# Church Fathers on the Sign of the Cross



## Romans922 (Jan 12, 2009)

What do we think about the Church Fathers and these references to the sign of the cross (that you find in EO and RC circles): apolo 140


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 12, 2009)

I've actually started to see among "Emergents" and their ilk a return to signing the cross after prayer.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 12, 2009)

I'd be fascinated to know the history of the sign of the cross....don't Lutherans still do it? Anything earlier than Tertullian?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 12, 2009)

I've seen Lutherans and Epsicopalians (Anglicans) perform this action.


----------



## CDM (Jan 12, 2009)

I brought this topic up a while back, see here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/athanasius-sign-cross-26534/


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 12, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> I'd be fascinated to know the history of the sign of the cross....don't Lutherans still do it? Anything earlier than Tertullian?



There has been a resurgence in the mainline Lutheran church of making the sign of the cross in the past, I'd say, 10 years. I'm not sure whether there was some directive handed down, but all of a sudden it started happening in my parents' church when I was home to visit, when it NEVER was done when I was growing up.


----------



## PresbyDane (Jan 12, 2009)

Some Lutherans here in Denmark still do it, after communion. and sometimes before.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 12, 2009)

Everyone is talking about today, what do you think of what the Church Fathers said?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 12, 2009)

Don't have time to read all of them, but did glance through. It doesn't appear that any gave a definition of it. From what I was told (EO) the sybolism is "all my mind, soul, and strength" (head, heart, shoulders). That understanding may or may not play into how one understands the posted link.


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 12, 2009)

I don't remember seeing it mentioned in the church fathers, but I'm not as widely read as perhaps I should be. 

It strikes me as a rather superstitious activity and one that does not have a basis in scripture. Therefore, it does not have a place in worship. Of course, one of you might be able to correct me on this, so I'm waiting to learn ....


----------



## Jan Ziska (Jan 15, 2009)

I would tentatively place the sign of the cross in the same basket as other physical actions used in worship such as kneeling, hand-raising (ie during the benediction), or whatever.

I would say it is an area of liberty, but would disagree with it being required by anyone.

The EO (and RC I assume) give every part of sign extra-biblical symbolism. For example, the sign is made with the first three fingers of the hand held to a point, signifying the Holy Trinity, and the last two flat against the palm, signifying the dual nature of Christ.

Now, while these things (the trinity and dual nature of Christ) are correct, I think it is clearly wrong to give physical things spiritual significance.


----------



## Whitefield (Jan 15, 2009)

Jan Ziska said:


> Now, while these things (the trinity and dual nature of Christ) are correct, I think it is clearly wrong to give physical things spiritual significance.



I am not a proponent of crossing oneself. But I find this last statement intriguing. Do you mean this categorically? What about the loaf of bread and cup of wine this Sunday?


----------



## Staphlobob (Jan 15, 2009)

Jan Ziska said:


> The EO (and RC I assume) give every part of sign extra-biblical symbolism. For example, the sign is made with the first three fingers of the hand held to a point, signifying the Holy Trinity, and the last two flat against the palm, signifying the dual nature of Christ.


 
Not the RCs. They kind of do it however they want.

Also, the EOs make the sign going from the right shoulder to the left, while the RCs make if from the left shoulder to the right. 

How it's done is not an issue for RCs, but it is for EOs. Furthermore, for the EOs placing the fingers in the appropriate manner (as you said above) is also important for them.

When I was Lutheran I did it frequently, though it's not required by them. I know of one Lutheran pastor who had a serious theological disagreement with children's sermons. But when the leaders of the congregation got extremely vocal and (sort of) forced him to do one, he got the kids up in front of the congregation and taught them how to make the sign of the cross. He was never asked to do another children's sermon.


----------



## Hamalas (Jan 15, 2009)

> Now, while these things (the trinity and dual nature of Christ) are correct, I think it is clearly wrong to give physical things spiritual significance.



Interesting. I don't necessarily disagree with you but could you elaborate on that?


----------



## Jan Ziska (Jan 17, 2009)

Ok, I kneel every night when I pray with my sons, and we all fold our hands. I do it because it helps focus the mind. However, the prayers would be equally effective no matter the position, as long as the people praying were concentrating equally. Lying, standing, sitting, kneeling, it makes no difference to God.

Likewise, a prayer is just as effective in my home as the top of Mt Sinai as the temple mount.

The minister might raise his hands over the congregation while giving the benediction, but the blessing would be equally as effective whether he raised his hands or not.

Yes, some physical things are given specific spiritual significance, namely the water in baptism and the bread and wine in the Communion. These are clearly instituted in scripture. Otherwise, I think it is best to steer clear of giving physical things specific spiritual meanings.


----------



## A.J. (Jan 19, 2009)

Romans922 said:


> What do we think about the Church Fathers and these references to the sign of the cross (that you find in EO and RC circles): apolo 140



Rev. Barnes, I've seen citations like these. As far as they are concerned, it seemed that the practice emerged early in the life of the post-apostolic church. But as far as the Regulative Principle of Worship is concerned, it shouldn't be practiced by Protestants. 

Also, the fact that the Church Fathers taught this is not a guarantee that the practice itself was apostolic. Tertullian, for instance, whose citation appears at the beginning of the link had a view of baptism that is not apostolic. His view of delaying baptism and his reason for it are unacceptable even to modern Roman Catholicism. And yet Tertullian was separated only from the last apostle by several decades! 

This makes me appreciate all the more the beauty of Sola Scriptura. We do accept tradition, but only if it is consistent with Scripture. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Rangerus (Jan 19, 2009)

In my humble opinion there is nothing particularly wrong with the sign of the cross symbolically but I would keep it to the privacy of my prayer room simply because when done in public it identifies one with the RC. And that could mis-lead a new Christian or non-believer.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jan 19, 2009)

I usually cross myself right after I finish praying in tongues.


----------

