Sign of the Cross / crossing oneself

[Richard Domina]

Of all our formal Christian prayers I find the Sign of the Cross the most sublime. Does anyone know of it's early written appearance or where and when it originated? Thanks, Rick

[irineu]

Hi

All you have to do, is to visit www.orthodoxinfo.com (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com), and do your research. I've seen there many articles about this. There is also a good explonation of the history of Cross on the catholic web site "www.newadvent.org (http://www.newadvent.org)" on the encyclopedia...

[Leo]

After reading the messages above, I ask: How is "the sign of the cross" a formal Christian prayer?

[Richard Domina]

I think it is formal in the sense it is a prayer and has a very definite form. Unlike some prayers which can be uttered with only the lips or mentally, the sign of the cross is done with mind, mouth and body . In a way it is proof of our Apostolic link to the Tradition of the Mystery revealed of the One God in three hypostasis crucified for our salvation.

[Andrew Latz]

Can anyone explain the theology behind crossing onself?

Thanks,
Andrew

[Margaret Lark]

Could you elucidate what you mean by "the theology of crossing oneself"? Do you mean, Why do we do it, or, Is there a Biblical basis for it, or, How did the practice spring up, or, What is the meaning behind it? Or, All (or none) of the Above?

[Andrew Latz]

Yes, why is it done, what does it mean, where are its roots etc.

[Justin]

Andrew,

Though it doesn't answer your question directly, this might be a helpful clue:


"Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us 'in a mystery' by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay;-no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? - Saint Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 27 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-08/Npnf2-08-06.htm#P1852_482023)

[Justin]

PS. I should say that the sign of the cross is a prayer. Some people object to this, pointing out how carelessly some people do it. This really isn't an objection though, any more than people carelessly telling their wife that they love them would be an objection to everyone telling their wives that they love them. Obvious, if the prayer means something, it has to be important to you. This is the meaning behind our Lord's saying in the Gospel (the one that is normally, wrongly, rendered "vain repetitions")... it speaks of vain babbling, much talking, as though an increase in the very number of words is a magic formula for success. If there is no life in the crossing of oneself, there is little effect (though as even Protestants like C.S. Lewis have pointed out, even actions done without zeal or "life" can be beneficial--certainly more beneficial than doing nothing at all). Every cross that we make over ourselves (or others) is a prayer. It's a divine gift given by God, the giver of all good things. In bows and prostrations we bend our bodies and hearts in submission before God; by crossing ourselves we ask for God's protection and communion. It is also taught in Orthodoxy that the cross--especially coupled with additional oral or mental prayers--will fight off evil, and through personal experience I've had this confirmed. There are lots of other reasons that we cross ourselves (though he doesn't mention the actual practice of crossing yourself, there is still much to be learned from the discussion of the cross in Saint Athanasius's work On the Incarnation, 27, 29, 32 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-16.htm#P1830_678055)).

[Andrew Latz]

Thanks Justin, could you say more about the warding off of evil? Would you regard crossing oneself as one of the 'vitals' of being a Christian then?

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Andrew,

The first thing to note is that "signing" is for "blessing." This is the way the older English word for it, "sain" was used.

The theology of signing, or blessing oneself is linked to the sign of one's baptism, in which one is placed into the Holy Name of God, by which is meant that one is placed into God, His family and therefore, among a host of other things, His loving care and protection.

Ezek. 9:4-6 describes God's holy angel following God's command to place a seal on the heads of His chosen. Compare this with Rev. 7:2 and 14:1.

In Hebrew (the Ezekiel passage) the mark is the older form of the last letter of the "aleph-beth" "Thau" which could take the form of X or T.
It was a shorthand way of declaring "the begining and the end, the aleph and the thau" (one of God's names) which comes out in Greek as the alpha and the omega. The X shape of the Thau has the added peculiarity that it is the same form as the Greek letter initialling the word "Christ," Chi (X). And, it happens that it is also roughly the form of a Roman means of execution, which we were all commanded to bear daily. Thus, the cross shape is the perfect sign for the Name of God into Whom we are all baptized, and it is at and through our baptism that we are signed and sealed into His household, even marriage (0or at least betrothal) to His Son. Actually, the declaration of the whole Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit accords with His Name.

