a slight genuflection before she entered the pew, obviously a former Catholic who didn't know that Lutherans don't have a tabernacle present in their churches, and in the other congregation a former Catholic married to a Lutheran used to faithfully sign herself. My Lutheran mother clearly considered it a "Roman" pratice.
As far as Methodists partaking of Communion in an Anglo-Catholic Church, I wouldn't be surprised to see that. ELCA Lutherans freely practice intercommunion with Protestant denominations that do not share their belief in the Real Presence.
Posted by: Christine at Feb 28, 2007 11:34:10 AM
Roman Catholic also helps distinguish from dissenters and those who claim to be Catholic but have no use for Catholic creed or practice (Frances Kissling comes to mind...). "Catholic in union with the Magisterium" doesn't fit in the box.
As for the Sign of the Cross, I went to a Lutheran wake service where about half of the grandchildren and in-laws were Catholic. When the minister blessed the assembled with an upraised hand in the Sign, all the good little Catholic children sitting in a row blessed themselves...I didn't notice the Lutherans following suit. How are we going to tell "us" from "them" if they start using it...? LOL.
Posted by: mallys at Feb 28, 2007 12:05:16 PM
How are we going to tell "us" from "them" if they start using it...? LOL.
Simple. Ask all the participants if they know what Lutefisk is (I know, I know, that's primarily the Scandinavian Lutherans !!)
:)
Posted by: Christine at Feb 28, 2007 12:08:20 PM
"I remember laughing at actors/actresses in movies or on TV touching their heads, chests and each shoulder reverently, saying, "They could never be Catholics, making the Sign of the Cross like that." It was so perfect it was ridiculous."
I had the same experience watching a play. Characters who were SUPPOSED to be Catholic in name only made deep, perfect genuflexions and Signs of the Cross, instead of just bobbing and swatting flies.
Posted by: Kate B. at Feb 28, 2007 12:36:53 PM
Julia, the 21 other rites in the Catholic Church don't like being ignored or ruled out of existence. Hence Roman Catholic is correct for referring to the Roman rite, as opposed to the Byzantine rite, for example.
I do think that the other Patriarchs would take some umbrage at your uniting the idea of Christendom with the HRE and Rome.
Aelric and Iar; baby steps. baby steps.
Maureen, where in Ezekiel is that?
MarkAA, I think there is fear of being thought Roman Catholic as opposed to Evangelical Catholic (I know, but I'm trying to explain the culture) Quite a few Lutherans came in by marrying a Lutheran, and I think there is awkwardness and self-awareness of not trying to seem out of place - which doesn't make it right. Nota Bene, Luther also approved of Eucharistic Adoration. But the Confessional German Synods in the States have become Protestant circa 1850.
Susan, United Methodism these days is divided into (at least) three parts: the Wiccan/Buddhist left, the liturgical conservatives and the Willow Creek/Saddleback conservatives.
Dunno, Christine, we even have polka masses. . . . (which -has- to be a liturgical abuse!)
Posted by: Labrialumn at Feb 28, 2007 1:03:15 PM
MarkAA, I think there is fear of being thought Roman Catholic as opposed to Evangelical Catholic
Well, those Lutherans who consider themselves Evangelical catholics (I don't think they would approve of the use of a capital "C") are struggling mightly in the ELCA.
Part of the "de-Romanizing", for lack of a better word was a result of the Prussian campaign that sought to blend the practices of Reformed and Lutheran churches in Germany. Luther did indeed recommend making the Sign of the Cross in his beautiful morning and evening prayers and even in the liturgy but as the post-Reformation positions hardened many Protestants sought to disavow themselves of what they considered "Romish" practices.
Many Lutherans are not well informed about their liturgical history these days, sad to say.
Posted by: Christine at Feb 28, 2007 1:23:25 PM
Jimmy Mac,
Way to miss the whole point of my post and focus your energies instead on attacking my identification as an Anglican. Way to go.
Julia,
Way to also focus your comments on de-legitamizing my identification as well as throwing in some reverse bigotry of your own. Lets not forget the past Ok? Never never let go of the grudge. Lets hop all over any one with the nerve to try and find some common ground with RC's. With such a welcome, its no wonder there are so few non-RC's willing to stick their necks out in places like this.
Too bad we couldnt discuss what I thought was important which was the freedom, comfort and the beauty of a physical response to the liturgy as opposed to the radical Protestant form of worship which amounts to sitting at a meeeting and singing a few tunes.
My thanks to Susan for reminding everyone of the facts of the teaching of your own church about the other expressions of Christianity. If it werent for people like her and Amy, I would think badly of RC's.
as for coming up to the altar, I meant to be blessed, not to take communion. The whole point of my post was the sensible notion that if one comes to worship in another tradition, then it makes some sense to follow along just once to better understand. The kids were eagar as kids always are to try on new things. It likely wouldnt have hurt them and probably would have enriched them.
Posted by: AnglicanPeggy at Feb 28, 2007 1:40:24 PM
Too bad we couldnt discuss what I thought was important which was the freedom, comfort and the beauty of a physical response to the liturgy as opposed to the radical Protestant form of worship which amounts to sitting at a meeeting and singing a few tunes.
AnglicanPeggy, in all fairness, though, when you speak of "other" traditions there's no getting around that Anglicans and Lutherans learned to make the Sign of the Cross from the ancient catholic tradition -- not the other way around.
I don't love my Lutheran family members any less as a Catholic than I did as a Lutheran.
But there sure was a lot of church history and tradition I wasn't taught as a Lutheran.
Posted by: Christine at Feb 28, 2007 2:14:21 PM
AP: Escuse me?
"Jimmy Mac,
Way to miss the whole point of my post and focus your energies instead on attacking my identification as an Anglican. Way to go. "
I never even referred to your being Anglican! What in the blazes are you getting at?
Posted by: Jimmy Mac at Feb 28, 2007 3:24:15 PM
Christine, very true. It might help to understand - *whatever you think of it* - that the confessional Lutherans (LCMS, WELS and ELS) and the orthodox Anglicans *think of themselves* as the Catholic Church, pre-Great Schism.
I know you won't agree, you may think it mad, silly or evil, but at least understand that about them.
Posted by: Labrialumn at Feb 28, 2007 9:48:33 PM
