Conformity in style

[Alan Asquith]

I notice the EO church has many rules about the precise way of doing things, for example, when placing the cross on yourself there is a rule about the arrangement of your fingers and another rule about touching your right shoulder before your left. I understand you follow these rules because these are the ways it has always been done and you want to imitate your spiritual predecessors.

I am not criticizing this phenomenon - I would just like to understand it better. As a westerner it surprises me. I wonder whether it makes any objective difference which shoulder you touch first when crossing yourself. I wonder whether God the Father minds which way you do it. I wonder whether the apostles ever stipulated one way or the other, since the New Testament epistles do not legislate about such minutiae but instead focus on doctrine and ethical behavior. In the New Testament there seems to be plenty of leeway about peripheral questions. For example in Romans chapter 14 Paul isn't concerned that some Christians eat meat while others abstain, or that some Christians regard particular days as special while others regard all alike. But Paul is concerned that no Christian looks down on his brother or condemns his brother who thinks differently about these peripheral matters. And in Colossians chapter 2 Paul warns against becoming captive to human traditions (he is not warning against following human traditions but about becoming captive to them).

I can understand the EO church wants to be very careful to preserve its doctrine and ethical standards, but why do you extend this inflexibility into the ways you express your devotion? Thank you.

 

[LaSorcia]

for example, when placing the cross on oneself there is a rule about the arrangement of your fingers and another rule about touching your right shoulder before your left.

These aren't rules anymore than shaking hands with someone you meet or setting the table with the fork on the left and the knife on the right are rules. They are customs.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I notice the EO church has many rules about the precise way of doing things, for example, when placing the cross on yourself there is a rule about the arrangement of your fingers and another rule about touching your right shoulder before your left. I understand you follow these rules because these are the ways it has always been done and you want to imitate your spiritual predecessors.

I am not criticizing this phenomenon - I would just like to understand it better. As a westerner it surprises me. I wonder whether it makes any objective difference which shoulder you touch first when crossing yourself. I wonder whether God the Father minds which way you do it. I wonder whether the apostles ever stipulated one way or the other, since the New Testament epistles do not legislate about such minutiae but instead focus on doctrine and ethical behavior. In the New Testament there seems to be plenty of leeway about peripheral questions. For example in Romans chapter 14 Paul isn't concerned that some Christians eat meat while others abstain, or that some Christians regard particular days as special while others regard all alike. But Paul is concerned that no Christian looks down on his brother or condemns his brother who thinks differently about these peripheral matters. And in Colossians chapter 2 Paul warns against becoming captive to human traditions (he is not warning against following human traditions but about becoming captive to them).

I can understand the EO church wants to be very careful to preserve its doctrine and ethical standards, but why do you extend this inflexibility into the ways you express your devotion? Thank you.

we're not inflexible with this in the same way we are with the oros of the 4th Council. these things are simply encouraged because they are proper. I have yet to meet someone who was kicked out of the Church because he crossed himself like a Roman Catholic.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would also say that it's worth knowing the deep symbolism within so many of the things such as you describe. The position of the fingers, for example, includes three fingers touching (the Holy Trinity), two fingers alongside (the hypostatic union of Christ's natures as God and Man) pressed into the hand (descending to earth). If we are conscious, we can be reminded of - or at least we honor these truths - every time we cross ourselves. And that's just a tiny bit of it.

But it's not a "rule". A person who was unable could do it any way they need to. Even a slight waving of the hand.

 

[~Anastasia~]

And ... there's actually a fair amount of variation in just how, when, how many times, how fast, etc we cross ourselves, bow, etc within our own parish. During prayers I often make a tiny cross over my chest instead of the whole thing just so as not to be distracting because I'm on the chant stand and I like to cross for many of the acknowledgements in the closing prayers. But since it's more than most do, I don't make a deal of it.

 

[Alan Asquith]

Thank you everyone for your replies. Very interesting.

