The sign of the cross throughout history

The Christian sign of the cross as done by the faithful and clergy, did not come from “nowhere”. Likewise, as most of our ritual practices do, it holds deep symbolism and even expression of dogma itself. I will very briefly here outline the history and development of the sign of the cross throughout Church history, starting in the 2nd century.

The first known mention about the sign of the cross can be found already in the 2^nd c. in the writings of Tertullian who wrote: “we mark our foreheads with the sign of the cross”[1]. We not only have information from Tertullian that the sign of the cross was used, but also how it was used: “We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross”[2] which suggest to us that the sign of the cross was done on the forehead. Most point to the fact that the sign of the cross was done on the forehead with one finger, to symbolise the oneness of God as Jews and many pagans accused the early Christians of being polytheistic.

Likewise, in the same way the sign of the cross (in blessing form) was made on items, this can be read in the life of St. Barbara: “[Barbara] said, In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and she miraculously drew the sign of the cross in the marble wall of the bathhouse with her finger (singular, one finger)”[3]. St. Epiphanius also confirms that the sign of the cross was early on in the history of the Church made with one finger[4]. The one finger sign of the cross can be seen up until the fourth century when we start to notice in writings that more than one finger was used for the sign of the cross. Instead the use of two fingers started to appear, most likely as a response and guard against Monophysitism – two fingers now symbolised the two natures of Christ. St. Cyril of Jerusalem remarks in his Catechesis (13:36) that the sign of the cross was to be made with “fingers”, plural. Theodoret of Cyrus, who was involved in rebuking and debating the Monophysics in the 5^th century, wrote: “Thus does one bless with the hand and cross oneself: Holding three fingers together evenly the thumb and the last two fingers-confesses a mystery in the image of the Trinity (…) Joining two fingers together-the index and the middle finger-and extending them, with the middle finger slightly bent, represents the two natures of Christ: His Divinity and His Humanity”. This practice of the sign of the cross prevailed for many centuries.

In the 8^th century, St. Peter Damascene wrote in what today is found in the Philokalia the following: “The Holy Fathers have handed down to us the meaning of this holy sign, in order to refute heretics and unbelievers. The two fingers and the one hand then, represent then the crucified Lord Jesus Christ, who we profess as having two natures in one person”[5]. It is however important to note that Sts. Cyril and Damascene as well as Theodoret were all a part of the local Church of Antioch. This local church was very active in the fight against Monophystitism and this view on the sign of the cross was defended there stoutly as a direct result of the Monophysite heresy. This fact makes it more likely that this sign of the cross, with two fingers, was not a universal practice of the Church as such, or at least this possibility needs to be accepted. As this tradition was prevalent in the Orthodox east (Cappadocia and Asia Minor) it is no surprise that the Russians later received it in the 10^th century.

In the 9^th century however, we can find traces of the three finger sign of the cross (as practiced today by most Orthodox Christians) which of course puts an emphasis on the Holy Trinity. This sign of the cross can be found in the writings of Pope Leo IV of Rome (+855), he wrote: “Sign the chalice and the host, with a right cross and not with circles or with a varying of the fingers, but with two fingers stretched out and the thumb hidden within them, by which the Trinity is symbolised. Take heed to make this sign rightly, for otherwise you can bless nothing”[6]. In the beginning of the 11^th c., the Abbot of Eynsham, Aelfric, wrote “With three fingers one must bless himself for the Holy Trinity”[7]. Both these statements are made during a time when the Roman Catholic church was orthodox in their faith. The praise and support for the three-finger sign of the cross continued in the west after the schism with Pope Innocent III (+1216) writing: “The sign of the cross is made with three fingers, because the signing is done together with the invocation of the Trinity”.

The origin of the three fingers sign of the cross can be traced back to the west at least all the way back until 855 when the above mentioned Orthodox Pope Leo IV passed away, which makes it historically certain that this originated before the schism in 1054. This most likely lead to Orthodox people geographically close to Rome to use this three-finger sign of the cross. The Greeks, Serbs, Albanians, Bulgarians and Georgians as well as the Monophysite Copts, Armenians and Syrians all used the three-finger sign of the cross at the time of or closely after the great schism[8]. It is however important to note that the Monophysites crossed themselves from left to right – contrary to Orthodox practice. Today Nestorians in India and Persia also cross themselves with three fingers. In other words, this practice seems to have been the official practice in Orthodox west before the great schism, likewise for the Greeks and their closest Orthodox brothers surrounding them as well as the various above mentioned Monophysite and Nestorian groups. Most likely because of the bigger distance, it did not reach the Russians at the time when it spread from the European mainland. It also important to note that the three-finger sign of the cross has been lost in the west and is today mostly associated with the Orthodox Church – it was “officially” abolished by a papal statement in 1569 in favour of the five-finger sign of the cross symbolising Jesus’ five wounds. The Russians kept the practice given to them in the 10-11^th century up until the reforms of the 17^th century, which was the two-finger sign of the cross as taught by the likes of Theodoret of Cyrys and St. Peter of Damascus. This is clear as the writing of these two were included in the Russian Typicon of the time.