Signing ourselves, then is a re-participation in and remembrance of our baptism. Thus, "theology" is a good word for it.

Richard

[Matthew Panchisin]

If my memory serves me correctly, Saint John Chrysostom wrote in short, that the demons make a mockery out of those who make the sign of the cross incorrectly. I can't find the exact text. But Saint John of Shanghai wrote the following..



The Cross, Preserver of the Universe
Saint John of Shanghai


IN THE prophet Ezekiel (9:6) it is said that when the Angel of the Lord was sent to punish and destroy the sinning people, it was told him not to strike those on whom the "mark" had been made. In the original text this mark is called "tau," the Hebrew letter corresponding to the letter "T.", which is how in ancient times the cross was made, which then was an instrument of punishment.

And so, even then was foretold the power of the Cross, which preserves those who venerate it. Likewise by many other events in the Old Testament the power of the Cross was indicated. Moses, who held his arms raised in the form of a cross during the battle, gave victory to the Israelites over the Amalekites. He also, dividing the Red Sea by a blow of his rod and by a transverse blow uniting the waters again, saved Israel from Pharaoh, who drowned in the water, while Israel crossed over on the dry bottom (Exodus, chs. 14, 17).

Through the laying on of his hands in the form of a cross on his grandsons, Jacob gave a blessing to his descendants, foretelling at the same time their future until the coming of the "expectation of the nations" (Genesis, ch. 48).

By the Cross, the Son of God having become man, accomplished our salvation. He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross (Phil. 2:8). Having stretched out His hands upon the Cross, the Saviour with them, as it were, embraced the world, and by His blood shed on it, like a king with red ink, He signed the forgiveness of the human race.

The Cross of the Lord was the instrument by which He saved the world after the fall into sin. Through the Cross, He descended with His soul into hell so as to raise up from it the souls who were awaiting Him. By the Cross, Christ opened the doors of paradise which had been closed after our first ancestors had been banished from it. The Cross was sanctified by the Body of Christ which was nailed to it when He gave Himself over to torments and death for the salvation of the world, and it itself was then filled with life-giving power. By the Cross on Golgotha, the prince of this world was cast out (John 12:31) and an end was put to his authority. The weapon by which he was crushed became the sign of Christ's victory.

The demonic hosts tremble when they see the Cross, for by the Cross the kingdom of hell was destroyed. They do not dare to draw near to anyone who is guarded by the Cross.

The whole human race, by the death of Christ on the Cross, received deliverance from the authority of the devil, and everyone who makes use of this saving weapon is inaccessible to the demons.

When legions of demons appeared to St. Anthony the Great and other desert-dwellers, they guarded themselves with the Sign of the Cross, and the demons vanished.

When they appeared to Saint Symeon the Stylite, who was standing on his pillar, what seemed to be a chariot to carry him to heaven, the Saint, before mounting it, crossed himself; it disappeared and the enemy, who had hoped to cast down the ascetic from the height of his pillar, was put to shame.

One cannot enumerate all the separate examples of the manifestation of the power of the Cross in various incidents. Invisibly and unceasingly there gushes from it the Divine grace that saves the world.

The Sign of the Cross is made at all the Mysteries and prayers of the Church. With the making of the Sign of the Cross over the bread and wine, they become the Body and Blood of Christ. With the immersion of the Cross, the waters are sanctified. The Sign of the Cross looses us from sins. "When we are guarded by the Cross, we oppose the enemy, not fearing his nets and barking." Just as the flaming sword in the hands of the Cherubim barred the entrance into paradise of old, so the Cross now acts invisibly in the world, guarding it from perdition.

