Posted on 11/04/2013 6:55:50 AM PST by NYer
Few actions so clearly distinguish a person as a Catholic in our culture as the Sign of the Cross.
Contrary to what some Protestants would have you think, the Sign of the Cross dates back to the earliest times. In the third century, Tertullian wrote, 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. A number of other Church Fathers also attest to the use of the Sign of the Cross early on, including St. John Chrysostom and St. Cyril of Jerusalem.
But does the Sign of the Cross go back as far as the Bible?
For Catholics, the Sign of the Cross does not need to be explicitly recorded in the Scriptures in order to justify its use. The Sign of the Cross simply affirms in gestures the core of the creedthe existence of the Trinity and the crucifixion of Jesus. Only the most reactionary of anti-Catholic prejudices would see in this gesture something to be argued against.
But it just so happens that there is compelling biblical evidence that supports this practice.
The evidence is hidden in a book whose very name suggests the unveiling of the concealed a book so filled with tales of beasts, a seven-headed dragon, horse-like locusts, and a two hundred million-strong army of fire-breathing steeds that you might have missed where it talks about anything like the Sign of the Cross: the Book of Revelation.
In Revelation 7, John witnesses four angels at the four corners of the earth, holding back storm winds ready to wreak havoc on the earth and sea.
Then I saw another angel come up from the East, holding the seal of the living God. He cried out in a loud voice to the four angels who were given power to damage the land and the sea, Do not damage the land or the sea or the trees until we put the seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God. I heard the number of those who had been marked with the seal, one hundred and forty-four thousand marked from every tribe of the Israelites (Revelation 7:2-4, New American Bible, Rev. Ed.)
Catholic commentators have traditionally associated the seal on the foreheads of the servants of God with the Sign of the Cross. (For example, see the Haydock Bible Commentary here and Scott Hahns book Signs of Life: 40 Catholic Customs and Their Biblical Roots.)
The book makes two more references to a sign on the forehead. In Revelation 14:1, John sees the same assembly of believers with the name of the Father and Son on their foreheads. And, in Revelation 22:4, while an angel is leading John on a tour of the New Jerusalem that descended out of heaven, he is told that the servants of God who live in the celestial city will have Gods name on their foreheads.
The idea of a sign or a seal marking members of the Church as Gods own also surfaces elsewhere in the New Testament. In 2 Corinthians 1:22, Paul writes that, the one who gives us security with you in Christ and who anointed us is God; he has also put his seal upon us and given the Spirit in our hearts as a first installment. Similar language is used in Ephesians 1:13 and 4:30, in which Paul talks about how Christians have been sealed with the Holy Spirit.
Although often translated as sealed, the Greek word in these three texts is the same as the one used in Revelation 7:3, sphragizō, which one biblical concordance defines as to set a seal upon, mark with a seal, to seal for a number of purposes, including security from Satan and to prove ones testimony to a person that he is what he professes to be. (Click here for the full definition.)
All three verses are clearly describing the sacrament of baptism, according to the Haydock Bible Commentary. The sacramental imagery is unmistakable: it is through baptism that our membership in the Church is sealed. And it is in baptism that we receive the first installment, if you will, of graces to come through life in the Churchparticularly through frequent prayer and reception of the other sacraments.
Such baptismal language strengthens the connection with the Sign of the Cross, which is accompanied by the words, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spiritthe same words with which we are baptized. As then-Cardinal Ratzinger once described it, the Sign of the Cross as the summing up and re-acceptance of our baptism.
What did this sign or seal look like? None of the above verses offer specifics. For that, we have to go deeper into the Scriptures.
Commentators, both Catholic and Protestant, have seen Revelation 7:3 as an allusion back to Ezekiel 9:4, where we read Gods instructions to a linen-clad man in one of the prophets visions: Lord said to him: Pass through the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and mark the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the abominations practiced within it.
A number of commentators, most notably St. Jerome, have concluded that the mark was cross-shaped.
Specifically, St. Jerome says the mark was shaped like the last letter in the Hebrew alphabet, which, in its earliest forms had a cross-like shape.
Now what made Jerome think this?
The sources that were readily available, like the Haydock Bible Commentary and others, dont elaborate, but its clear where he got the idea by taking a look at the Hebrew text for Ezekiel 9:4. There, the word for mark is tav (thats the transliterated spelling; a phonetic spelling would be tāw or thau). Thats also the Hebrew word for the last letter of its alphabet (according to these language sites here and here).
