Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 25 [ << | >> ]
Deinde considerandum est de his quae pertinent ad Christum in comparatione ad nos.
|
We have now to consider things pertaining to Christ in reference to us; and
|
| Circa primum quaeruntur sex. | Under the first head there are six points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum una et eadem adoratione sit adoranda divinitas Christi et eius humanitas. |
(1) Whether Christ's Godhead and humanity are to be adored with one and the same adoration? |
| Secundo, utrum caro eius sit adoranda adoratione latriae. | (2) Whether His flesh is to be adored with the adoration of "latria"? |
| Tertio, utrum adoratio latriae sit exhibenda imagini Christi. |
(3) Whether the adoration of "latria" is to be given to the image of Christ? |
| Quarto, utrum sit exhibenda cruci Christi. | (4) Whether "latria" is to be given to the Cross of Christ? |
| Quinto, utrum sit exhibenda matri eius. | (5) Whether to His Mother? |
| Sexto, de adoratione reliquiarum sanctorum. | (6) Concerning the adoration of the relics of Saints. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 25 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non eadem adoratione adoranda sit humanitas Christi et eius divinitas. Divinitas enim Christi est adoranda, quae est communis patri et filio, unde dicitur Ioan. V, omnes honorificent filium sicut honorificant patrem. Sed humanitas Christi non est communis ei et patri. Ergo non eadem adoratione adoranda est humanitas Christi et eius divinitas. |
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's humanity and Godhead are not to be adored with the same adoration. For Christ's Godhead is to be adored, as being common to Father and Son; wherefore it is written (Jn. 5:23): "That all may honor the Son, as they honor the Father." But Christ's humanity is not common to Him and the Father. Therefore Christ's humanity and Godhead are not to be adored with the same adoration. |
| Praeterea, honor est proprie praemium virtutis, ut philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic. Meretur autem virtus praemium suum per actum. Cum igitur in Christo sit alia operatio divinae et humanae naturae, ut supra habitum est, videtur quod alio honore sit adoranda humanitas Christi, et alio eius divinitas. |
Objection 2: Further, honor is properly "the reward of virtue," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 3). But virtue merits its reward by action. Since, therefore, in Christ the action of the Divine Nature is distinct from that of the human nature, as stated above (Question [19], Article [1]), it seems that Christ's humanity is to be adored with a different adoration from that which is given to His Godhead. |
| Praeterea, anima Christi, si non esset verbo unita, esset veneranda propter excellentiam sapientiae et gratiae quam habet. Sed nihil dignitatis est ei subtractum per hoc quod est unita verbo. Ergo natura humana est quadam propria veneratione adoranda, praeter venerationem quae exhibetur divinitati ipsius. | Objection 3: Further, if the soul of Christ were not united to the Word, it would have been worthy of veneration on account of the excellence of its wisdom and grace. But by being united to the Word it lost nothing of its worthiness. Therefore His human nature should receive a certain veneration proper thereto, besides the veneration which is given to His Godhead. |
| Sed contra est quod in capitulis quintae synodi sic legitur, si quis in duabus naturis adorari dicit Christum, ex quo duae adorationes introducuntur, sed non una adoratione Deum verbum incarnatum cum propria ipsius carne adorat, sicut ab initio Dei Ecclesiae traditum est, talis anathema sit. | On the contrary, We read in the chapters of the Fifth Council [*Second Council of Constantinople, coll. viii, can. 9]: "If anyone say that Christ is adored in two natures, so as to introduce two distinct adorations, and does not adore God the Word made flesh with the one and the same adoration as His flesh, as the Church has handed down from the beginning; let such a one be anathema." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod in eo qui honoratur, duo possumus considerare, scilicet eum cui honor exhibetur, et causam honoris. Proprie autem honor exhibetur toti rei subsistenti, non enim dicimus quod manus hominis honoretur, sed quod homo honoretur. Et si quandoque contingat quod dicatur honorari manus vel pes alicuius, hoc non dicitur ea ratione quod huiusmodi partes secundum se honorentur, sed quia in istis partibus honoratur totum. Per quem etiam modum aliquis homo potest honorari in aliquo exteriori, puta in veste, aut in imagine, aut in nuntio. | I answer that, We may consider two things in a person to whom honor is given: the person himself, and the cause of his being honored. Now properly speaking honor is given to a subsistent thing in its entirety: for we do not speak of honoring a man's hand, but the man himself. And if at any time it happen that we speak of honoring a man's hand or foot, it is not by reason of these members being honored of themselves: but by reason of the whole being honored in them. In this way a man may be honored even in something external; for instance in his vesture, his image, or his messenger. |
