Why "adoration" of the cross instead of "veneration" on Good Friday?

[wvedec]

I believe that the action performed at the Solemn Liturgy on Good Friday, in which the cross is kissed by the members of the congregation, used to be called the “Veneration of the Cross”. It seems like in the last couple of years this has been changed to the “Adoration of the Cross”.

I find this wording troublesome. It is my understanding the “adoration” or (in the Greek) “latria” is reserved for God alone. Even if the cross symbolizes Christ (who is God), I think that the use of the word adoration to refer to an inanimate, material, object is confusing and inappropriate.

Does anyone know when this was changed and why? Can anyone provide justification and clarification for the use of the word adoration in this context?

 

[Brandon_Cal]

With all due respect to the Catholics who have argued before on these boards that “adoration is for God alone” and that “Catholics do not ‘adore’ relics or the Saints, rather they venerate them.” I’ve always found the distinction to be dubious, and your pointing out the practice of “Adoration of the Cross” during the Passion service is a good example of this.

Please note that I’m not saying the distinction between latria, dulia, and hyperdulia are dubious. In fact I think the Church has rather consistently kept the resolution between these three terms. It seems to me, though, that the habit of using certain English words over others to differentiate our pious behavior before God and that for other holy objects and people is quite novel.

I took a peek at the Catholic Encyclopedia article about Good Friday and strangely enough it uses not only the word adoration to describe the practice of venerating the True Cross, but also the word worship!

Adoration of the Cross

The dramatic unveiling and adoration of the Cross, which was introduced into the Latin Liturgy in the seventh or eighth century, had its origin in the Church of Jerusalem. The “Peregrinatio Sylviae” (the real name is Etheria) contains a description of the ceremony as it took place in Jerusalem towards the close of the fourth century.

…]

Our present ceremony is an obvious development of this, the manner of worshipping the True Cross on Good Friday observed at Jerusalem. A veiled image of the Crucifix is gradually exposed to view, while the celebrant, accompanied by his assistants, sings three times the “Ecce lignum Crucis”, etc. (Behold the wood of the Cross on which hung the salvation of the world), to which the choir answers, each time, “Venite adoremus” (Come let us adore).

Even the Latin response “Venite adoremus” uses the word adore! Either the strict distinction between adoration and veneration is correct and the Catholic Church is essentially engaging in idolatry, or the distinction is dubious and there has always been a heavy dose of nuance in the words used to describe pious behavior.

Furthermore, the same article goes on to anticipate a non-Catholic’s objection to the Adoration of the Cross:

A non-Catholic may say that this is all very dramatic and interesting, but allege a grave deordination in the act of adoration of the Cross on bended knees. Is not adoration due to God alone? The answer may be found in our smallest catechism. The act in question is not intended as an expression of absolute supreme worship (latreia) which, of course, is due to God alone. The essential note of the ceremony is reverence (proskynesis) which has a relative character, and which may be best explained in the words of the Pseudo-Alcuin: “Prosternimur corpore ante crucem, mente ante Dominium. Veneramur crucem, per quam redempti sumus, et illum deprecamur, qui redemit” (While we bend down in body before the cross we bend down in spirit before God. While we reverence the cross as the instrument of our redemption, we pray to Him who redeemed us). It may be urged: why sing “Behold the wood of the Cross”, in unveiling the image of the Cross? The reason is obvious. The ceremony originally had immediate connexion with the True Cross, which was found by St. Helena in Jerusalem about the year A.D. 326. Churches which procured a relic of the True Cross might imitate this ceremony to the letter, but other churches had to be with an image which in this particular ceremony represents the wood of the True Cross.

Notice that the Catholic Encyclopedia completely ignores the implication of the use of the word “adoration” but still points out the distinction between latria and dulia. If there really were such a distinction between ‘adoration’ and ‘veneration’ (or even ‘worship’ for that matter) when the encyclopedia article was written one would expect it to at least try to explain why the word ‘adoration’ is used. Instead, the article focuses entirely on the mere objection to any sort of veneration given to an object.

From all this I infer that the words ‘worship’, ‘adore’, and ‘venerate’ have been and are still used rather interchangeably, and that the distinction between latria, dulia, and hyperdulia lies in ones internal intention rather than explicit choice of words. It cannot be as simple as equating latria to adoration and dulia to veneration.

 

[porthos11]

Want something even more troublesome?

Not only does “adoration” generally mean the worship of latria, the worship due to God alone, but we also worship the Cross with latria, the worship due to God alone.

Yes. I said it. Catholics worship the Cross.

With the worship of latria. The same worship due to God alone.

Case in point: we genuflect to the Cross. Just like we genuflect to the Blessed Sacrament.