(It might help, before proceeding further, to recall that languages have words for the letters in their alphabets. Often these words contain they letter they are naming. So, for example, the last letter in our alphabet is Z, but the word for Z is actually zee. Likewise, our word for the letter B is bee, which happens to also be the name for a certain type of insect. Its the same idea with Hebrew. The word for its last letter is tav which is also the word for mark.)
Now, what was so exciting for St. Jerome and others is that in its ancient forms the letter tav looked like a cross. Specifically, around 2,000 BC the letter was shaped like St. Georges Cross. Around 1,000 BCa few hundred years before the writing of Ezekielit still had a cross-shape but was more like St. Andrews Cross. (See below illustration.)
Now, in Ezekiel 9, the mark was to be put on the foreheads of those who grieved and lamented the idolatry and abominations of their fellow Israelites. Those so marked would be saved from the destructed that was to be visited upon the sinners. For Catholic Christians reading the Old Testament, its all just too much of a coincidence that the Hebrew word mark is also the Hebrew word for a letter of its alphabet that was shaped like a crossthe instrument with which salvation is offered to all men.
Over the centuries, this interpretation of Ezekiel 9:4 has been taken seriously by saints and scholars alike.
In 1215, Pope Innocent III opened the Fourth Lateran Council with a rousing sermon on Ezekiel 9. St. Francis, who attended the council, was reportedly so inspired that he embraced the tau (the Greek letter that is the counterpart to the Hebrew letter tav) as the emblem of his order, according to historian Warren Carroll.
St. Jeromes cross-centered view of Ezekiel 9:4 has continued to be taken seriously since then. Centuries later, in the early 1800s, the noted Catholic commentator George Haydock cites it. And, even a Protestant commentator in the same century, British Methodist theologian Adam Clarke, lends it some credence.
Catholic Bibles today continue to affirm the cross-imagery hidden in Ezekiel 9:4. In the verse as quoted above, that interpretation is inserted where an ellipsis reads above. In the Douay-Rheims translation, the name of the letter, thau, is offered. The New American Biblerecognizing that most readers dont know what a thau is, much less what it looks likeinstead says that God instructed the linen-clad man to mark an X on the foreheads. Either way, St. Jeromes interpretation still carries water today in Catholic exegetical circles.
All this is to say that the Sign of the Cross is indeed a distinctly Catholic (and Orthodox) practice, but it is also one that is deeply rooted in both the Old and New Testaments. Its witness to a faith that is ever ancient, yet ever new is yet another way the Sign of the Cross symbolizes the heart of what we believe and practice as Catholics.
Sign of the Cross, ping!
“...[insert tradition here] does not need to be explicitly recorded in the Scriptures in order to justify its use.”
There’s the heart of the matter! After 2,000 years a whole lot of unbiblical innovations have crept in.
That is very true, but in this case, IMO, the practice may have actually been a part of a shadow picture of a future event to come.
Exodus 12:7 [A Passover Event] And they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses...
Stand in your doorway and make believe you are paint lamb's blood on the lintel (top of the doorway), then paint the "door post" on your left, then paint the "door post" on your right - this was the first time the sign of the cross was performed, and like their sacrifice of the lamb at passover, a shadow picture of an event to yet come.
Great article.
Since Catholics claim to have written the Bible, isn't this a bit disingenuous? "We know there's compelling evidence in the Bible, because we planted it there!"
Since the Scriptures are silent on the shape of the mark in Ezekiel and Revelation the basis for the article’s premise is the opinion of Jerome. And little wonder, the use of the cross in various configurations far predated Christianity.
Excellent article.
One night at Scripture Study our priest asked us why the people of the first generation after Jesus didn’t use the sign of the cross.
We had no answer, but his answer made so much sense. “While they were living crucifixions were still self-evident, and people didn’t need to remind themselves of Christ death and forthcoming Resurrection.”
As Catholics we are so grateful, for the Sign of the Cross is traced on our foreheads when we are baptized. It sounds like the people in Ezekiel were in the throes of a Baptism of Blood.
Now the Sign of the Cross that we make upon entering and leaving Church (or eating in a restaurant and saying the Grace before Meals) reminds us not only of Christ’s death, but our very own Baptism.
God bless.
Protestants have no specific beliefs to speak of. Other than get saved and you’re going to heaven. No church necessary.
