U
una_fides
Guest
No problem. Glad if I could help.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
When I use the word “grave” I’m not thinking of mortal or venial sin. I’m thinking about sinful. There are things that we do that are inapporpriate or times when we fail to do that which is appropriate. But that does not mean that everyting inapporpriate is a sin. I call that bad form.
To flaunt the rules gets into a whole other area of morality. In that case, the person has raised the bar. The issue is no longer whether you genuflect or not. The issue is your attitude. It’s arrogant. Arrogance is always a sin.
Of couse, we agree with St. Alphonse that doing something that you believe is a sin, makes you guilty of sin.
We must always be very careful when discussing sin. We can go to extremes. We can go to the one side where nothing is a sin or the other side where we see sin everywhere. both are equally wrong. I always tell people, “If the Church says that it’s a sin, believe it. If she does not, don’t worry about it. Just do the right thing as best you can.”
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
ProVobis
Guest
J
jmihm2
Guest
Una please check this link out for some further direction on the matter.
newadvent.org/cathen/04529a.htm
“…One thing I’ve been wrestling with lately is that we actually adore the Cross itself with the type of adoration reserved to God. I’ve read Aquinas on this topic and I’m still left scratching my head and wondering how it seems almost like idolatry in a sense since the Cross itself is just a symbol. I realize that by venerating the Cross we are venerating Christ who became united to the Cross and as it is like his throne, but I still don’t see how we worship it with the same degree of adoration as Christ himself (latria). I am a convert from Protestantism so I dont know if this could just be a carry over of some of their thinking for me. I am hoping someone can help shed some light for me on this point. Thanks.”
newadvent.org/cathen/04529a.htm
“…One thing I’ve been wrestling with lately is that we actually adore the Cross itself with the type of adoration reserved to God. I’ve read Aquinas on this topic and I’m still left scratching my head and wondering how it seems almost like idolatry in a sense since the Cross itself is just a symbol. I realize that by venerating the Cross we are venerating Christ who became united to the Cross and as it is like his throne, but I still don’t see how we worship it with the same degree of adoration as Christ himself (latria). I am a convert from Protestantism so I dont know if this could just be a carry over of some of their thinking for me. I am hoping someone can help shed some light for me on this point. Thanks.”
A
Anita_K
Guest
The alter is a piece of “furniture” but like no other it is the most sacred furniture in the space.
It is used just for the glory of Our Father that we be blessed.
IMO You should reverence it how ever G-d guides you.
We genuflect to the tabernacle when Yeshua (pbwh) has physical presence because scripture teaches us to get on a knee for Yeshua (pbwh). I agree with those who would say getting on you knee means submitting to him as King.
While this is spiritual of the one true kingdom we do physical things to represent our true heats into this world.
U
una_fides
Guest
I’m familiar with that article and have read through it several times. I just re-read through it again, and I’m still left scratching my head… The article states that ceremony on Good Friday is the adoration of the cross where we worship and adore the cross, yet the same article says that the Second Council of Nicea forbid the adoration of latria to be paid to the cross. I just read through that Council’s texts for the first time, and the article is correct in its conclusion that it did state that the adoration of latria is reserved for God himself only and that the cross and other relics and icons are to be venerated with a lesser degree. My remaining questions at this point are as follows:
- How could St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest doctor and theologian of the Church, as well as several other theologians, have missed such a significant thing as this and was thereby rendering to the cross a degree of worship to which it was not due.
- To what “Tradition” was St. Thomas alluding when he said that we adore the cross with latria when he answered this question in the Summa? Could he have mistakenly thought that the Good Friday service of the Adoration of the Cross was the same type of adoration given to God?
- On Good Friday we genuflect toward the cross. I heard a faithful priest say that we only genuflect to God himself. We obviously do not genuflect to priests, icons, or anything other than the Blessed Sacrament to my knowledge. Hence the Good Friday service does seem as if it is rendering adoration of the cross in the same degree as to God himself. The GIRM says the following concerning genuflecting to the cross, as was posted on this thread earlier:
In my asking these questions, I am merely looking for answers. I do not propose these as reasons to cause anyone to doubt the one true Church of Jesus Christ, which he founded for our salvation and entrusted with the charism of infallibility. It is because I know the Church to be true that I am asking for clarification for these questions that I at this time am still trying to piece together.