Which is why “Adoration of the Cross” means exactly that. Adoration. Latria. Historically, it has always been Adoration of the Cross.

Once you’ve gotten over your shock, you can find the full reasoning here, and why Catholics are not guilty of idolatry.
newadvent.org/summa/4025.htm

 

[Bookcat]

I believe that the action performed at the Solemn Liturgy on Good Friday, in which the cross is kissed by the members of the congregation, used to be called the “Veneration of the Cross”. It seems like in the last couple of years this has been changed to the “Adoration of the Cross”.

I find this wording troublesome. It is my understanding the “adoration” or (in the Greek) “latria” is reserved for God alone. Even if the cross symbolizes Christ (who is God), I think that the use of the word adoration to refer to an inanimate, material, object is confusing and inappropriate.

Does anyone know when this was changed and why? Can anyone provide justification and clarification for the use of the word adoration in this context?

Such is the correct term (going all the way back to the early centuries of the Church.

We do not give latria here but rather we give “relative” adoration.

It is Jesus Christ who is adored --the adoration passes to Christ (as the Second Council of Nicea taught)

Where as absolute adoration (Latria) is directly given to any of the Holy Trinity directly (such as to Jesus in the Holy Eucharist). And only to the Holy Trinity directly.

 

[Bookcat]

Want something even more troublesome?

Not only does “adoration” generally mean the worship of latria, the worship due to God alone, but we also worship the Cross with latria, the worship due to God alone.

Yes. I said it. Catholics worship the Cross.

With the worship of latria. The same worship due to God alone.

Case in point: we genuflect to the Cross. Just like we genuflect to the Blessed Sacrament.

Which is why “Adoration of the Cross” means exactly that. Adoration. Latria. Historically, it has always been Adoration of the Cross.

No.* Most certainly not*.

We do not give latria to the Cross. Latria (absolute latria) is due directly to God alone.

See my post above.

Between Good Friday and the Easter Vigil when one passes before that Crucifix used Good Friday – one genuflects (on the right knee as my friend tells me)…as a sign of that relative adoration.

 

[Mary_Ellen]

Venerate, adore, worship, latria or not, the Cross is not my God. I do venerate or adore or whatever the Cross on Good Friday. When I make the Sign of the Cross and am holding a Rosary or wearing a Crucifix I kiss the Crucifix. I do so out of respect (and more) for the sign and out of love for my God who died upon that sign.

Protestants can protest all they want. When I pray to the saints I am not making them gods, not even little gods. I know who God is and they are not Him.

 

[Elizium23]

Such is the correct term (going all the way back to the early centuries of the Church.

We do not give latria here but rather we give “relative” adoration.

It is Jesus Christ who is adored --the adoration passes to Christ.

Where as absolute adoration (Latria) is directly given to any of the Holy Trinity directly (such as to Jesus in the Holy Eucharist). And only to the Holy Trinity directly.

St. Thomas Aquinas and the sacred liturgy make no such distinction about relative-absolute.

If, therefore, we speak of the cross itself on which Christ was crucified, it is to be venerated by us in both ways–namely, in one way in so far as it represents to us the figure of Christ extended thereon; in the other way, from its contact with the limbs of Christ, and from its being saturated with His blood. Wherefore in each way it is worshiped with the same adoration as Christ, viz. the adoration of “latria.” And for this reason also we speak to the cross and pray to it, as to the Crucified Himself. But if we speak of the effigy of Christ’s cross in any other material whatever–for instance, in stone or wood, silver or gold–thus we venerate the cross merely as Christ’s image, which we worship with the adoration of “latria,” as stated above (Article 3).

If you have a source to cite which discusses “relative latria” then you are welcome to furnish it here.

 

[porthos11]

No.* Most certainly not*.

We do not give latria to the Cross. Latria (absolute latria) is due directly to God alone.

See my post above.

Between Good Friday and the Easter Vigil when one passes before that Crucifix used Good Friday – one genuflects (on the right knee as my friend tells me)…as a sign of that relative adoration.

Incorrect on the first, correct on the second.

We definitely give latria to the Cross. That has been laid down by St. Thomas Aquinas and is evident in the Good Friday services.

But you are also correct: the latria is relative: it passes on to its prototype, which is Christ, insofar as the Cross is an image of Christ and has been intimately united with him.

It is that it is relative that makes all the difference.

 

[Bookcat]

St. Thomas Aquinas and the sacred liturgy make no such distinction about relative-absolute.

If you have a source to cite which discusses “relative latria” then you are welcome to furnish it here.

Things were likely clarified later.

