Should we cross ourselves in prayer?

[Confessor]

You're a rationalist, so you know that your own argument here is wrong. It doesn't really matter what normally happens; experience does not yield knowledge. How about a reductio ad absurdum? Going to church every Sunday is also ritualistic. Celebrating the eucharist is ritualistic. Your very argument is, in fact, why most American Christians have rejected traditional Christianity. It would seem, then, that something more than the charge of "ritualistic" is necessary. Furthermore, your borderline gnosticism is a bit disconcerting. People should just train themselves to think of whatever the ritual is supposed to signify? That may be the Anabaptist and Marcionite position, but orthodox Christians do not reject matter and the influence it has on the soul.

On the contrary, I don't think it would be correct to set church attendance and the sign of the cross as equivalent. The former involves all the actual spiritual activity (that is indeed the entire benefit of going to church) which involves mentally apprehending the sermon, engaging in spiritual fellowship, etc. The latter, on the other hand, is merely a means to "officially" make a prayer complete, or to bring good luck. I'm not denouncing the "material" aspect of prayer; I'm rejecting the part of it which is supposedly good in itself, the part which purportedly brings about good ex opere operato, a good luck charm or a means of "officially" completing some religious act. In other words,, it's a superfluous and ill-intentioned rather than necessary or well-intentioned act.

If you wanted to do a reductio ad absurdum, I think a daily Bible reading would have been a better example (since it's individual rather than corporate), but that still does not work, for the reading of the Bible is logically required to engage in the spiritual activity.

First, Roman Catholic theology does not teach that the sacraments act without regard to the disposition of the recipient. This is a false notion, and if you want to be a philosopher you need to learn how to represent your opponents accurately.

This is the meaning of the Church's affirmation49 that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: "by the very fact of the action's being performed"), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that "the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God." From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

Of course there are some sacraments wherein Romanists say that they also depend on the disposition of the one receiving them (especially penance). But I wasn't saying that all of them are ex opere operato, and I apologize if that is how I came across. As one extremely obvious example of a Romanist ritual where grace acts ex opere operato, take infant baptism. They believe that the priest's baptizing of the baby actually removes the baby's stain of sin, and of course this is irrespective of the baby's disposition, because he's a baby. Part of Romanist doctrine is that even a heathen may baptize a baby if the infant looks as if he will not survive much past birth. There are certain stipulations on how the heathen may do so, etc., but nonetheless, it is clear that the act is superstitious.

Second, inasmuch as you are wrong about the meaning of ex opere operato, you are wrong to equate superstition with ritual. For you, ritual means anything you don't do with repetition, but that others may.

And that is not how I defined ritual, though I do realize that I defined it incorrectly earlier. I'm not sure exactly how to define it (e.g. if it be proper to distinguish between superstitious and non-superstitious ritual; between rituals and sacraments, etc.), but for now I wouldn't say it's a very useful criterion in itself, as "superstitious" can be the only label we have to use. In other words, the only question we need to ask is, Is making the sign of the cross superstitious?

Again, I believe you are simply speaking in ignorance, perhaps because you do not like Catholics and Orthodox because of other opinions they hold, and are ready to accept any accusation against them, no matter how ill-informed or prejudice, without the proper scrutiny. You aren't allowed to simply make up whatever meaning you want and then attribute it to other people.

Aside from individuals crossing themselves, priests make the sign of the cross over their congregations, over the recipients of baptism, over those being confirmed, over the elements of the eucharist, etc. It is patently obvious that God is not the object of the sign.

Hey now, don't take my statements pertaining to one aspect of the argument and apply them to another. I was distinguishing between crosses made during prayer and memorizing Bible verses. I was only speaking of how the cross may be used during one instance, viz. individual prayer.

In each of those cases you cited, they are doing them to try to "make official" something. They're trying to "officially" change the essence of the bread and wine. They're trying to "officially" bless their congregation. They're trying to "officially" declare an infant baptized. When this is combined with how often we almost always see it -- e.g. when people are in precarious situations or athletes before a sports game -- it seems obvious to me that it is only designed as some sort of good luck charm or to work ex opere operato. (This is abundantly evident when you see more traditional Romanists may get upset if others forget to make the sign of the cross.) And that, combined with the fact that it's used in worship services (which you stated above) or in prayer directly to God, makes it forbidden on the basis of the regulative principle.

-----Added 3/6/2009 at 02:25:49 EST-----

By the way, when I speak of ignorance, I mean it in the plainest sense of the word, i.e. simply not knowing. I do not mean it to be derogatory.

I know that's what you meant; you're a nice guy.

 

[Matthias]

Jeffrey,

Again, you and the other detractors are simply asserting that God does not receive any glory from this. That you cannot fathom it at this moment does not make it so.

And by "object" I'm speaking in grammatical terms. The person making the sign of the cross is not "signing" God, but God doesn't only receive glory from shouts of praise directly to him. I'm sure everyone here knows this, which is why I suspect that the general disagreeableness is due more to a "hands over the ears" posture than anything else.

Ok great, you have responded to an opinion of mine with an opinion of yours. Exactly what you rebuked Confessor for. This is my point. I have not even stated my view of "crossing". How do you know im not on your side? I asked one question, and was looking for a BIBLICAL response.

From what i see, you dont like opinions...unless they are your own.

 

[a mere housewife]

As to the issue of worship, the sign of the cross is not directed towards others; it is directed towards oneself. Therefore it does not fall under the jurisdiction of "what God has commanded us to offer Him in worship." It's like memorizing and reciting a scripture verse, only physical instead of mental. Would anyone say that it's "ritualistic" or "superstitious" to quote a favorite bible verse when faced with a moment of temptation?

David, I think the difference that at least I have to keep in mind thinking about this is that Scripture is an ordained means of God's grace and crossing oneself is not. I would compare crossing oneself to a mnemonic device, not to prayer or the Word? Probably you didn't mean to imply otherwise but it seems best to be as clear as possible for the benefit of those who do attach some kind of grace to a symbol which God has nowhere said that He uses to communicate grace.

In the same way, I think it can bring glory to God as you would speak of a mnemonic device bringing glory: not as something directly edifying to us or others, in that it is not something which God has commanded, through which God reveals Himself, communicates grace, or has joined to the ministry of the Spirit: but as a personal help to something else like focus in worship, which do glorify Him?

I think it's important to keep these distinctions in mind because I know my own tendency is to want to cross myself because I think that somehow it will minister grace to me that is not found in and can be had in addition to the ordained means. I think that is where the practice would become 'superstitious'.

I don't mean to be argumentative: simply to clarify this point as it's been a helpful discussion for me.

I don't see you around much: I hope you and Emily are well?