All have none, you say?
"In 1648, the first printing of the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly were made available for distribution and sale in England and Scotland. They remain the clearest expressions of Reformed Protestantism ever formulated..."- May 13, This Week in Religion History
Confession and Catechisms [introduction to the Westminster Confession of Faith]
The Westminster Confession of Faith
[from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church website]
Chapter 1: Of the Holy Scripture
Chapter 2: Of God, and of the Holy Trinity
Chapter 3: Of Gods Eternal Decree
Chapter 4: Of Creation
Chapter 5: Of Providence
Chapter 6: Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof
Chapter 7: Of Gods Covenant with Man
Chapter 8: Of Christ the Mediator
Chapter 9: Of Free Will
Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling
Chapter 11: Of Justification
Chapter 12: Of Adoption
Chapter 13: Of Sanctification
Chapter 14: Of Saving Faith
Chapter 15: Of Repentance unto Life
Chapter 16: Of Good Works
Chapter 17: Of the Perseverance of the Saints
Chapter 18: Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation
Chapter 19: Of the Law of God
Chapter 20: Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience
Chapter 21: Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day
Chapter 22: Of Lawful Oaths and Vows
Chapter 23: Of the Civil Magistrate
Chapter 24: Of Marriage and Divorce
Chapter 25: Of the Church
Chapter 26: Of the Communion of Saints
Chapter 27: Of the Sacraments
Chapter 28: Of Baptism
Chapter 29: Of the Lords Supper
Chapter 30: Of Church Censures
Chapter 31: Of Synods and Councils
Chapter 32: Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead
Chapter 33: Of the Last Judgment
The Westminster Confession of Faith
[from the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics website]
Westminster Confession of Faith - Chapter 1 - The Holy Scripture
Westminster Confession of Faith - Chapter 2 - Of God and the Holy Trinity
Westminster Confession - Chapter 3 - Of God's Eternal Decree
Westminster Confession of Faith - Chapter 4 - Of Creation
Westminster Confession - Chapter 5 - Providence
Westminster Confession - Chap 6 - Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof
Westminster Confession - Chap 7 - Of God's Covenant With Man
Westminster Confession - Chap 8 - Of Christ the Mediator
Westminster Confession - Chap 8 - Of Christ the Mediator
Westminster Confession - Chap 9 - Of Free Will
Westminster Confession - Chap 10 - Of Effectual Calling
Westminster Confession - Chap 11 - Of Justification
Westminster Confession - Chap 12 - On Adoption
Westminster Confession - Chap 13 - Of Sanctification
Westminster Confession - Chap 14 - Of Saving Faith
Westminster Confession - Chap 15 - Repentence unto Life
Westminster Confession - Chap 16 - Of Good Works
Speaking as a Baptist, knowing the doctrine thereof, and speaking from the doctrine thereof, you are either speaking from a lack of knowledge or from willful mistruth.
Thou shalt not bear false witness
I was a baptist for 58 years. As such I went to church and heard a pastor preach for about an hour, a little singing from him and the congregation, then went home. No sacraments. Nothing orderly. No specific scripture reading. The main focus of the service was the pastor.
This is sign language just as annointed as Jesus’s name in any spoken language as long as it is done in true Faith.
Then I would opine you were deficient by remaining where you
were not ‘fed’.
Where I have been attending for about 4 years running, there is nothing but scriptural specific preaching, and NO sermon does not contain Jesus and who/what/why He is/was/will be.
Any Pastor who would make the service about himself should be run off. By the congregation.
Sorry for all those lost years.
When did you have time to be a Baptist for 58 years?
Elsewhere you have said that a) you stopped attending church at age 20, b) you were a Pentecostal after being a Baptist, and c) you began attending Catholic services with your children, and only recently d) you formally became a Catholic in 2008.
Baptists, pentecostals, church of god, salvation church, Holiness Church, blah, blah, blah, they are the same. A man standing on the stage beating his fist into a Bible telling the congregation “you going to hell of you don’t change your ways, hallelujah, praise the Lord, can I hear an amen”. If I’ve seen one of these Saturday night Elmer Gantrys I’ve seen a thousand.
(And what the heck happened to "Sola Scriptura?!?!?) :-)
The accusation was "Protestants have no specific beliefs to speak of", minus the double-revisionist qualifiers of 'most' and 'those "Calvinist" teachings'. Pick a strawman and stick with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.