Ancient Homily on Holy Saturday - Worship you as God?

[CivisRomanusSum]

Hello!

I recently found out about a beautiful meditative text called “Ancient Homily on Holy Saturday.” Although there is a line there that confuses me:

‘But arise, let us go hence. The enemy brought you out of the land of paradise; I will reinstate you, no longer in paradise, but on the throne of heaven. I denied you the tree of life, which was a figure, but now I myself am united to you, I who am life. I posted the cherubim to guard you as they would slaves; now I make the cherubim worship you as they would God."

Isn’t this a hypothetical dialogue between Christ and Adam? Why is Christ saying that the angels will worship Adam as God/as they would God? Is this all hyperbole? What is the proper way to interpret this?

Thanks!

 

[Eric_Prine]

Worship is a modern version of an older English word, worth-ship which is basically veneration. In Latin, there is dulia which is veneration for saints, hyperdulia which is higher veneration for Mary, and latria which means adoration which is for God alone. I’m assuming they are using worship in the older English sense which is veneration (dulia).

 

[CivisRomanusSum]

Worship is a modern version of an older English word, worth-ship which is basically veneration. In Latin, there is dulia which is veneration for saints, hyperdulia which is higher veneration for Mary, and latria which means adoration which is for God alone. I’m assuming they are using worship in the older English sense which is veneration (dulia).

But how would that make sense when the wording is “worship you as they would God”? The comparison with God is clear, don’t you think?

 

[dmar198]

Hello!

I recently found out about a beautiful meditative text called “Ancient Homily on Holy Saturday.” Although there is a line there that confuses me:

‘But arise, let us go hence. The enemy brought you out of the land of paradise; I will reinstate you, no longer in paradise, but on the throne of heaven. I denied you the tree of life, which was a figure, but now I myself am united to you, I who am life. I posted the cherubim to guard you as they would slaves; now I make the cherubim worship you as they would God."

Isn’t this a hypothetical dialogue between Christ and Adam? Why is Christ saying that the angels will worship Adam as God/as they would God? Is this all hyperbole? What is the proper way to interpret this?

Thanks!

I’m not sure if this is correct, but here’s a thought: We worship Jesus in His human nature because the worship passes to His divine person. Adam is sometimes used as a figure for all mankind. Perhaps this homily is using Adam as a figure for human nature, because in Christ a human nature is worshipped.

Also: Jesus is the New Adam.

 

[Todd977]

I’m pretty sure this has to do with the Christian doctrine mentioned in Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 460:
460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81​

78 2 Pt 1:4.
79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.
80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.
81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.
(source)

There seem to be various names given to this doctrine, such as theosis, divinization, deification, etc.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Hello!

I recently found out about a beautiful meditative text called “Ancient Homily on Holy Saturday.” Although there is a line there that confuses me:

‘But arise, let us go hence. The enemy brought you out of the land of paradise; I will reinstate you, no longer in paradise, but on the throne of heaven. I denied you the tree of life, which was a figure, but now I myself am united to you, I who am life. I posted the cherubim to guard you as they would slaves; now I make the cherubim worship you as they would God."

Isn’t this a hypothetical dialogue between Christ and Adam? Why is Christ saying that the angels will worship Adam as God/as they would God? Is this all hyperbole? What is the proper way to interpret this?

Thanks!

This is one of the most loved and cherished of the Church’s ancient texts. It is prescribed for the liturgy for Holy Saturday and thus is read by all clerics who use the Roman breviary and by many of the Religious as well.

One has to see and interpret what the author writes through the literary form the author has chosen. He is making a poetical distinction between the state of man at the moment of the Fall, when they were driven out of the Garden by the cherubim, and the state of man in the present moment, when the soul of Christ, at the moment of death, has arrived in the abode of the dead and is having this hypothesised dialogue. In many ways, it is not unlike the imagery in the Exsultet.