The Cross is the unconquerable weapon of pious kings in the battle with enemies. Through the apparition of the Cross in the sky, the dominion of Emperor Constantine was confirmed and an end was put to the persecution against the Church. The apparition of the Cross in the sky in Jerusalem in the days of Constantius the Arian proclaimed the victory of Orthodoxy. By the power of the Cross of the Lord, Christian kings reign and will reign until Antichrist, barring his path to power and restraining lawlessness (Saint John Chrysostom, Commentary on 11 Thes. 2:6-7).

The "sign of the Son of Man" (Matt. 24:30), that is, the Cross, will appear in the sky in order to proclaim the end of the present world and the coming of the eternal Kingdom of the Son of God. Then all the tribes of the earth shall weep, because they loved the present age and its lusts, but all who have endured persecution for righteousness and called on the name of the Lord shall rejoice and be glad. The Cross then will save from eternal perdition all who conquered temptations by the Cross, who crucified their flesh with its passions and lusts, and took up their cross and followed their Christ.

But those who hated the Cross of the Lord and did not engrave the Cross in their soul will perish forever. For "the Cross is the preserver of the whole universe, the Cross is the beauty of the Church, the Cross is the might of kings, the Cross is the confirmation of the faithful, the Cross is the glory of angels and the scourge of demons" (Octoechos: Exapostilarion, Monday Matins)-

In Christ,
Matthew

[Justin]

Andrew,

I'm glad that good answers were given Matthew and Richard since I cannot think of any other texts off the top of my head. Regarding warding off evil, the sign of the cross is rather like any other prayers: we are told to draw near to God, and that he will draw near to us (James 4:8). The "sign of the cross" isn't a magical protection, then, but is suppose to be a prayerful action in which we attempt to "draw nearer to God". The body is many times a hinderance as we walk on the narrow road... but it can also be of benefit to us as well. When you believe that evil is attacking or tempting you, you could always run or cower or react in some other way, but calling one's attention to prayer, and then praying, would be the best action.

Regarding it being a vital thing... well... Let me put it this way... I was surfing earlier today and came across a cafeteria Christianity site that leaned towards traditionalism. The odd thing was, after a whole paragraph of praising the sign of the cross, and saying how old a practice it was, they said it was optional and wasn't necessary. Well what does that mean, anyway? Is baptism by water "necessary" as the Scriptures says it is? Does the repentant thief on the cross then not enter into paradise because he was not baptized in water? How about the mute man? The Scripture says that we must confess Jesus with our lips, is the mute man doomed? Even things that Scripture lists as a "must" have exceptions. Likewise, even things not listed in scripture as a "must" might be one. The Scripture nowhere discusses the consubstantiality of Jesus with the Father: yet merely following along the biblical passages and refusing to accept the Nicene creed would place you outside of orthodoxy.

So is the sign of the cross vital? I suppose so, yes. It is a thread in a cloak which covers us. When it is winter time, and we are being attacked by the cold from all sides, do we stop and say "now is this single thread really necessary?" Well, what type of question is that? It may very well be that by pulling the one thread out (claiming it to be unnecessary, and maybe an addition of someone else) will cause the whole cloak to start coming apart. It's winter time in the world, and our soul needs protection; now supposing a man offers us a cloak, do we dare start questioning whether this or that string is necessary?

Now I realize that this is perhaps not a good analogy in your case, since you are still investigating whether the entire cloak should be taken, or whether another out to be worn. Even so, you are looking for Orthodox answers (I imagine) to your questions, so try to think of it from our perspective. For us to ask if crossing ourselves is vital is really not a fair question. Of course it's vital, it's part of the tradition handed down to us. But is it necessary you ask? Well again, what defines what is necessary? Our Lord told the rich young man to go and sell all that he had and to give the money to the poor and follow Him... was that "necessary" for his salvation? For the Orthodox Christian (as for that right young man), actions both tell the truth, and bring one further into the truth. We are taught by the Church (as the rich young ruler was told by Jesus) to do a certain something that will be beneficial for our soul. To refuse to do it because it seems unimportant, or doesn't seem fair... well that's not going to turn out well for us. Some might say "but I see no reason that it's necessary". The rich young man might very well have thought something similar "but why did he tell others that all they needed was faith? and now he tells me to get rid of all my stuff? that's not necessary! Moses never said anything about that!"