| Causa autem honoris est id ex quo ille qui honoratur habet aliquam excellentiam, nam honor est reverentia alicui exhibita propter sui excellentiam, ut in secunda parte dictum est. Et ideo, si in uno homine sunt plures causae honoris, puta praelatio, scientia et virtus, erit quidem illius hominis unus honor ex parte eius qui honoratur, plures tamen secundum causas honoris, homo enim est qui honoratur et propter scientiam, et propter virtutem. | The cause of honor is that by reason of which the person honored has a certain excellence. for honor is reverence given to something on account of its excellence, as stated in the SS, Question [103], Article [1]. If therefore in one man there are several causes of honor, for instance, rank, knowledge, and virtue, the honor given to him will be one in respect of the person honored, but several in respect of the causes of honor: for it is the man that is honored, both on account of knowledge and by reason of his virtue. |
| Cum igitur in Christo una sit tantum persona divinae et humanae naturae, et etiam una hypostasis et unum suppositum, est quidem una eius adoratio et unus honor ex parte eius qui adoratur, sed ex parte causae qua honoratur, possunt dici esse plures adorationes, ut scilicet alio honore honoretur propter sapientiam increatam, et propter sapientiam creatam. | Since, therefore, in Christ there is but one Person of the Divine and human natures, and one hypostasis, and one suppositum, He is given one adoration and one honor on the part of the Person adored: but on the part of the cause for which He is honored, we can say that there are several adorations, for instance that He receives one honor on account of His uncreated knowledge, and another on account of His created knowledge. |
| Si autem ponerentur in Christo plures personae seu hypostases, sequeretur quod simpliciter essent plures adorationes. Et hoc est quod in synodis reprobatur. Dicitur enim in capitulis Cyrilli, si quis audet dicere assumptum hominem coadorari oportere Deo verbo, quasi alterum alteri, et non magis una adoratione honorificat Emmanuelem, secundum quod factum est caro verbum, anathema sit. | But if it be said that there are several persons or hypostases in Christ, it would follow that there would be, absolutely speaking, several adorations. And this is what is condemned in the Councils. For it is written in the chapters of Cyril [*Council of Ephesus, Part I, ch. 26]: "If anyone dare to say that the man assumed should be adored besides the Divine Word, as though these were distinct persons; and does not rather honor the Emmanuel with one single adoration, inasmuch as the Word was made flesh; let him be anathema." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in Trinitate sunt tres qui honorantur, sed una est causa honoris. In mysterio autem incarnationis est e converso. Et ideo alio modo est unus honor Trinitatis, et alio modo est unus honor Christi. | Reply to Objection 1: In the Trinity there are three Who are honored, but only one cause of honor. In the mystery of the Incarnation it is the reverse: and therefore only one honor is given to the Trinity and only one to Christ, but in a different way. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod operatio non est quae honoratur, sed est ratio honoris. Et ideo per hoc quod in Christo sunt duae operationes, non ostenditur quod sint duae adorationes, sed quod sint duae adorationis causae. | Reply to Objection 2: Operation is not the object but the motive of honor. And therefore there being two operations in Christ proves, not two adorations, but two causes of adoration. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod anima Christi, si non esset unita Dei verbo esset id quod est principalissimum in homine illo. Et ideo sibi praecipue deberetur honor, quia homo est quod est potissimum in eo. Sed quia anima Christi est unita personae digniori, illi personae praecipue debetur honor cui anima Christi unitur. Nec per hoc tamen diminuitur dignitas animae Christi, sed augetur ut supra dictum est. |
