I am a Catholic who has been invited to an Episcopal wedding soon. I am used to entering my church by making the sign of the cross with holy water. Do Episcopalians do this also?

-- Marie Kinlaw (snoopymh67@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004

Answers

Marie, I attended a somewhat (mid-range) liturgical Episcopal church for about 2 years, and some people there did use the sign of the cross, although we did not have holy water. I think it's more of a mid- to high-anglican thing. I would guess that low-anglican (ie. more like a typical Evangelical church) would not use the sign of the cross as often.

I have two questions for you:

1. What is the purpose of making the sign of the cross, in your mind? I am new to the Catholic faith this year, and plan to convert. My understanding is that the sign should be made when passing in front of the Eucharist or a crucifix, in order to honor Christ for the sacrifice He made for us and for our sins. This is one way to thank Him.

Don't make the sign of the cross because it's something you're "used to" (no offense, but this reference concerned me a bit). Make it because of what it means, and only do it when it's appropriate. I saw a woman walk into church this morning who hurriedly crossed herself as she entered her pew, but she was already half-entered and facing toward the wall, not toward Jesus. Who/What are we bowing to? Do we take those extra few seconds to bow reverently to Christ and give Him the respect He's due when we're in His house? I suspect that woman was doing this out of habit and not really paying attention to her actions or its meaning. I say this simply to ask you, why is it that you make the sign of the cross? Will there be a crucifix on the wall? If so, then I think it would be appropriate to do so as you pass it. Simply "entering a church" does not seem to me to be any reason to make this sign, but it is God's presence there that matters in this. If there is no crucifix, perhaps you could make the sign of the cross acknowledging in your own mind God's presence in this church and within yourself.

2. I'm wondering if it matters to you whether Episcopalians make the sign of the cross in order to determine whether you will do this in their church. If so, why? Giving honor to God in this way is appropriate no matter where you are.

Also, an interesting sidenote. I found this prayer in my missal. It appears that the prayer of the Sign of the Cross has been shortened. The complete prayer reads:

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
By the sign of the cross deliver us from our enemies, you who are our God.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

My missal says "We should begin our day and our activities with the Sign of the Cross. The Sign of the Cross strengthens us in temptations and difficulties."

Amen. God bless you, Marie. I hope you enjoy the wedding!

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.

When we make the sign of the cross with holy water, we do it to remind ourselves of our baptism. I see nothing wrong with doing it on entering an Episcopalian church, especially as the Catholic church recognises the validity of baptism done in the Episcopalian church. Of course the water is not really “holy” unless it has been blessed by a validly ordained (i.e. Catholic or Orthodox) priest.

Making the sign of the cross without water can and should be done anywhere and everywhere, especially to begin and end a prayer. It doesn’t matter if you’re facing a wall when you do it. God is everywhere. It is not an acknowledgement of a crucifix. It is not a sign of acknowledging the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We genuflect to acknowledge that. (So you should not genuflect in an Episcopal church.) There is no reason that your genuflection and your sign of the cross when entering church should be simultaneous, though some people have gotten into that habit.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 27, 2004.

When in Rome do as the Romans do. Just politness.

But the Episcopal church is a many splendered/splintered thing. And the service words will allow many interpetations. And if you find that some stand and some kneel, well that is just what happens. Hang between doing your own thing and getting cues from the alter boys as in a Catholic church.

As a baptised Christian you are invited to take communion with us.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), July 28, 2004.

actually, sean, your church's invitation that Marie be allowed to take communion is most appreciated...

HOWEVER (and we knew there would be one), the catholic church does not allow for Marie to take the communion of your church for reasons that i don't think need to be discussed. again, the offer is most appreciated.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), July 28, 2004.

Paul,

And Thanks for the politeness in return.

And I have been to places where the ‘separateness’ issue has been pushed. Usually in Catholic surroundings. And usually I join in solidarity with those excluded, though actually allowed to join in anyway.