As we see, the symbolism of the sign of the cross has evolved and been different depending on the local historical contexts. What is however clear, is that the sign of the cross as a concept has always, since the earliest times, been important to Christians and it has contained symbolism as-well as direct expression of dogma. This never was or is simply an empty part of the ritual.

[1] De Corona Militis, chapter 3.

[2] De Corona Militis, chapter 3.

[3] http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/st_barbara.htm

[4] Panarion (Adv. Haer.) ch. 12 –

[5] Philokalia p. 642

[6] Liturgy. Rom. Pont.”, III, 37

[7] Thorpe, “The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church” I, 462.

[8] https://orthodoxwiki.org/Sign_of_the_Cross#History

Radical love

In todays world, so caught up in the Corona virus and the tragic mess of the US socio-political issues, we as Christians should be beacons of light and love. Sadly, often, it is we who are negative or even hateful.

It is important we define the word “love”. Today, in some circles, this word is used to promote ideologies that from a Christian Orthodox perspective are a lie. From that perspective, love is intimately tied to truth, we cannot separate the two. God is Love and Truth, as the scripture teaches us, indicating to us the two are in fact, one.

St. Maria of Paris (Skobtsova), who was killed by the Nazis in a concentration camp in 1945, is a living testimony of this love. By some in the Church, she is viewed upon with suspicion. Why? Because in certain ways, she rebelled against many established “norms”. She questioned a piety that while good and God-pleasing, ignored the suffering of other humans. For St. Maria, the love of God must be accompanied by a love of human, who is created in the image of God. She said, “Piety, piety, but where is the love that moves mountains“. Strong words and still so relevant for us today.

In my late teens, when I turned back to the Christian faith, I rejected a love and passion for politics. I had wanted to study these subjects and have a career in these fields. One day, after reading a lot, I just could not take it any more. I had decided to turn away from this, from politics. I had only two words in my mind, “radical love”, as opposed to the hate and lies I had read. Having been brought up in a Christian home where the faith was barely practiced, the only place I suspected I could find this radical love, was in Christ, who because of love, suffered and died on a cross – that seemed as radical as anything for me at that time!

Mother Maria, as she was affectionally called, was an imitator of the radical love of Christ. Living in a crisis most of us cannot even start to imagine, the Second World War, she was able to be a shining beacon. Caring for all, regardless of their faith or world views. In some ways, she was a rebel and she did question some long established norms, especially those about monastic life. However, I believe that God through His Church, sends us holy people that we need at a time.

Mother Maria provides to us, even today, a challenge. A challenge to find a balance in our spiritual life. To not forget that love for human is in-itself a love for God. It is not something contrary, but one and the same. In our times of deep moral crisis, she is a beacon shining bright. A beacon we as Christians all should strive to be. Firmly grounded in the Truth, who is God Himself, yet with wide open arms to embrace and love every needing person everywhere.

Let us not be afraid, because as Mother Maria teaches us,

Christ, who approached prostitutes, tax collectors and sinners, can hardly be the teacher of those who are afraid to soil their pristine garments, who are completely devoted to the letter, who live only by the rules, and who govern their whole life according to rules.

Rules are important, so are practices, but without radical love, they mean little.

The paradox of the Nativity

As most Orthodox Christians celebrate the Great Feast of the Nativity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ – Christmas – these days, it is only fitting to reflect on this salvific moment in history. What better way to do that than with the help of the great poet-theologian, St. Ephrem the Syrian.

Old Russian Icon of the Nativity of Christ

St. Ephrem in his writings loves paradoxes. He often rejects the classical philosophical approach of many of the Church fathers, instead focusing on the symbolic one, which often provide a series of paradoxial opposites. Writing about the incarnation and the Nativity of Christ, this is clear. Brock gives examples used by St. Ephrem to comment on the incarnation: “the Rich One who became poor”, “the Great who became small” and “the Hidden One who revealed himself”^[1].