J
JReducation
Guest
Fortunately, these are not moral questions or doctrinal questions. These come under the heading of customs. There would be a moral issue if the person were to act out of arrogrance. But the majority of people who bow or genuflect at the wrong time or place do so out of a sincere desire to be reverent. They simply don’t have a clear understanding of the custom or the norms.
We must always be helpful to those who are trying to do things right and avoid beating them over the head with the rules. All it takes is simple redirection.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
U
una_fides
Guest
JR, I agree with you that in most cases people are not guilty of committing sins when they mistakenly bow or genuflect, and that they should be gently and charitably redirected. My earlier comments about it possibly being sinful are regarding when one actually does know but acts differently for whatever reason.Fortunately, these are not moral questions or doctrinal questions. These come under the heading of customs. There would be a moral issue if the person were to act out of arrogrance. But the majority of people who bow or genuflect at the wrong time or place do so out of a sincere desire to be reverent. They simply don’t have a clear understanding of the custom or the norms.
We must always be helpful to those who are trying to do things right and avoid beating them over the head with the rules. All it takes is simple redirection.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I am hoping, however, that you might be able to comment regarding the genuflecting to the cross on Good Friday and whether we are worshiping the cross with latria or some lesser degree of veneration.
J
jsaski
Guest
Genuflection is a reverence or acknowledgment of the physical presence of Christ. So should be done when the Eucharist is present in the tabernacle or when exposed.
I do notice that a lot of Catholics genuflect out of habit when they come and go, but when the tabernacle is not located behind the altar they end up genuflecting to the altar only. We as Catholics should get into the habit of seeking out Christ when we enter a church and then pay due respect.
I do notice that a lot of Catholics genuflect out of habit when they come and go, but when the tabernacle is not located behind the altar they end up genuflecting to the altar only. We as Catholics should get into the habit of seeking out Christ when we enter a church and then pay due respect.
A
Anita_K
Guest
Amen
A
Anita_K
Guest
In our parish the children are taught to genraflect before taking a seat but they are not taught or reminded what they are doing and why they are doing it.
Its a shame as these kids may grow up to see it as tradition without meaning.
I better try and do some things hey.
Its a shame as these kids may grow up to see it as tradition without meaning.
I better try and do some things hey.
A
Anita_K
Guest
I caused some problems for some one in another thread so i am leaving the forum. Best wishes to you all and God bless
J
JReducation
Guest
The Good Frday ritual is an ancient one when the Church venerates the cross. We don’t worship it. It remains an object, not God. If we look at the Good Friday ritual it says, “Veneration of the Cross”. One does not have to genuflect to it. One can bow and in the Roman Church we kiss the crucifix. I’m not sure if that’s a unviersal practice or only a Roman one.
The reason for kissing the cross is the same reason behind kissing the altar when the pirest arrives on the sanctuary or religious kissing the floor when they enter the chapel or church. It’s an act of reverence for the sacred. The respect is shown for the passion of Christ, which is always sacred.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
U
una_fides
Guest
Thank you for your response. I just have a few questions in response. 1) Why does the GIRM say that a genuflection signifies adoration and says that we genuflect to the cross? 2) Why is the Good Friday service always referred to elsewhere as the “Adoration of the Cross” such as in that Catholic Encyclopedia article and throughout history? Are there different degrees of the word “adoration” to where one signifies latria and another a lesser form of worship? The GIRM also uses the term “adoration” in reference to the Good Friday service. 3) How did Aquinas and many other theologians get so confused as to think we adored the cross with latria and that this practice was a part of Tradition? Could it be that since it was practiced in such a manner in the liturgy that he and others thought it was adoration of latria?The Good Frday ritual is an ancient one when the Church venerates the cross. We don’t worship it. It remains an object, not God. If we look at the Good Friday ritual it says, “Veneration of the Cross”. One does not have to genuflect to it. One can bow and in the Roman Church we kiss the crucifix. I’m not sure if that’s a unviersal practice or only a Roman one.
