Summa Theologica Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 42

SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 25, Art. 2]

Whether Christ's Humanity Should Be Adored with the Adoration of _Latria?_

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's soul should not be adored with the adoration of _latria._ For on the words of Ps. 98:5, "Adore His foot-stool for it is holy," a gloss says: "The flesh a.s.sumed by the Word of G.o.d is rightly adored by us: for no one partakes spiritually of His flesh unless he first adore it; but not indeed with the adoration called _latria,_ which is due to the Creator alone." Now the flesh is part of the humanity. Therefore Christ's humanity is not to be adored with the adoration of _latria._

Obj. 2: Further, the wors.h.i.+p of _latria_ is not to be given to any creature: since for this reason were the Gentiles reproved, that they "wors.h.i.+ped and served the creature," as it is written (Rom. 1:25).

But Christ's humanity is a creature. Therefore it should not be adored with the adoration of _latria._

Obj. 3: Further, the adoration of _latria_ is due to G.o.d in recognition of His supreme dominion, according to Deut. 6:13: "Thou shalt adore [Vulg.: 'fear'; cf. Matt. 4:10] the Lord thy G.o.d, and shalt serve Him only." But Christ as man is less than the Father.

Therefore His humanity is not to be adored with the adoration of _latria._

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 3): "On account of the incarnation of the Divine Word, we adore the flesh of Christ not for its own sake, but because the Word of G.o.d is united thereto in person." And on Ps. 98:5, "Adore His foot-stool," a gloss says: "He who adores the body of Christ, regards not the earth, but rather Him whose foot-stool it is, in Whose honor he adores the foot-stool."

But the incarnate Word is adored with the adoration of _latria._ Therefore also His body or His humanity.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1) adoration is due to the subsisting hypostasis: yet the reason for honoring may be something non-subsistent, on account of which the person, in whom it is, is honored. And so the adoration of Christ's humanity may be understood in two ways. First, so that the humanity is the thing adored: and thus to adore the flesh of Christ is nothing else than to adore the incarnate Word of G.o.d: just as to adore a King's robe is nothing else than to adore a robed King. And in this sense the adoration of Christ's humanity is the adoration of _latria._ Secondly, the adoration of Christ's humanity may be taken as given by reason of its being perfected with every gift of grace. And so in this sense the adoration of Christ's humanity is the adoration not of _latria_ but of _dulia._ So that one and the same Person of Christ is adored with _latria_ on account of His Divinity, and with _dulia_ on account of His perfect humanity.

Nor is this unfitting. For the honor of _latria_ is due to G.o.d the Father Himself on account of His G.o.dhead; and the honor of _dulia_ on account of the dominion by which He rules over creatures. Wherefore on Ps. 7:1, "O Lord my G.o.d, in Thee have I hoped," a gloss says: "Lord of all by power, to Whom _dulia_ is due: G.o.d of all by creation, to Whom _latria_ is due."

Reply Obj. 1: That gloss is not to be understood as though the flesh of Christ were adored separately from its G.o.dhead: for this could happen only, if there were one hypostasis of G.o.d, and another of man.

But since, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 3): "If by a subtle distinction you divide what is seen from what is understood, it cannot be adored because it is a creature"--that is, with adoration of _latria._ And then thus understood as distinct from the Word of G.o.d, it should be adored with the adoration of _dulia_; not any kind of _dulia,_ such as is given to other creatures, but with a certain higher adoration, which is called _hyperdulia._

Hence appear the answers to the second and third objections. Because the adoration of _latria_ is not given to Christ's humanity in respect of itself; but in respect of the G.o.dhead to which it is united, by reason of which Christ is not less than the Father.

_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 25, Art. 3]

Whether the Image of Christ Should Be Adored with the Adoration of _Latria_?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's image should not be adored with the adoration of _latria._ For it is written (Ex. 20:4): "Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of anything." But no adoration should be given against the commandment of G.o.d. Therefore Christ's image should not be adored with the adoration of _latria._

Obj. 2: Further, we should have nothing in common with the works of the Gentiles, as the Apostle says (Eph. 5:11). But the Gentiles are reproached princ.i.p.ally for that "they changed the glory of the incorruptible G.o.d into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man," as is written (Rom. 1:23). Therefore Christ's image is not to be adored with the adoration of _latria._

Obj. 3: Further, to Christ the adoration of _latria_ is due by reason of His G.o.dhead, not of His humanity. But the adoration of _latria_ is not due to the image of His G.o.dhead, which is imprinted on the rational soul. Much less, therefore, is it due to the material image which represents the humanity of Christ Himself.

Obj. 4: Further, it seems that nothing should be done in the Divine wors.h.i.+p that is not inst.i.tuted by G.o.d; wherefore the Apostle (1 Cor.