Quote:

“Supreme absolute worship (latria) is due to God alone…supreme* relative* worship is paid to the* Cross* and to the other instruments of the Passion and also to imagines of God and of Christ.”

See the: Handbook of Moral Theology - Prummer OP. 1957 Pg 175

(note he is a Dominican…so he would be quite up on what St. Thomas wrote).

 

[Bookcat]

Incorrect on the first, correct on the second.

We definitely give latria to the Cross. That has been laid down by St. Thomas Aquinas and is evident in the Good Friday services.

But you are also correct: the latria is relative: it passes on to its prototype, which is Christ, insofar as the Cross is an image of Christ and has been intimately united with him.

It is that it is relative that makes all the difference.

I was correct on both - as you demonstrate in your conclusion.

 

[porthos11]

St. Thomas Aquinas and the sacred liturgy make no such distinction about relative-absolute.

If you have a source to cite which discusses “relative latria” then you are welcome to furnish it here.

I’m sure it’s out there somewhere; we just need to find it, but relative vs. absolute worship from what I understand are generally accepted terms with regard to the cult of images. I can probably dig a bit deeper for an actual source.

But even if St. Thomas does not use the exact term “relative”, he does clearly outline the concept in the Answers in III,25,3 and III 25,4 that worship or reverence is due to rational beings alone. This eliminates latria offered to images or the Cross with themselves as the ends towards which the worship is directed. He clearly states that the worship of latria is passed on to the rational being (i.e. Christ) which is represented by the image or the Cross. This is pretty much a textbook definition of relative worship.

 

[Bookcat]

St. Thomas Aquinas and the sacred liturgy make no such distinction about relative-absolute.

If you have a source to cite which discusses “relative latria” then you are welcome to furnish it here.

Things were likely clarified later…

Quote:

“Supreme absolute worship (latria) is due to God alone and to Christ our Lord; supreme* relative* worship is paid to the* Cross* and to the other instruments of the Passion and also to imagines of God and of Christ.”

See the: Handbook of Moral Theology - Prummer OP. 1957 Pg 175

(note he is a Dominican…so he would be quite up on what St. Thomas wrote).

 

[wvedec]

Thanks for all the replies so far.

I understand what some of you are saying - our intentions are important, and we “know” what is meant by “adoration of the cross”. For example, when my Catholic friends say, “I adore my husband”, or “I worship that ground that my wife walks on”, I know that I am not to take this literally. However, words matter - especially in the liturgy. So, I still feel the distinction between veneration and adoration is important. What if I said I “adore” the Blessed Virgin Mary or “worship” St. Joseph, but I really “meant/intended” that I honor, respect, and venerate them?

By the way, I do not genuflect (with either knee) to the cross - I bow from the waist to venerate it. I genuflect to Jesus in the tabernacle or the Jesus in the Blesseed Sacrament exposed only. I made this decision when we were encouraged at a parish mission many years ago to genuflect to an inflated globe of the earth to show our respect for God’s creation. No way. You can see how things can get sloppy, I only genuflect before the Real Presence of God.

 

[porthos11]

I was correct on both - as you demonstrate in your conclusion.

Well, St. Thomas makes it clear that “The Cross is to be worshipped with the adoration of latria.” (III,25,4).

That disproves your first assertion (“we do not give latria to the Cross”). This is correct only insofar as the latria is absolute. This is incorrect where the latria is relative, and in light of III,25,4.

 

[Elizium23]

By the way, I do not genuflect (with either knee) to the cross - I bow from the waist to venerate it. I genuflect to Jesus in the tabernacle or the Jesus in the Blesseed Sacrament exposed only. I made this decision when we were encouraged at a parish mission many years ago to genuflect to an inflated globe of the earth to show our respect for God’s creation. No way. You can see how things can get sloppy, I only genuflect before the Real Presence of God.

The Roman Missal directs us to genuflect to the Cross when it is present at the Good Friday liturgy.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

Want something even more troublesome?

Not only does “adoration” generally mean the worship of latria, the worship due to God alone, but we also worship the Cross with latria, the worship due to God alone.

Yes. I said it. Catholics worship the Cross.

With the worship of latria. The same worship due to God alone.

Case in point: we genuflect to the Cross. Just like we genuflect to the Blessed Sacrament.

Which is why “Adoration of the Cross” means exactly that. Adoration. Latria. Historically, it has always been Adoration of the Cross.

Once you’ve gotten over your shock, you can find the full reasoning here, and why Catholics are not guilty of idolatry.
newadvent.org/summa/4025.htm

I find the reasoning employed a little odd (no particular offense to St. Thomas Aquinas). He seems to be saying that inanimate objects that in some way represent a rational creature can be given the same level of ‘worship’ due to that rational creature but this doesn’t apply to other rational creatures who are in some way connected to the rational creature in question.