These paradoxes on the incarnation present to us the picture of God, who in His love for us, humbles Himself. In order so that we can be saved, he Himself becomes a small and vulnerable child. St. Ephrem writes in his poem/hymn on the Nativity,

“The Mighty One entered, and put on insecurity from her womb (…) He who gives drink to all entered – and experienced thirst”^[2].

It is a wonderful and poetic statement, which also presents to us the paradox of the incarnation which is theologically sound. In the same hymn, St. Ephrem writes,

“He who is the Word entered – and became silent within her; thunder entered her – and made no sound”^[3].

Again, we see a wonderful poetic interpretation of the paradoxes of the incarnation.

Highest, became lowest. Word, became silent. Thunder, made no sound.

St. Ephrem is very clear in his theological understanding that the depths of the faith cannot be simply understood intellectually, but rather, one needs faith. One needs to look with the eye of the soul. Our rational intellect very often has trouble understanding the paradoxes of our Holy Faith, and especially the incarnation. When discussing this with Muslims for instance, one will see that they most often cannot allow themselves (intellectually) to accept a notion that the Master freely became a Servant, that the Strongest freely became the Weakest – they claim it is illogical.

St. Ephrem would most likely agree with such a statement, that it is indeed illogical. He would see a logical approach, which tries to define the faith too much, as us setting up boundaries on the Boundless God.

The Church often describes the Virgin Mary as being “more spacious than the heavens”. Why? Because in her womb, she carried the Creator of the heavens and earth, the One that cannot be contained, Whose birth we today glorify.

Today the Virgin gives birth to the Transcendent One, O Lord, glory to Thee!

^[1] Brock, Sebastian. The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World of Saint Ephrem”, p. 25

^[2] St. Ephrem the Syrian, Nativity 11:6-8.

^[3] Ibid.

Creation as a way to the knowledge of God

There is a tendency among many Christians to place man as not only the loving king of creation, but as a bloody tyrant. On the other hand, many people, make nature itself into an idol, that is wrong. But is it not equally wrong for us to consider ourself the masters of nature? To destroy and dominate nature as we please, for our own pleasure? Is nature simply a tool? I thought I would here very briefly look what some Church Fathers have to say about this.

St. Gregory of Nyssa in his work “On the making of man” speaks about man’s place in creation and its purpose:

“He [God] thus manifests man in the world, to be the beholder of some of the wonders therein, and the lord of others; that by his enjoyment he might have knowledge of the Giver, and by the beauty and majesty of the things he saw might trace out that power of the Maker which is beyond speech and language.” (On the making of man, II)

St. Gregory of Nyssa, and many Fathers, call man a “king” of creation. However, they also make it clear that man, as the king, has no right to use creation as he likes. Instead, there is a way laid down by the Creator, by God. St. Gregory the Theologian writes about God’s “wills”, which are His intentions manifested or expressed in created things, in nature. Theokritoff understands St. Gregory’s (the Theologian) view like this: “Man’s ‘oversight’ of creation is not just practical management or ‘stewardship’; it is inextricably bound up with being aware of the mystery of creation, discerning God’s wisdom in the depths of created things.”(Theokritoff, Elizabeth. Living in God’s Creation: Orthodox Perspectives on Ecology p. 53). Again, we see the theme of man having knowledge of God, His will and His wisdom through the creation.

Creation is given us, or rather under us one might say, for our salvation. The ultimate way for us to use it, is to through it draw closer and closer to God. God created us “being from both natures” as St. Gregory the Theologian calls it. This means that while we are, just like animals, part of the animal kingdom and the created physical world, we are also divine, created in the image of God. It is this nature that should guide us in our relationship to creation. It is created for us, for our benefit and survival. Yet, we are not to enslave it for selfish and hedonistic reasons. When the human however uses the creation in a bad way, then he is not “simply disobeying a commandment: he is ceasing to be a real human being. What we are talking about here is creation in the image and likeness of God as the defining characteristic of man.”(Theokritoff, p. 54).