I guess it comes down to an attitude of submission to the Church. Not blind submission, I'm not saying you can't ask questions about the cross. Yet, this prayerful action (this prayerful action within a life that should be one continuous prayerful action) has been handed down to us by the Fathers, as a truly Orthodox thing, and a truly helpful thing, and as a truth-bestowing gift to us (in Orthodox epistemology/gnosiology, actions are many times required for attain knowledge, as Saint James and Saint Paul mention explicitly).

I guess the reason this is so wordy is that I imagine I'd have trouble persuading you as to the truth of the Orthodox position. It's perhaps not unlike a Calvinist asking if baptism is "necessary". Well, we start with different underlying premises (is salvation a process? can grace come to us through things like water? who has the authority then to baptize? in what form?), so what luck will we have in coming to an agreement? The most I can do is try to explain the Orthodox position--preferrably following along the explanations already proven to be articulations of the truth (ie. the words of the Fathers).

[Justin]

I made a number of grammatical errors, sorry. :-|

[Matthew Panchisin]

Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory Forever!

The sign of the cross has been used since apostolic times. I don't know the exact date.
My Father who is an Orthodox Priest taught that when we make the sign of the cross with the first three fingers of our hand together that represents the Holy Trinity. The two small fingers represent the divine and and human nature of Christ. Hence it is Holy and indestructable. We are blessed by those in Holy orders by it and have been given it so that when it is made with reverence, it crushes the heads of the demons.
It renders them powerless.

In Christ,
Matthew

[Photini]

Dear Justin,
Just wanted to say that I appreciate your cloak analogy. Thank you very much.

In Christ,
photini

[Andrew Latz]

Justin: I can understand that,perfectly reasonable thing to say. I'd probably say the same thing about other things.

Richard: thanks, that's absolutely tremendous: an 'anamnesis' of baptism.

Side question: people have been talking about the Fathers as being as inspired as the biblical authors (unless I'm mistaken (quite possible)). If so, when did this inspiration stop, or, if it didn't, in what form does it continue today?

[Andrew Latz]

Justin,
could you say more about actions helping to attain knowledge?

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

Can somebody enlighten me as to why the Orthodox sign themselves differently (right breast then left breast) from the RCs (and Anglo-Catholics), who do precisely the opposite?

the seeker

[Herman Blaydoe]

Side question: people have been talking about the Fathers as being as inspired as the biblical authors (unless I'm mistaken (quite possible)). If so, when did this inspiration stop, or, if it didn't, in what form does it continue today?

The authors of Holy Scripture were "hand-picked" by Christ Himself. They were first person witnesses, and therefore their writings are primary in Holy Tradition. However, that does not mean that many of the Fathers (and Mothers) who were called "equal-to-the-Apostles" were any less "inspired" even if they are further chronologically from Christ. We hold Holy Scripture as the standard. Other, more modern writers, who walk closely with God, who have developed a relationship with God, also teach TRUTH, as long as it adheres to the standards established by the Church. Can more modern writers be "more" inspired than the Holy Apostles? Can they change the Apostolic Witness? No, because the Truth is the Truth and the standard is the standard. By definition, they cannot change.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Can somebody enlighten me as to why the Orthodox sign themselves differently (right breast then left breast) from the RCs (and Anglo-Catholics), who do precisely the opposite?

Even according to Catholic sources (my favorite being the Catholic Encyclopedia), the Orthodox manner of crossing one-self is the older practice of the undivided Church. From the CE:

At this period the manner of making it in the West seems to have been identical with that followed at present in the East, i.e. only three fingers were used, and the hand traveled from the right shoulder to the left.