Reply to Objection 3: If the soul of Christ were not united to the Word of God, it would be the principal thing in that Man. Wherefore honor would be due to it principally, since man is that which is principal in him [*Cf. Ethic. ix, 8]. But since Christ's soul is united to a Person of greater dignity, to that Person is honor principally due to Whom Christ's soul is united. Nor is the dignity of Christ's soul hereby diminished, but rather increased, as stated above (Question [2], Article [2], ad 2). |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 25 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod humanitas Christi non sit adoranda adoratione latriae. Quia super illud Psalmi, adorate scabellum pedum eius quoniam sanctum est, dicit Glossa, caro a verbo Dei assumpta sine impietate adoratur a nobis, quia nemo spiritualiter carnem eius manducat nisi prius adoret; non illa dico adoratione quae latria est, quae soli creatori debetur. Caro autem est pars humanitatis. Ergo humanitas Christi non est adoranda adoratione latriae. | 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 assumed by the Word of God 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." |
| Praeterea, cultus latriae nulli creaturae debetur, ex hoc enim reprobantur gentiles quod coluerunt et servierunt creaturae, ut dicitur Rom. I. Sed humanitas Christi est creatura. Ergo non est adoranda adoratione latriae. |
Objection 2: Further, the worship of "latria" is not to be given to any creature: since for this reason were the Gentiles reproved, that they "worshiped and served the creature," as it is written (Rm. 1:25). But Christ's humanity is a creature. Therefore it should not be adored with the adoration of "latria." |
| Praeterea, adoratio latriae debetur Deo in recognitionem maximi dominii, secundum illud Deut. VI, dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et illi soli servies. Sed Christus, secundum quod homo, est minor patre. Ergo humanitas eius non est adoratione latriae adoranda. | Objection 3: Further, the adoration of "latria" is due to God in recognition of His supreme dominion, according to Dt. 6:13: "Thou shalt adore [Vulg.: 'fear'; cf. Mt. 4:10] the Lord thy God, 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." |
| Sed contra est quod Damascenus dicit, in IV libro, adoratur autem caro Christi, incarnato Deo verbo, non propter seipsam, sed propter unitum ei secundum hypostasim verbum Dei. Et super illud Psalmi, adorate scabellum pedum eius, dicit Glossa, qui adorat corpus Christi, non terram intuetur, sed illum potius cuius scabellum est, in cuius honore scabellum adorat. Sed verbum incarnatum adoratur adoratione latriae. Ergo etiam corpus eius, sive eius humanitas. | 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 God 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. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, honor adorationis debetur hypostasi subsistenti, tamen ratio honoris potest esse aliquid non subsistens, propter quod honoratur persona cui illud inest. Adoratio igitur humanitatis Christi dupliciter potest intelligi. Uno modo, ut sit eius sicut rei adoratae. Et sic adorare carnem Christi nihil est aliud quam adorare verbum Dei incarnatum, sicut adorare vestem regis nihil est aliud quam adorare regem vestitum. Et secundum hoc, adoratio humanitatis Christi est adoratio latriae. Alio modo potest intelligi adoratio humanitatis Christi quae fit ratione humanitatis Christi perfectae omni munere gratiarum. Et sic adoratio humanitatis Christi non est adoratio latriae, sed adoratio duliae. Ita scilicet quod una et eadem persona Christi adoretur adoratione latriae propter suam divinitatem et adoratione duliae propter perfectionem humanitatis. |
I answer that, As stated above (Article [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 God: 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. |
| Nec hoc est inconveniens. Quia ipsi Deo patri debetur honor latriae propter divinitatem, et honor duliae propter dominium quo creaturas gubernat. Unde super illud Psalmi, domine Deus meus in te speravi, dicit Glossa, domine omnium per potentiam, cui debetur dulia. Deus omnium per creationem, cui debetur latria. | Nor is this unfitting. For the honor of "latria" is due to God the Father Himself on account of His Godhead; and the honor of "dulia" on account of the dominion by which He rules over creatures. Wherefore on Ps. 7:1, "O Lord my God, in Thee have I hoped," a gloss says: "Lord of all by power, to Whom 'dulia' is due: God of all by creation, to Whom 'latria' is due." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Glossa illa non est sic intelligenda quasi seorsum adoretur caro Christi ab eius divinitate, hoc enim posset contingere solum hoc modo, si esset alia hypostasis Dei et hominis. Sed quia, ut dicit Damascenus, si dividas subtilibus intelligentiis quod videtur ab eo quod intelligitur, inadorabilis est ut creatura, scilicet adoratione latriae. Et tunc sic intellectae ut separatae a Dei verbo, debetur sibi adoratio duliae, non cuiuscumque, puta quae communiter exhibetur aliis creaturis; sed quadam excellentiori, quam hyperduliam vocant. | Reply to Objection 1: That gloss is not to be understood as though the flesh of Christ were adored separately from its Godhead: for this could happen only, if there were one hypostasis of God, 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 God, 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." |