The reason for kissing the cross is the same reason behind kissing the altar when the pirest arrives on the sanctuary or religious kissing the floor when they enter the chapel or church. It’s an act of reverence for the sacred. The respect is shown for the passion of Christ, which is always sacred.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I appreciate any insights or additional information you or anyone else may be able to share on this.
J
JReducation
Guest
The problem is the evolution of language.
We don’t actually adore the corss. The term in the liturgy comes from the prayer that St. Francis wrote, which was later incorporated into the Good Friday liturgy and the stations of the cross as well, but it was originally written for the Blessed Sacrament.
“We adore you Oh Christ and we bless you, here and in all of your churches throughout the whole world, because by your holy cross you have redeemed the world.”
When the term is carried over into the Liturgy of Good Friday the word remains, but the meaning changes. We don’t adore sacred objects, such as a crucifix. That would be idolatry. We are actually venerating the cross and adoring Christ in his passion. The wording is meant to refer to Christ, not the crucifix.
Observe that when the liturgy uses the prayer, especially during the stations of the cross, it shortens it to
“We adore you Oh Christ and we bless you; because by your Holy Cross you have redeemed the world.” The object of adoration is Christ. The reason for the adoration is that he had redeemed the world. The how of the redemption is the Holy Cross.
This is probably one of the best examples of Latin being transferred from one situation to another where it gets confusing. The expression, “Adoration of the Holy Cross” comes from the old prayer that was said in the past. The prayer is rarely used today, except by Franciscans who still say it on Good Friday. But the expression has remained.
Aquinas did not get confused. He knew that we do not adore the cross. He was using the lanaguge of his time, as was St. Francis when he wrote the prayer. This creates another series of misunderstandings. The Latin “adoramus” was used to mean to things, “to adore” God or “I adore you”, which one would say to a person whom one loves.
I can say, “I adore that dress.” A Christian can say, “I adore the cross.” It’s an expression of love. Depending on the context, the love can be more or less intense. Obvioiusly, you don’t love that little black dress as you love your spouse and children. But you use the same word for both.
I will caution readers who are very attached to Aquinas. Aquinas is a wonderful source for understanding our faith. But there are several things that must be kept in mind.
Aquinas was never a pope, not even a bishop. Not everything that he wrote or thought became official teaching of the Church. Much of what he wrote was already part of the deposit of faith and he organized it and explained it very well. Other things that he wrote were his own reflections and he was on the money in some instances and way off the mark on others, such as the Immaculate Conception, masturbation, the role of clerics. In all of these, he started out with a fundamental truth that was right and then he built on that, but he went off the mark. So . . . the Church did not adopt his position. For the most part, his positions are very consistent with the faith of the Church and his explanations are helpful in teaching, because of his clarity and organization.
Another thing about Aquinas is that we don’t always interpret him correctly. He has to be interpreted in light of Christian Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium. Aquinas was not writing for the man in the pews; therefore, he made no effort to keep it simple. His audience were theologians, bishops, philosophers and popes. Much of his writing was intended to correct many of the heresies of his day. Sometimes, it is good to understand the heresy in order to understand the response that Aquinas offers. It’s like a puzzle. When you have both pieces, then you go, “Aha! That makes sense.”
For example, his position on the Immaculate Conception made sense in light of the heresy that claimed that Mary did not need redemption, because she did not have original sin. Aquinas goes out of his way to show that she too is a beneficiary of redemption. Unfortunately, his idea was right, but his explanation was wrong.
There are some very good books that are written as companions to the Summa, which one should have if one is going to use the Summa. If not the companions, then the Dominican Friars are always a good source to explain it. They, more than any other religiuos order, spend a great deal of time studying the Summa during their formation years.
Unfortunately, I’m not an expert on the Summa. Franciscans study the Summa too, but very briefly. We go through a year of it. We spend about seven years on Bonaventure, Scotus, Lawrence of Brindisi and many of our own doctors who wrote on the same topics as Aquinas, but using St. Francis as the springboard. Whereas Aquinas uses the Greek Philosophers as his springboard.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
ProVobis
Guest
JR, you make some excellent points on the changes of vernacular meanings over time. I can’t even read my own writings of 40 years ago. Evolution is a great word for it. Not quite like Darwin’s theory, though.The problem is the evolution of language.