Much more information is available here: Catholic Encyclopedia: The sign of the Cross (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13785a.htm)

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

Thanks, Herman. This is a very interesting article but it does not answer the principal question question of why the change was introduced. This seems to be lost in antiquity. It was certainly introduced in the Middle Ages - presumably after, and maybe in response to, the division of 1054. I shall continue searching. Maybe there was a papal Bull about the practice.

the seeker

[Herman Blaydoe]

There are two "popular" explanations that I am aware of. One is that when a priest blesses outwardly, his hand moves from his left to his right (your right to left as you face him). The RC laity got into the habit of mimicing this left to right movement. The other explanation is that in western chivalric tradition, the movement from right to left was seen as going from greater to lesser (dexter [right] to sinister [left]) and was changed to show going from lesser to greater. I cannot, however, come up with credible sources for this, so take it fwiw.

Herman the simple

[Justin]

Andrew,

Well, we believe that everyone gets truth from the same things, so the question is not whether Fathers today can be inspired by God, but just to what extent are they inspired? They learn from the same Truth that the Apostles did, just in a different form, and in a different context. There are modern Fathers, my patron saint (Justin Popovich) being one of them.

Regarding actions and epistemology, there's not really an easy way to say it. The Epistle of James, IMO, speaks of this a lot, though most people miss it today since they are so worried about "solving" the supposed Works vs. Faith problem. It might be of some benefit to keep an eye on this thread (http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=816) at another forum; and then again it may not. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Past that (and I hope you'll forgive me for not saying more, I'm a bit burned out already this morning after writing that long post in the other thread), a overview of the Orthodox belief regarding faith and works generally (and their effect on knowledge and salvation) would be the text On Those Who Think They Are Made Righteous By Works (http://www.jbburnett.com/auctor/mark_ascetic-righteousness.pdf) by Saint Mark the Monk. My wife and I thought this document so profitable tha we use to read one small section from this each day and then discuss it. The online text that I'd suggest that most explicitly deals with the subject is, unfortunately, only an excerpt. I sort of hope that the excerpt might lead you into buying the book though, as I think it's one of the best books on Orthodoxy in the English language. The excerpt is from the essay The Theory of Knowledge of Saint Isaac the Syrian (http://www.roca.org/oa/137/137c.htm) by Saint Justin Popovich (http://www.geocities.com/stainlesskings888/Justin.html). The works of Met. Hierotheos (http://www.romanity.org/cont.htm#hier) might also be of some benefit (though that'd require a lot of reading). I apologize for so many off-site links, I'm not trying to deflect discussion; maybe a seperate thread would help in discussing it though (and as I said, I'm a bit burnt out already this morning).

[Andrew Latz]

thanks justin, i'll be watching what you have to say

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear M A Jackson-Roberts

We make the sign of the cross differently because it's apostolic tradition. I know that many Orthodox hearts have suffered and still mourn over the changes they have witnessed. Many tears have been shed, some have seen them, some have poured them, some have tasted them. I have a beloved brother in Christ of Blessed memory who drank them.

Psalm 94:9
Does he who implanted the ear not hear? Does he who formed the eye not see?

Matthew 5:6
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

I pray that the Lord God will bestow upon you his choicest of blessings.

I leave you with love in Christ.
Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

[P]eople have been talking about the Fathers as being as inspired as the biblical authors (unless I'm mistaken (quite possible)). If so, when did this inspiration stop, or, if it didn't, in what form does it continue today?

Dear Andrew,

Herman has already given you an initial response to this question. A few additional thoughts:

(1) The simple answer to your question on termination: no, the inspiration of human persons to proclaim God's truth has not ceased.