Does this really mean that while Jesus Christ should be worshipped with latria and the Blessed Virgin Mary be worshipped with hyperdulia, all the inanimate objects relating to Christ (his cross, the Shroud of Turin, icons of Jesus, statues of Jesus, etc.) can be worshipped with latria since the latria is essentially transferred over to Christ?

If so this seems to me like St. Thomas Aquinas is engaging in special pleading. If we can engage in latria over objects that merely touched Our Lord then surely the very womb that “clothed him” can be worshipped with latria as well?

 

[Bookcat]

Thanks for all the replies so far.

I understand what some of you are saying - our intentions are important, and we “know” what is meant by “adoration of the cross”. For example, when my Catholic friends say, “I adore my husband”, or “I worship that ground that my wife walks on”, I know that I am not to take this literally. However, words matter - especially in the liturgy. So, I still feel the distinction between veneration and adoration is important. What if I said I “adore” the Blessed Virgin Mary or “worship” St. Joseph, but I really “meant/intended” that I honor, respect, and venerate them?

It is idolatry to give the Blessed Virgin Mary or St. Joseph or your wife - adoration. You cannot adore them. Period. And when someone tells me one of my children are “adorable” I tell them no they are not - there is only one Child that is.

It is yes a misuse of the language in our culture to day something is adorable. But yes we know what they mean.

Veneration (dulia) is given to a human person (honor). Not latria.

Likewise we venerate say an image of a Saint. It passes to the person it represents of course -that it the meaning. But we do not adore it.

The Cross is yes adored (relative) as noted above in the Liturgy you ask about.

 

[porthos11]

Thanks for all the replies so far.

I understand what some of you are saying - our intentions are important, and we “know” what is meant by “adoration of the cross”. For example, when my Catholic friends say, “I adore my husband”, or “I worship that ground that my wife walks on”, I know that I am not to take this literally. However, words matter - especially in the liturgy. So, I still feel the distinction between veneration and adoration is important. What if I said I “adore” the Blessed Virgin Mary or “worship” St. Joseph, but I really “meant/intended” that I honor, respect, and venerate them?

By the way, I do not genuflect (with either knee) to the cross - I bow from the waist to venerate it. I genuflect to Jesus in the tabernacle or the Jesus in the Blesseed Sacrament exposed only. I made this decision when we were encouraged at a parish mission many years ago to genuflect to an inflated globe of the earth to show our respect for God’s creation. No way. You can see how things can get sloppy, I only genuflect before the Real Presence of God.

There are instances where genuflection to the Cross is required. Good Friday is one. The blessing of the Crucifix is another (well, at least in traditional circles).

An inflated globe of the earth is not an image of Christ. Neither was it united with him in a manner so instrumental to our salvation. To ask people to genuflect to it was outright stupid.

But the Cross, as St. Thomas explains clearly, is an image of Christ and the adoration offered this image passes on to him. That’s why the Catholic Church has no problem singing in her liturgy:

“WE **WORSHIP **YOUR CROSS O LORD, AND PROFESS AND GLORIFY YOUR HOLY RESURRECTION BECAUSE THE WOOD OF THE CROSS HAS BROUGHT JOY TO THE WORLD!”

 

[Bookcat]

By the way, I do not genuflect (with either knee) to the cross - I bow from the waist to venerate it. .

The Church actually prescribes that between Good Friday and the Easter Vigil when one passes before that Crucifix used Good Friday – one genuflects.

 

[porthos11]

I find the reasoning employed a little odd (no particular offense to St. Thomas Aquinas). He seems to be saying that inanimate objects that in some way represent a rational creature can be given the same level of ‘worship’ due to that rational creature but this doesn’t apply to other rational creatures who are in some way connected to the rational creature in question.

Does this really mean that while Jesus Christ should be worshipped with latria and the Blessed Virgin Mary be worshipped with hyperdulia, all the inanimate objects relating to Christ (his cross, the Shroud of Turin, icons of Jesus, statues of Jesus, etc.) can be worshipped with latria since the latria is essentially transferred over to Christ?

If so this seems to me like St. Thomas Aquinas is engaging in special pleading. If we can engage in latria over objects that merely touched Our Lord then surely the very womb that “clothed him” can be worshipped with latria as well?

St. Thomas addresses this difference as well (III,25,5). Because the Virgin is herself a rational creature, she capable of being a direct recipient of worship or veneration. On this ground, she does not represent Christ, but only herself (Mary is not an image of Christ). Therefore, latria is forbidden to her.