We don’t actually adore the corss. The term in the liturgy comes from the prayer that St. Francis wrote, which was later incorporated into the Good Friday liturgy and the stations of the cross as well, but it was originally written for the Blessed Sacrament.
“We adore you Oh Christ and we bless you, here and in all of your churches throughout the whole world, because by your holy cross you have redeemed the world.”
When the term is carried over into the Liturgy of Good Friday the word remains, but the meaning changes. We don’t adore sacred objects, such as a crucifix. That would be idolatry. We are actually venerating the cross and adoring Christ in his passion. The wording is meant to refer to Christ, not the crucifix.
Observe that when the liturgy uses the prayer, especially during the stations of the cross, it shortens it to
“We adore you Oh Christ and we bless you; because by your Holy Cross you have redeemed the world.” The object of adoration is Christ. The reason for the adoration is that he had redeemed the world. The how of the redemption is the Holy Cross.
This is probably one of the best examples of Latin being transferred from one situation to another where it gets confusing. The expression, “Adoration of the Holy Cross” comes from the old prayer that was said in the past. The prayer is rarely used today, except by Franciscans who still say it on Good Friday. But the expression has remained.
Aquinas did not get confused. He knew that we do not adore the cross. He was using the lanaguge of his time, as was St. Francis when he wrote the prayer. This creates another series of misunderstandings. The Latin “adoramus” was used to mean to things, “to adore” God or “I adore you”, which one would say to a person whom one loves.
I can say, “I adore that dress.” A Christian can say, “I adore the cross.” It’s an expression of love. Depending on the context, the love can be more or less intense. Obvioiusly, you don’t love that little black dress as you love your spouse and children. But you use the same word for both.
I will caution readers who are very attached to Aquinas. Aquinas is a wonderful source for understanding our faith. But there are several things that must be kept in mind.
Aquinas was never a pope, not even a bishop. Not everything that he wrote or thought became official teaching of the Church. Much of what he wrote was already part of the deposit of faith and he organized it and explained it very well. Other things that he wrote were his own reflections and he was on the money in some instances and way off the mark on others, such as the Immaculate Conception, masturbation, the role of clerics. In all of these, he started out with a fundamental truth that was right and then he built on that, but he went off the mark. So . . . the Church did not adopt his position. For the most part, his positions are very consistent with the faith of the Church and his explanations are helpful in teaching, because of his clarity and organization.
Another thing about Aquinas is that we don’t always interpret him correctly. He has to be interpreted in light of Christian Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium. Aquinas was not writing for the man in the pews; therefore, he made no effort to keep it simple. His audience were theologians, bishops, philosophers and popes. Much of his writing was intended to correct many of the heresies of his day. Sometimes, it is good to understand the heresy in order to understand the response that Aquinas offers. It’s like a puzzle. When you have both pieces, then you go, “Aha! That makes sense.”
For example, his position on the Immaculate Conception made sense in light of the heresy that claimed that Mary did not need redemption, because she did not have original sin. Aquinas goes out of his way to show that she too is a beneficiary of redemption. Unfortunately, his idea was right, but his explanation was wrong.
There are some very good books that are written as companions to the Summa, which one should have if one is going to use the Summa. If not the companions, then the Dominican Friars are always a good source to explain it. They, more than any other religiuos order, spend a great deal of time studying the Summa during their formation years.
Unfortunately, I’m not an expert on the Summa. Franciscans study the Summa too, but very briefly. We go through a year of it. We spend about seven years on Bonaventure, Scotus, Lawrence of Brindisi and many of our own doctors who wrote on the same topics as Aquinas, but using St. Francis as the springboard. Whereas Aquinas uses the Greek Philosophers as his springboard.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
We’re fortunate to have standards like Latin, Greek, and Shakespearean English to set us straight.
U
una_fides
Guest
I think it best then for us to distinguish between latria (adoration) and dulia (veneration). Both St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas Aquinas (as well as Bl. Albertus Magnus and Alexander of Hales as well as many of the scholastics) taught that we actually adore the cross with latria worship reserved only to God. Aquinas argued that you reverence the king’s throne with the same degree of reverence as the king himself. He says in the same manner one adores the cross as he does Christ himself. Have you read the summa on this topic? You said you studied St. Bonaventure for seven years. Didn’t at some point you stumble upon his teachings on this matter?