*God breathing life into Adam and creating the animals. Mosaic from the Palatine Chapel, Palermo, Sicily, 12th century.*
(https://orthodoxartsjournal.org/the-making-of-a-new-icon-christ-breaking-the-bonds-of-animal-suffering/)

The great Syrian poet-theologian St. Ephrem, my personal favourite, writes:

“At our resurrection, both earth and heaven will God renew, liberating all creatures, granting them paschal joy, along with us. Upon our mother Earth, along with us, did he lay disgrace when he placed on her, with the sinner, the curse; so, together with the just, he will bless her too; this nursing mother, along with her children, shall he who is Good renew.” (Hymn IX.1, Sebastian Brock, trans., Hymns on Paradise, p. 136.)

This nursing mother is more than just dead and simple matter to be used and exploited. It is a direct path to God and to salvation itself. Let us use her for our survival, just as was intended, but let us also respect her and care for her, because she manifests to us the glory of God.

Orthodoxy + Nationalism

One of the main complaints towards the Orthodox Church is that its local churches are often very nationalistic. This can be manifested in various ways, but lets agree that most such manifestations are wrong, some would argue outright heretical. The 1872 Council of Constantinople made it clear in its first Decree:

“We censure, condemn, and declare contrary to the teachings of the Gospel and the sacred canons of the holy Fathers the doctrine of phyletism, or the difference of races and national diversity in the bosom of the Church of Christ.“

Orthodox priests in Romania dressed in liturgical vestments made to represent the Romanian flag

Phyletism is the name given to the ecclesiological heresy that claims that local Orthodox churches can or should be based or established on ethnical, racial or cultural basis. It would seem the 1872 council made it clear and there should not be any more issues of this nature – sadly, the reality is different. For any serious inquirer into Orthodoxy, especially in the diaspora, this issue is blatant. To a larger or lesser degree, most local Orthodox churches, or rather their representatives (bishops, priests and faithful), are guilty of this tragedy. We are guilty.

It must be pointed out that we here do not criticise any local traditions or languages – these are all part of the universal beauty of the Church, as St. Paul famously teaches us “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28), and this oneness should be expressed in different local ways (as it always was), all united by the one faith in Christ.

Instead of us using this post to criticise countless examples of this heresy in the modern day, I thought we could instead try to briefly examine reasons for this. Not justifications, as there are non, but rather why has it become like this?

If we look upon traditionally Orthodox states like Serbia, Greece, Russia, Ukraine and Romania, we see a pattern. At some point in its history the last 500 years, the once formally Christian state became enslaved under Ottoman Muslim and/or Communist yoke. This ment persecution of not only the Church, but any culture that was in some ways tied to Christianity and to the Church. And let us be honest, most culture and history of these states was always, for good and bad, tied to Christianity. Because of this persecution, the lines between traditional national folk culture and Christianity became blurred. Why? Because the persecuted Christians fought to preserve both at once. Therefore, in many ways, the lines that separated Christianity and local nationalistic culture, disappeared. The Church became the defender of the faith and of old national culture. The Church became a vessel for national culture. We can observe a similar situation among Polish Catholics or Ukrainian Greek Catholic Uniates, whose church structures both became bearers of their national identity and culture in time of persecution.

Now, this is not always automatically wrong as a lot of old nationalistic culture was closely tied to Christianity – however here, it often became one and the same.

Orthodox bishop in vestments made to look like the Serbian flag.

This was quickly adopted by the simple and theologically uneducated people and up until today this is the case. The local Serbian (or any other for that matter) parish in the diaspora is in the eyes of many of its faithful the bearer of language, national history and culture – and after that of the Orthodox faith.

I once heard a story about an Irishman who found Orthodoxy and travelled to Serbia where he visited holy places and eventually got baptised. On the train back from the Balkans he met a Serb. They started speaking and the Irishman told him that he had been in Serbia and was baptised, thus he said, “I became Orthodox”. The Serbian man looked at him and said, “No, you became a Serb”. This story is of course a bit comical, however it also reveals the tragic reality of things.

In the diaspora, the Orthodox people often associate their parish with a bearer of their culture from the old country. This is in itself not always wrong. However, when the mission of bishops and priests in the diaspora becomes to first and foremost preserve a language or a nationalistic mindset, rather than spreading the faith and being open to everyone, that’s when we are dealing with the above mentioned heresy of phyletism.

A potential convert to Orthodoxy should not be required to also accept and adopt all nationalistic views of some of the people in his local church. One should be able to be himself in as much as he is in Christ. We are not saved by a veneration of a long gone monarchy, a fallen empire or a land taken away from us by the enemy – rather we are saved by our faith in Christ who through His Church makes us all one, all members of His Body. An appreciation of our pious history can be a means and help in our spiritual life, never a goal in itself.