11:23) when about to lay down the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Church, says: "I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you." But Scripture does not lay down anything concerning the adoration of images. Therefore Christ's image is not to be adored with the adoration of _latria._

_On the contrary,_ Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv, 16) quotes Basil as saying: "The honor given to an image reaches to the prototype," i.e.

the exemplar. But the exemplar itself--namely, Christ--is to be adored with the adoration of _latria_; therefore also His image.

_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher says (De Memor. et Remin. i), there is a twofold movement of the mind towards an image: one indeed towards the image itself as a certain thing; another, towards the image in so far as it is the image of something else. And between these movements there is this difference; that the former, by which one is moved towards an image as a certain thing, is different from the movement towards the thing: whereas the latter movement, which is towards the image as an image, is one and the same as that which is towards the thing. Thus therefore we must say that no reverence is shown to Christ's image, as a thing--for instance, carved or painted wood: because reverence is not due save to a rational creature. It follow therefore that reverence should be shown to it, in so far only as it is an image. Consequently the same reverence should be shown to Christ's image as to Christ Himself. Since, therefore, Christ is adored with the adoration of _latria,_ it follows that His image should be adored with the adoration of _latria._

Reply Obj. 1: This commandment does not forbid the making of any graven thing or likeness, but the making thereof for the purpose of adoration, wherefore it is added: "Thou shalt not adore them nor serve them." And because, as stated above, the movement towards the image is the same as the movement towards the thing, adoration thereof is forbidden in the same way as adoration of the thing whose image it is. Wherefore in the pa.s.sage quoted we are to understand the prohibition to adore those images which the Gentiles made for the purpose of venerating their own G.o.ds, i.e. the demons, and so it is premised: "Thou shalt not have strange G.o.ds before Me." But no corporeal image could be raised to the true G.o.d Himself, since He is incorporeal; because, as Damascene observes (De Fide Orth. iv, 16): "It is the highest absurdity and impiety to fas.h.i.+on a figure of what is Divine." But because in the New Testament G.o.d was made man, He can be adored in His corporeal image.

Reply Obj. 2: The Apostle forbids us to have anything in common with the "unfruitful works" of the Gentiles, but not with their useful works. Now the adoration of images must be numbered among the unfruitful works in two respects. First, because some of the Gentiles used to adore the images themselves, as things, believing that there was something Divine therein, on account of the answers which the demons used to give in them, and on account of other such like wonderful effects. Secondly on account of the things of which they were images; for they set up images to certain creatures, to whom in these images they gave the veneration of _latria._ Whereas we give the adoration of _latria_ to the image of Christ, Who is true G.o.d, not for the sake of the image, but for the sake of the thing whose image it is, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 3: Reverence is due to the rational creature for its own sake. Consequently, if the adoration of _latria_ were shown to the rational creature in which this image is, there might be an occasion of error--namely, lest the movement of adoration might stop short at the man, as a thing, and not be carried on to G.o.d, Whose image he is.

This cannot happen in the case of a graven or painted image in insensible material.

Reply Obj. 4: The Apostles, led by the inward instinct of the Holy Ghost, handed down to the churches certain instructions which they did not put in writing, but which have been ordained, in accordance with the observance of the Church as practiced by the faithful as time went on. Wherefore the Apostle says (2 Thess. 2:14): "Stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word"--that is by word of mouth--"or by our epistle"--that is by word put into writing. Among these traditions is the wors.h.i.+p of Christ's image. Wherefore it is said that Blessed Luke painted the image of Christ, which is in Rome.

_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 25, Art. 4]

Whether Christ's Cross Should Be Wors.h.i.+pped with the Adoration of _Latria_?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's cross should not be wors.h.i.+ped with the adoration of _latria._ For no dutiful son honors that which dishonors his father, as the scourge with which he was scourged, or the gibbet on which he was hanged; rather does he abhor it. Now Christ underwent the most shameful death on the cross; according to Wis. 2:20: "Let us condemn Him to a most shameful death." Therefore we should not venerate the cross but rather we should abhor it.

Obj. 2: Further, Christ's humanity is wors.h.i.+ped with the adoration of _latria,_ inasmuch as it is united to the Son of G.o.d in Person. But this cannot be said of the cross. Therefore Christ's cross should not be wors.h.i.+ped with the adoration of _latria._

Obj. 3: Further, as Christ's cross was the instrument of His pa.s.sion and death, so were also many other things, for instance, the nails, the crown, the lance; yet to these we do not show the wors.h.i.+p of _latria._ It seems, therefore, that Christ's cross should not be wors.h.i.+ped with the adoration of _latria._

_On the contrary,_ We show the wors.h.i.+p of _latria_ to that in which we place our hope of salvation. But we place our hope in Christ's cross, for the Church sings:

"Dear Cross, best hope o'er all beside, That cheers the solemn pa.s.sion-tide: Give to the just increase of grace, Give to each contrite sinner peace."