** So would you conclude then that St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure were idolaters? **How is this possible?
You must not have read him or Bonaventure on this subject. One of the questions Aquinas answers is “Whether Christ’s cross should be worshiped with the adoration of ‘latria’?” Read it for yourself. He clearly makes his conclusion stating:
Have you read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on this matter? Here is a brief, relevant excerpt:Following Bl. Albertus Magnus and Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, and a section of the Schoolmen who appear to have overlooked the Second Council of Nicæa teach that the worship rendered to the Cross and the image of Christ is that of latria, but with a distinction: the same worship is due to the image and its exemplar but the exemplar is honoured for Himself (or for itself), with an absolute worship; the image because of its exemplar, with a relative worship.
Also I do not understand why the GIRM says that we adore the Blessed Sacrament just as we adore the cross on Good Friday: 274. A genuflection, made by bending the right knee to the ground, signifies adoration, and therefore it is reserved for the Most Blessed Sacrament, as well as for the Holy Cross from the solemn adoration during the liturgical celebration on Good Friday until the beginning of the Easter Vigil.
It uses the same word “adore” in the same context for both. Are you saying that in this context genuflecting to the Blessed Sacrament is just showing a fondness and is not an adoration in the sense of worship?
I realize the GIRM is from the USCCB and therefore has no doctrinal authority outside the ordinary teaching of a bishop, but it is contributing to this confusion as I’m sure you can clearly see.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Very well explained.
I can’t understand my own writings of 40 years ago. Good thing I never tried to publish it and try to explain it today.
J
JReducation
Guest
Yes I did and you posted it here below. I’m simply explaining it in simple English so that others can understand it.
No I would conclude no such thing. And I would thank you to stay out of my head.
I believe that to ask this question as you have asked it is rude. It is a not so subtle way of calling another person ignorant.
As to the point in question, Aquinas and Bonaventure explain it very well in the language of their time. The adoration given to the cross is not the sam as the adoration given to Christ.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
U
una_fides
Guest
In this case the English differences of the word “adore” do not apply to the Latin word latria, which as you know is the word that signifies adoration given to God alone. It is obviously not referring to “adore” as in someone who adores a cute puppy.
I was actually asking you a question, not making a statement. I was asking you whether you would make that conclusion. You said that adoring the cross with latria (adoration given only to God) is idolatry, and since I think I’ve demonstrated clearly that St. Thomas taught that we are to adore the cross with latria worship (as the Catholic Encyclopedia article and his own writings clear attest), then I was curious if you would thereby logically conclude that Aquinas was an idolater. Again I find that difficult to accept. Could you possibly elaborate on your understanding of the word latria? I think from the passage it’s quite clear what Aquinas taught on this matter.
I don’t know why you are getting so defensive. I meant nothing rude by that comment, so I apologize if you took it that way. Perhaps I could have worded it differently, but ultimately you said that Aquinas did not teach that we adore the cross, so I pointed out where he clearly and irrefutably did, so I wondered if you had read that passage. I meant no insult. Again I am just seeking answers here.
They also explain what the language of their time meant. Here is what Aquinas said about latria from his Summa:
- “Reverence is due to God on account of His excellence, which is communicated to certain creatures not in equal measure, but according to a measure of proportion; and so the reverence which we pay to God, and which belongs to latria, differs from the reverence which we pay to certain excellent creatures; this belongs to dulia, and we shall speak of it further on (103)” newadvent.org/summa/3084.htm#article1
- “Wherefore dulia, which pays due service to a human lord, is a distinct virtue from latria, which pays due service to the lordship of God” newadvent.org/summa/3103.htm#article4
- “latria is not divided into different species” [in other words, there is no such thing as a lesser species of latria worship. It is not divided as the word “adore” into different meanings.] newadvent.org/summa/3103.htm#article4
I hope these references make it more clear what Aquinas had in mind when he used the word latria in stating that one adores the cross with latria worship. Again here is what he concluded: "Christ’s cross should be worshiped with the adoration of “latria.” newadvent.org/summa/4025.htm#article4
- Status