The Sign of the Cross and Anglicanism

[Naomi4Christ]

A mere dismissal is not an argument. I don't see the term "popish" anywhere in the Articles. If it occurs in the Homilies I would presume it would at least be combined with a theological argument.

The use the term, “Romish”.

 

[Paidiske]

I'd have to agree that "Popish" and "Romish" are probably more or less synonyms.

But even in the Articles, "Romish" itself isn't a reason not to do something; it's backed up with three arguments:

- a fond thing vainly invented
- grounded upon no warranty of Scripture
- rather repugnant to the Word of God.

So that's not a bad litmus test about whether or not to reject something, else (as King James observed at the Hampton Court conference) we shall end up going about barefoot because Catholics wear shoes.

 

[TomUK]

That's not a good reason for criticizing a practice. I don't find anything even in evangelical forms of Anglicanism that makes a devotion like the sign of the cross inappropriate, and there are certainly high church Protestants in our communion. You're not necessarily saying that, but I just want to point out that lots of things integral to our tradition get brushed aside in other traditions as "popish" as well. That's simply not a valid argument at all. It isn't even an argument.

I disagree. Making the sign of the cross for me as an important part of my worship, but I acknowledge that it's an innovation as far as Anglican worship is concerned. Of course there's always innovation in worship (and most of the time that should be encouraged), but for the vast majority of Anglican history, making the sign of the cross demonstrably was inappropriate.

 

[everbecoming2007]

I disagree. Making the sign of the cross for me as an important part of my worship, but I acknowledge that it's an innovation as far as Anglican worship is concerned. Of course there's always innovation in worship (and most of the time that should be encouraged), but for the vast majority of Anglican history, making the sign of the cross demonstrably was inappropriate.

How was it demonstrable? What is your argument?

 

[seeking.IAM]

Calling the sign of the cross an "innovation" may be misunderstood since it's been around since the earliest days of Christendom. There's nothing so innovative about it when one looks at it that way.

 

[TomUK]

Calling the sign of the cross an "innovation" may be misunderstood since it's been around since the earliest days of Christendom. There's nothing so innovative about it when one looks at it that way.

Of course the sign of the cross isn't new, but it is as a feature of Anglican worship (probably with the exception of the priest making it during the baptism service.)

 

[gordonhooker]

Not in the parish I was formed in and the parish I am with now.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Not in the parish I was formed in and the parish I am with now.

It is soooo not representative of the Church of England.

I would only expect this practice to be found in Anglo-Catholic fellowships, which are not that many. In my Deanery, we have one AC parish out of about ten. In one of my roles, I visit many churches, and I have not seen a lot of this at all.

It’s not something we teach our children to do.

Saying all this, we have a two members of our church family who make the sign of the cross at the final blessing, presumably because they were catechised in a different tradition.

 

[Paidiske]

Not in the parish I was formed in and the parish I am with now.

Yeah, but, to be fair, gordon, you're not so old as to predate its reintroduction. I find many Anglo-Catholics forget how very recent (relatively speaking) many of the things they consider "normal" Anglican practice really are, after centuries of heavy Puritan influence and the like.

 

[gordonhooker]

Not sure what you mean by being fair I am commenting on my personal experience in the parishes that I have been part of. I cannot comment on other peoples experiences are in their individual parishes.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes, but my point is that your own experience doesn't go that far back in time. (That's not a criticism, mine is even less so!) But if we look at documents describing how worship was conducted, say 150 years ago, many things now taken for granted in Anglo-Catholic parishes are either missing or highly contested.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Not sure what you mean by being fair I am commenting on my personal experience in the parishes that I have been part of. I cannot comment on other peoples experiences are in their individual parishes.

What an amazing point.

 

[gordonhooker]

Yes, but my point is that your own experience doesn't go that far back in time. (That's not a criticism, mine is even less so!) But if we look at documents describing how worship was conducted, say 150 years ago, many things now taken for granted in Anglo-Catholic parishes are either missing or highly contested.

150 years ago, then can’t the same apply to the period before the Puritans decided to rid the church of what had been the practice prior to 16th and 17th century? Then we have the Oxford movement which brought some of those traditional practices back. Being an Anglican is far broader than just the Protestant evangelical brothers and sisters. So it really comes back to not generalising on questions like this one doesn’t it? Some do this while others do that...

 

[Paidiske]

But that doesn't change the point that for quite some centuries, you'd have been hard pressed to find any Anglicans making the sign of the cross.

 

[Shane R]

The customary for lay folk here is to cross at four times in the service: the Absolution, the end of the Nicene Creed, when receiving the body and blood, and at the closing benediction. There is also a holy water font just inside the door for those who wish to use it and cross as they enter the building.

The actual make-up of the parish is not typical. Probably only 1/4 of our members were raised in an Anglican or Episcopalian church. Many are former Roman Catholics who moved out of that communion for one reason or another. Another large group are former Methodists who felt left behind or displaced in the local Methodist churches as they all moved away from a liturgical format to something more contemporary. Methodists in this area are very low church. Our most high church folk tend to be the cradle Episcopalians followed by the former Romans, and I can't think of anyone from the Methodist background that is given to crossing.

 

[gordonhooker]

But that doesn't change the point that for quite some centuries, you'd have been hard pressed to find any Anglicans making the sign of the cross.

Point taken - I will concede that between the 16th and the first half of the 19th century Christians in the "Church in England/Church of England" would not normally use the 'Sign of the Cross' in public worship.

 

[seeking.IAM]

... and I can't think of anyone from the Methodist background that is given to crossing.

Me! Me! Me!