The imagery evoked in this exposition is a theological consequence that human nature is forever altered in regard to every person who possesses it by virtue of the fact that human nature was assumed by the Second Person of the Trinity and hypostatically united to the Person of the Logos and His Divine Nature in the Incarnation and the assumed human nature was instrumental in the effective of the redemption. That is what the author is indicating and that grace has elevated man above nature so that the angels position relative to man is altered. (This is a recurrent theme in Patristic literature, as an aside.)

 

[CivisRomanusSum]

This is one of the most loved and cherished of the Church’s ancient texts. It is prescribed for the liturgy for Holy Saturday and thus is read by all clerics who use the Roman breviary and by many of the Religious as well.

One has to see and interpret what the author writes through the literary form the author has chosen. He is making a poetical distinction between the state of man at the moment of the Fall, when they were driven out of the Garden by the cherubim, and the state of man in the present moment, when the soul of Christ, at the moment of death, has arrived in the abode of the dead and is having this hypothesised dialogue. In many ways, it is not unlike the imagery in the Exsultet.

The imagery evoked in this exposition is a theological consequence that human nature is forever altered in regard to every person who possesses it by virtue of the fact that human nature was assumed by the Second Person of the Trinity and hypostatically united to the Person of the Logos and His Divine Nature in the Incarnation and the assumed human nature was instrumental in the effective of the redemption. That is what the author is indicating and that grace has elevated man above nature so that the angels position relative to man is altered. (This is a recurrent theme in Patristic literature, as an aside.)

Alright, so I take it that the text perhaps has something to do with the doctrine of divinization/theosis, as taught in CCC 460. No problem with that. Studying the doctrine made me understand the text more. However, there is another line in the homily that might seem problematic in terms of divinization as the Church understands it:

“I command you: Awake, sleeper, I have not made you to be held a prisoner in the underworld. Arise from the dead; I am the life of the dead. Arise, O man, work of my hands, arise, you who were fashioned in my image. Rise, let us go hence; for you in me and I in you, together we are one undivided person.”

Isn’t it that in divinization/theosis, man does not “become” God, properly speaking, but only partakes of His divine nature? From what I understand of divinization, man retains his human essence and God retains His divine essence, so God and man remain distinct as persons. How do we reconcile this teaching with the text? Many thanks again!

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Alright, so I take it that the text perhaps has something to do with the doctrine of divinization/theosis, as taught in CCC 460. No problem with that. Studying the doctrine made me understand the text more. However, there is another line in the homily that might seem problematic in terms of divinization as the Church understands it:

“I command you: Awake, sleeper, I have not made you to be held a prisoner in the underworld. Arise from the dead; I am the life of the dead. Arise, O man, work of my hands, arise, you who were fashioned in my image. Rise, let us go hence; for you in me and I in you, together we are one undivided person.”

Isn’t it that in divinization/theosis, man does not “become” God, properly speaking, but only partakes of His divine nature? From what I understand of divinization, man retains his human essence and God retains His divine essence, so God and man remain distinct as persons. How do we reconcile this teaching with the text? Many thanks again!

You are applying the wrong methodology, given the literary form you are dealing with.

The writer is actually not treating divinisation/theosis.

The writer is also not making an ontological statement relative to Adam and Christ. The reference rather hearkens back to the Pauline image of Christ as the New Adam and evokes the parallels in the imagery that Paul proceeds to elaborate and that the patristics take up and extend.

The writer is employing allegory which, like analogy, must be viewed through the correct lens or it will lead to a distorted conclusion that was not intended by the author.

 

[CivisRomanusSum]

You are applying the wrong methodology, given the literary form you are dealing with.

The writer is actually not treating divinisation/theosis.

The writer is also not making an ontological statement relative to Adam and Christ. The reference rather hearkens back to the Pauline image of Christ as the New Adam and evokes the parallels in the imagery that Paul proceeds to elaborate and that the patristics take up and extend.

The writer is employing allegory which, like analogy, must be viewed through the correct lens or it will lead to a distorted conclusion that was not intended by the author.

Thanks for the interpretation. I’d admit that I don’t fully understand it (yet), so could you please send some sources on how to properly interpret the text? Are there any articles or books (scholarly or otherwise) that treat of the allegorical nature of this Homily in the manner in which you wrote? Many thanks again.