But if the ceremony had a different meaning would the limit still exist? For Example: if you were saying grace using a protestant derived prayer, would you exclude your self? I think not, as it is a different thing/not communion. And if you are at a non- denominational ‘remembrance’ ceremony where they pass out grape juice, would you exclude yourself? Maybe not – they are not really doing the same thing as communion, and since the meaning is different, the action is different. So if it is different enough, then it is OK. And if it is the same, then it is OK. But Episcolpals are saying in a way that this is the Body of Christ. So it is too similar? Or could one decide that either it is the same or that it is something else and join in .

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

I can say that my car is a Boeing 747, but saying that doesn't make it anything other than a car. Having a sip of wine and a bit of bread as a remembrance is not necessarily a bad thing. And even "saying in a way that this is the Body of Christ' may have some symbolic meaning. But such figurative gestures really have nothing in common with the actual physical presence of Jesus Christ, Body and Blood, soul and divinity, in the Sacred Eucharist He personally instituted. Therefore any action on the part of a Catholic which could suggest any sense of equality between a divinely ordained sacrament and a mere human gesture would be inappropriate at best, sacrilegeous at worst.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 29, 2004.

"I can say that my car is a Boeing 747, but saying that doesn't make it anything other than a car. Having a sip of wine and a bit of bread as a remembrance is not necessarily a bad thing. And even "saying in a way that this is the Body of Christ' may have some symbolic meaning. But such figurative gestures really have nothing in common with the actual physical presence of Jesus Christ, Body and Blood, soul and divinity, in the Sacred Eucharist He personally instituted. Therefore any action on the part of a Catholic which could suggest any sense of equality between a divinely ordained sacrament and a mere human gesture would be inappropriate at best, sacrilegeous at worst. "

Tend to agree, but to draw different conclusions. Lets for a while stick to the remembrance ceremony, because it both does not even pretend to be the body of Christ, nor does it claim to be anything related to what the Catholics are doing. It is not a case of calling a car a jet, it is a case of calling their cat a cat, and your dog as a dog. Within that ceremony, their intent, their theology, their actions are completely different from the Eucharist. And having someone from a different branch of Christianity co-worship with them would not offend them, nor would it occur to them that your attending would change their meaning. So I figgured that this would pass under your ‘radar’. True?

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), August 01, 2004.

no, sean, not true.

in this case, it is not a matter of the intent of the church in which the celebration takes place, it is a matter of the sacramentals of the catholic church. as such, regardless of situation, no catholic may partake of any communion ceremony because on some level it equates that sacrament as co-valid with the one which is given by God through the catholic church. regardless of how laissez faire the church in question is about their "rememberence" or regular communion ceremony, a catholic may only observe, not be an active participent. the same holds true for nearly any sacrament (such as confession, marraige, etc).

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), August 01, 2004.

Sean,

You are correct. The Eucharist vs. a Protestant "communion" service are entirely different entities. Which is precisely why we must not risk creating the impression that we consider them in any way similar, by either partaking of Protestant "communion" or opening the Eucharist to Protestants.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 01, 2004.

Pope John XXIII, who was moved by God to summon the Vatican Council, used to say:

"What separates us as believers in Christ is much less than what unites us."

In this statement we find the heart of ecumenical thinking. Focus on the positives, look at what we have in common.:

Unity is what God desires of course but...

"that road itself is a process, which must gradually overcome many obstacles-whether of a doctrinal or a cultural or a social nature- that have accumulated over the course of centuries. It is necessary, therefore, to rid ourselves of stereotypes, of old habits. And above all, it is necessary to recognize the unity that already exists.

The Eucharist?

" when they (protestants)commemorate the Lord's Death and Resurrection in the Holy Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and they await his coming in glory"

Pope John Paul II

Well hey, its a start! Be not Afriad! Read more below.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/h f_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

Peace!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 02, 2004.