(2) As to the 'form' in which it continues today, the Church proclaims that this is the same form which God's revelation has always taken (including in the era of those men whose works are collected in the canon of Scripture): the self-revelation of the Trinity to the hearts of individuals prepared to receive that revelation. These then proclaim that revelation (or 'vision', as is a somewhat more popular term in Orthodoxy) by whatever means the gifts of God have made efficient in their lives. This is often by writing (as in those who wrote the books in the canon, or the hundreds of other texts in the 'patristic witness', which is, as that title suggests, the common witness to the vision of God as recorded in the writings of the Fathers and Mothers of the Church); though it may also be through personal communication and interaction (e.g. the inspiration of the spiritual father, or the abbot); through example (e.g. the life of a saint, the activities of an individual which show forth the truth of God); or some other means. In the case of St Seraphim of Sarov, this revelation of God's character was shared through his personal transfiguration in the presence of another. In the case of one canonized fool-for-Christ, it was by slapping a Tsar on the face. God will get His point across however that needs to be done.

(3) As a minor point of clarification on what Herman wrote: the title 'equal to the Apostles' is not actually applied to all saints, but rather a specific title given to certain fathers (e.g. Constantine the Great) and mothers (e.g. Mary Magdalen) based on their taking up of the apostolic life (in this sense, apostolic as 'sent one' or 'missionary').

INXC,
Matthew

[John P. Nasou]

Dear "M.A."

As a youngster I was frequently bothered by the difference in the way = the Orthodox signing of the Cross was done as compared with the Latin = Catholic. As I child I was taught that we Orthodox performed the signing = with our thumb, index and middle fingers together to remind us of the = Holy Trinity, and the last two fingers in our palm to signify the two = natures of Jesus Christ. The Latin's manner of holding the fingers, the = second through the fourth together side by side and the thumb containing = the little finger in the palm has the same significance.

As to the progression of the hand from the forehead to the lower = chest, where again I was taught by our priests, signifies the = preeminence of God the Father; procession to the right shoulder is = because the Son "sits" on the right side of the Father; and "movement to = the left" signifies the Holy Spirit "Who is everywhere and Who fills all = creation." The logic of the Latins in going first to the left shoulder = is that "this is where the heart is and therefore Christ resides there. = The remainder is essentially the same as our signification. I can't = guarantee that either position is true since that of the Orthodox = reflects what I was taught by my priests, and the Latin's was what my = "Catholic" friends learned during their training in their parochial = schools.=20

It is also interesting that the Evangelical Lutherans perform their = cross in the same manner and at the same moments of the Liturgy as we = Orthodox do. Whereas the Anglican Episcopalians do as the Latins do, but = they are haphazard as to when it is to be done.

John Nasou

A periodic visitor

[Moses Anthony]

Dear All;
My priest (a history teacher at the local Cathollic school)in teaching an adult Bible class, when asked the question about the different methods of signing oneself in the Orthodox and R.C. disciplines shared this: The difference originated during the Crusades when the crusaders needed a way to differentiate themselves from the soldiers of the Eastern army.
In His grace, the unworthy servant

subdeacon Moses

[Fr Averky]

Dear All,

As Herman and Matthew have already pointed out, there are those who are strill inspired by the Holy Spirit. Such holy men as St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, St. Theophylact the Bulgarian, St. Tikhon of Zadonsk, St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, St. Ignatius Briachaninov, St. Theophan the Recluse, St. Innocent of Moscow, St. John of Kronstadt, New Martyr St. Hilarion Troitsky, Saint Nikolai Velimiroivic, St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, the righteous Archimandrite Justin Popovich, and more recently, Metropolitan Anthony Bloom, and among the living, Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlahos, all who have lived since the early nineteenth century right up until the almost the end of the twentieth century, show in their holy writings a single thread of theological truth, and spiritual knowledge. One can see in their works their intense love for God and for all of His creation. In fact. as is well know, St. Theophylact the Bulgarian wrote a wonderful explanation of the Holy Gospels, which has been used by monastics for centuries. St. Ignatius appeared to someone who knew him very well and said to him "All of my writings were Divinely inspired." MetropoIitan Hierotheos has a keen understanding of contemporary society's ills and problems-his book on Christian Psychology is an excellent volume. I highly recommend all of the Fathers I have mentioned above, and their writings would make excellent additions to any Orthodox Christian's library.