Let us love our countries, be patriots and follow what Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine Onuphry teaches us, namely that nationalism breeds division, while true patriotism is manifested in love of God and others, especially those who are different than us!

India

Fields outside Nagpur, Maharashtra region.

I was blessed to be able to visit India a few weeks ago. I visited the South, Kerala region, and Nagpur in the centre of India. I gave there lectures at two theological seminaries. But that is not what I will write about.

Instead, I want to share an experience.

India, as most know, is a rather poor country. Whatever the reason, is not the focus of this text.

Growing up in “the west”, I have been spoiled to have most things I have ever wanted, even if I don’t actually need most of these things.

The poverty in India is in some cases extreme, unimaginable really. While visiting the slums in Nagpur, it was hard to keep tears away and the feeling of hopelessness invaded my heart – I felt ashamed and empty. However, what I experienced there, changed me.

The people I met, poor people, some almost naked with no earthly possessions, gave me a gift. A gift more valuable than any earthly item, more valuable than any amount of gold and more precious than any diamond.

They gave me love and kindness. One word, one smile, directed at me, a complete stranger. The gift of kindness and love, given by those that by our standards have nothing. Yet, now I know and I am sure – they are richer than I ever will be. God is Love, and even if these simple people don’t “know it”, they live it and they share it, from their hearts.

We, in the developed Western world have all but forgotten this most precious thing we can, we must, share with others.

God forgive us.

Holy Russia? Third Rome?

This summer I was fortunate enough, thanks to God, to again visit Russia. Those that have dealt with me in any way, know I love the country very much; especially the more rural parts of it!

In various situations today, especially online, the terms “Holy
Russia” and/or “Third Rome” have been thrown around a lot. They are usually trying to refer to modern day Russia, and not historical Holy Rus’. It is claimed Russia is Holy.

Having visited Russia a few times and being in everyday contact with friends living in Russia, I thought I could share my opinion and observations.

Modern Russia is a complicated place. It’s recent history (communism) clashes with it’s a bit older history (Tsarist Russia) and in the middle of all that you find the Orthodox faith and also a fair bit of westernization of the society, especially in the big cities, most notably Moscow and St. Petersburg.

Let me set out by simply saying: modern day Russia is not holy. Or at least not as it is claimed by some.

Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeeyev) recently stated about the notion of “Third Rome” that “I don’t think that today, we can use concepts that were formulated many centuries ago. They reflected a certain historical reality, but they can hardly be
applied to the current reality”[1].
He further explained that today, the majority of Russians do NOT in fact practice their Orthodox faith, which for the Church is a “a great missionary task”[2].

During my visits in Russia, I was faced with a country of contrasts. On one hand, Christianity is not something of the past there, like is the case in say western Europe. Rather the faith is truly present there today, more than in any
other country perhaps. Orthodoxy is an accepted part of the society. If one visits a church on a big feast, it will most likely be almost full of people – this can’t be denied and neglected.

It can’t however be a reason for triumphalism.

The Russian society, just like western societies, is filled with issues. Moral issues like abortions, divorces and alcoholism are just a few we can here mention. Likewise, the nostalgia that many older people hold for the Soviet Union and for that
system, while they claim they are Orthodox Christians, is simply put bizarre.

On the other hand, Holy Rus is alive in the monasteries. Hundreds of monasteries where holy men and woman fight for salvation and pray for the world is simply a miracle of God.

The Russian society is on one hand turning more to the western ideas of “freedom”, at the same time it is preserving aspects of the Orthodox faith. We can therefore easily say that Russia is a real battlefield for the Church.

The fight to keep the youth in churches, to re-establish the Christian morals as the standard of the society and to fight God-less ideologies of today like the LGBT-movement and abortions which are promoted so hard in western Europe.

Russia is however not Holy. Far from it.

But there are signals that it might one day soon again truly
become Holy. With the support of the State (which as history shows, is a two-edged blade) Christian ideals are being implemented into laws and schools. Thanks be to God for this.

“Two Romes fell, a third one is still standing, there will not be a fourth one.”

Lets us pray and hope that Russia will indeed become this true and eternal bastion of Christianity until the coming of our Lord.

Through the prayers of the Mother of God, St. Sergius of Radonezh, St. Philip the Metropolitan of Moscow, St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Xenia of St. Petersburg, St. Matrona of Moscow, all the Elders and saints of Optina monastery and all the saints of Holy Rus – God save us!