Perhaps you would allow me to probe a bit deeper now please. What would be the reaction to someone who believed in all the Orthodox theological doctrine, and conformed to all Christian morals, and practised all the customs of your church apart from crossing himself. Suppose he didn't object to anyone else doing it but he just didn't feel it had any value for him personally and he didn't think it would be right to adopt a custom that for him would be empty ritual. Suppose he wasn't being arrogant towards the church in thinking he knew better, and he didn't want to offend any of his fellow worshippers. But he believed that whether or not you cross yourself was a very personal matter between you and God, and he classified it as one of those disputable matters about which Paul wrote that everyone should be convinced in his own mind, for "the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking [or crossing oneself] but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 14:17). Would such a person be regarded as heretical, arrogant, offensive, or rude? Would he be stigmatized? Would he be regarded as a 2nd-class Christian? Would people look at him as an immature Christian who will one day hopefully grow up and start to cross himself?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think probably no one would notice. Some people in our parish won't at any given time when most do. I never bothered to watch and see if they consistently didn't ever do it. Maybe some don't ever. I think that's the attitude most would take.

If they did express in conversation that they had a different opinion and held that opinion over the Church it might be regarded as a red flag. But unless they were asking other's thoughts on their opinion or asked the priest, I can't see it being discussed.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I don't think anyone would care too much. but there is power in making the sign of the Cross, and usually once folks see that, they do it on their own.

 

[Alan Asquith]

these things are simply encouraged because they are proper.

Interesting choice of word there. Can you elaborate a bit more please? Is there some objective criterion that makes it 'proper' or is it merely that it seems proper to your accustomed way of thinking?

there is power in making the sign of the Cross

Would you explain this please? What happens objectively when you make the sign of the cross? Does it work irrespective of what you're thinking about at the time?

A few days ago I watched part of a liturgy in a Russian cathedral. At one stage the patriarch crossed himself about 100 times in 10 minutes. I doubt he was able to fully think about the symbolism of what he was doing in all 100 instances and I suspect it was mainly an automatic ritual. Would it have been more effective or less effective if he had done it only once or twice while concentrating fully on its symbolism?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Interesting choice of word there. Can you elaborate a bit more please? Is there some objective criterion that makes it 'proper' or is it merely that it seems proper to your accustomed way of thinking?


Would you explain this please? What happens objectively when you make the sign of the cross? Does it work irrespective of what you're thinking about at the time?

A few days ago I watched part of a liturgy in a Russian cathedral. At one stage the patriarch crossed himself about 100 times in 10 minutes. I doubt he was able to fully think about the symbolism of what he was doing in all 100 instances and I suspect it was mainly an automatic ritual. Would it have been more effective or less effective if he had done it only once or twice while concentrating fully on its symbolism?

they are proper because that is what the Church has prescribed for that time.

as far as power, demons hate the sign of the Cross because it reminds them of their defeat.

as for the Patriarch, you'd have to ask him.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

Interesting choice of word there. Can you elaborate a bit more please? Is there some objective criterion that makes it 'proper' or is it merely that it seems proper to your accustomed way of thinking?


Would you explain this please? What happens objectively when you make the sign of the cross? Does it work irrespective of what you're thinking about at the time?

A few days ago I watched part of a liturgy in a Russian cathedral. At one stage the patriarch crossed himself about 100 times in 10 minutes. I doubt he was able to fully think about the symbolism of what he was doing in all 100 instances and I suspect it was mainly an automatic ritual. Would it have been more effective or less effective if he had done it only once or twice while concentrating fully on its symbolism?

Hi, Alan.

As just a layperson and convert who grew up as a Southern Baptist, I can say that in my experience, whenever we make the sign of the Cross we are usually praying also. But even if there's not a conscious prayer, our body and mind work together, so that when our body is making the sign of the cross, there is prayer going on, too. And so even in "automatic ritual" that you mention, it's not an empty gesture. There is power in the sign of the Cross - it's not magical, but it is powerful.

Mary