With love in Christ,
Fr. A.

[Charalambos Andrew Geo]

The inspiration of God touches people everywhere, Children when they recieve the gifts, us as we recieve them, Saint Irene the matyr depicted with Saint Nicholas and Raphael who where also inspired. So also according to Church tradition all saints and people who feel some humble connection with God,
if any wrongs are hear instruct me

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

Thanks to you, John Nasou; that was a most informative, interesting and useful post. But I am still hunting for the origin of the difference; the internet does not post any papal bulls or encyclicals before the time of Honorius III (1216 et seq.), and I suspect the divergence occurred well before that. But it may not have left any historical trail or footprint to indicate when and why.

the seeker

[Andrew Latz]

M.C. Steenberg,

thank you for your response. I wondered if you could clarify some things, a need due to my Protestant background and presuppositions rather than any deficiency in your answer.

Who are those whose hearts are considered "prepared to receive that revelation"? Who decides this?

I infer that all revelations of God are considered equally authoritatve because their authority is derived from their being God revealing Godself not on their means of delivery. Is this correct? If so, does that make the slap of a fool-for-Christ on a Tsar's face as valid a source for doctrine as the Bible or the Fathers?

Are some sources of revelation considered unique in some ways? If so, in what ways and why?

Many thanks for your help.

[Effie Ganatsios]

I also have a question.

I have seen Catholics cross themselves and then kiss their fingers. Does anyone know the reason they do this?

Effie

[Fr Averky]

Effie and All,

Italians and Spanish people do this most often. It is just an old tradition showing respect for the cross that has just been made, but most people would not be able to answer such questions, because it is all they have ever known, and they do it simply because it is a sigfn of their belief, and their love for God.

Most people born into a Church do as they have been taught-it is usually the converts who always want to know "why this why that"
We do know that the Fathers have said that the sign of the Cross is that which the demons fear most, for it "burns" them more than the fires of hell. for it is the instrument by which Satan and death were defeated.

I might be very wrong, but for some reason, I think that no matter in what manner it is made, its efficacy is the same. Better we should ask "Why are we so proud and sinful?' History and knowledge will not save us, but repenting for our sins will. No insult intended to anyone, but we can ask thousands of similar questions and and get even more thousands of answers, and in the end, lose our souls.

Fr. A.

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

Dear Euterpe (re post no. 88):

when I was a practising RC it was the norm to do this when holding (and presumably also reciting) a rosary but not otherwise; ie it was the crucifix that attracted the osculatory response. I understand the reason to have been akin to the Orthodox custom of kissing an icon. Catholics also kiss the foot of the statue of St Peter in the basilica of St Peter's at Rome - and in Westminster Cathedral, London - as a salute to the Rock upon which their church is reckoned to have been founded.

the seeker

[Effie Ganatsios]

Thank you Father Averky and MA Jackson-Roberts.

I like to know the "why" of things. I think that understanding why people do the things they do allows us to understand them better and to respect them as they should be respected.

Effie

[Fr Averky]

Dear Effie,

As I said in my post, no insult to anyone intended, I have just been reflecting on how we all love to gather information, but miss the simple things of the Gospel message along the way, and I am often very guilty of this

Fr. A..

[Effie Ganatsios]

I am guilty of this too, Father. Especially now with the Internet. I seem to be more interested in downloading lots and lots of information and then reading through it quickly when I have time, instead of being selective, downloading something I am really interested in, and then studying it carefully.

And, while doing the above, neglecting Bible study and prayer.

This greediness for more and more information is one of the reasons I take time off from the Internet every so often.

Effie