[*Hymn Vexilla Regis: translation of Father Aylward, O.P.]

Therefore Christ's cross should be wors.h.i.+ped with the adoration of _latria._

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), honor or reverence is due to a rational creature only; while to an insensible creature, no honor or reverence is due save by reason of a rational nature. And this in two ways. First, inasmuch as it represents a rational nature: secondly, inasmuch as it is united to it in any way whatsoever. In the first way men are wont to venerate the king's image; in the second way, his robe. And both are venerated by men with the same veneration as they show to the king.

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 wors.h.i.+ped 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 wors.h.i.+p with the adoration of _latria,_ as stated above (A. 3).

Reply Obj. 1: If in Christ's cross we consider the point of view and intention of those who did not believe in Him, it will appear as His shame: but if we consider its effect, which is our salvation, it will appear as endowed with Divine power, by which it triumphed over the enemy, according to Col. 2:14, 15: "He hath taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross, and despoiling the princ.i.p.alities and powers, He hath exposed them confidently, in open show, triumphing over them in Himself." Wherefore the Apostle says (1 Cor. 1:18): "The Word of the cross to them indeed that perish is foolishness; but to them that are saved--that is, to us--it is the power of G.o.d."

Reply Obj. 2: Although Christ's cross was not united to the Word of G.o.d in Person, yet it was united to Him in some other way, viz. by representation and contact. And for this sole reason reverence is shown to it.

Reply Obj. 3: By reason of the contact of Christ's limbs we wors.h.i.+p not only the cross, but all that belongs to Christ. Wherefore Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 11): "The precious wood, as having been sanctified by the contact of His holy body and blood, should be meetly wors.h.i.+ped; as also His nails, His lance, and His sacred dwelling-places, such as the manger, the cave and so forth." Yet these very things do not represent Christ's image as the cross does, which is called "the Sign of the Son of Man" that "will appear in heaven," as it is written (Matt. 24:30). Wherefore the angel said to the women (Mk. 16:6): "You seek Jesus of Nazareth, Who was crucified": he said not "pierced," but "crucified." For this reason we wors.h.i.+p the image of Christ's cross in any material, but not the image of the nails or of any such thing.

_______________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 25, Art. 5]

Whether the Mother of G.o.d Should Be Wors.h.i.+pped with the Adoration of _Latria_?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Mother of G.o.d is to be wors.h.i.+ped with the adoration of _latria._ For it seems that the same honor is due to the king's mother as to the king: whence it is written (3 Kings 2:19) that "a throne was set for the king's mother, and she sat on His right hand." Moreover, Augustine [*Sermon on the a.s.sumption, work of an anonymous author] says: "It is right that the throne of G.o.d, the resting-place of the Lord of Heaven, the abode of Christ, should be there where He is Himself." But Christ is wors.h.i.+ped with the adoration of _latria._ Therefore His Mother also should be.

Obj. 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 16): "The honor of the Mother reflects on the Son." But the Son is wors.h.i.+ped with the adoration of _latria._ Therefore the Mother also.

Obj. 3: Further, Christ's Mother is more akin to Him than the cross.

But the cross is wors.h.i.+ped with the adoration of _latria._ Therefore also His Mother is to be wors.h.i.+ped with the same adoration.

_On the contrary,_ The Mother of G.o.d is a mere creature. Therefore the wors.h.i.+p of _latria_ is not due to her.

_I answer that,_ Since _latria_ is due to G.o.d alone, it is not due to a creature so far as we venerate a creature for its own sake. For though insensible creatures are not capable of being venerated for their own sake, yet the rational creature is capable of being venerated for its own sake. Consequently the wors.h.i.+p of _latria_ is not due to any mere rational creature for its own sake. Since, therefore, the Blessed Virgin is a mere rational creature, the wors.h.i.+p of _latria_ is not due to her, but only that of _dulia_: but in a higher degree than to other creatures, inasmuch as she is the Mother of G.o.d. For this reason we say that not any kind of _dulia_ is due to her, but _hyperdulia._

Reply Obj. 1: The honor due to the king's mother is not equal to the honor which is due to the king: but is somewhat like it, by reason of a certain excellence on her part. This is what is meant by the authorities quoted.

Reply Obj. 2: The honor given to the Mother reflects on her Son, because the Mother is to be honored for her Son's sake. But not in the same way as honor given to an image reflects on its exemplar: because the image itself, considered as a thing, is not to be venerated in any way at all.