| Et per hoc etiam patet responsio ad secundum et tertium. Quia adoratio latriae non exhibetur humanitati Christi ratione sui ipsius, sed ratione divinitatis cui unitur, secundum quam Christus non est minor patre. | 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 Godhead to which it is united, by reason of which Christ is not less than the Father. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 25 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3 [ << | >> ]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod imago Christi non sit adoranda adoratione latriae. Dicitur enim Exod. XX, non facies tibi sculptile, neque omnem similitudinem. Sed nulla adoratio est facienda contra Dei praeceptum. Ergo imago Christi non est adoranda adoratione latriae. |
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 God. Therefore Christ's image should not be adored with the adoration of "latria." |
| Praeterea, operibus gentilium non debemus communicare, ut apostolus dicit, Ephes. V. Sed gentiles de hoc praecipue inculpantur, quia commutaverunt gloriam incorruptibilis Dei in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis, ut dicitur Rom. I. Ergo imago Christi non est adoranda adoratione latriae. |
Objection 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 principally for that "they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man," as is written (Rm. 1:23). Therefore Christ's image is not to be adored with the adoration of "latria." |
| Praeterea, Christo debetur adoratio latriae ratione divinitatis, non ratione humanitatis. Sed imagini divinitatis eius, quae animae rationali est impressa, non debetur adoratio latriae. Ergo multo minus imagini corporali, quae repraesentat humanitatem ipsius Christi. | Objection 3: Further, to Christ the adoration of "latria" is due by reason of His Godhead, not of His humanity. But the adoration of "latria" is not due to the image of His Godhead, which is imprinted on the rational soul. Much less, therefore, is it due to the material image which represents the humanity of Christ Himself. |
| Praeterea, nihil videtur in cultu divino faciendum nisi quod est a Deo institutum, unde et apostolus, I Cor. XI, traditurus doctrinam de sacrificio Ecclesiae, dicit, ego accepi a domino quod et tradidi vobis. Sed nulla traditio in Scriptura invenitur de adorandis imaginibus. Ergo imago Christi non est adoratione latriae adoranda. |
Objection 4: Further, it seems that nothing should be done in the Divine worship that is not instituted by God; 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." |
| Sed contra est quod Damascenus inducit Basilium dicentem, imaginis honor ad prototypum pervenit, idest exemplar. Sed ipsum exemplar, scilicet Christus, est adorandus adoratione latriae. Ergo et eius imago. | 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. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in libro de Mem. et Remin., duplex est motus animae in imaginem, unus quidem in imaginem ipsam secundum quod est res quaedam; alio modo, in imaginem inquantum est imago alterius. Et inter hos motus est haec differentia, quia primus motus, quo quis movetur in imaginem prout est res quaedam, est alius a motu qui est in rem, secundus autem motus, qui est in imaginem inquantum est imago, est unus et idem cum illo qui est in rem. Sic igitur dicendum est quod imagini Christi inquantum est res quaedam, puta lignum sculptum vel pictum, nulla reverentia exhibetur, quia reverentia debetur non nisi rationali naturae. Relinquitur ergo quod exhibeatur ei reverentia solum inquantum est imago. Et sic sequitur quod eadem reverentia exhibeatur imagini Christi et ipsi Christo. Cum igitur Christus adoretur adoratione latriae, consequens est quod eius imago sit adoratione latriae adoranda. | 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." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non prohibetur illo praecepto facere quamcumque sculpturam vel similitudinem, sed facere ad adorandum, unde subdit non adorabis ea neque coles. Et quia, sicut dictum est, idem est motus in imaginem et in rem, eo modo prohibetur adoratio quo prohibetur adoratio rei cuius est imago. Unde ibi intelligitur prohiberi adoratio imaginum quas gentiles faciebant in venerationem deorum suorum, idest Daemonum, ideoque praemittitur, non habebis deos alienos coram me. Ipsi autem Deo vero, cum sit incorporeus, nulla imago corporalis poterat poni, quia, ut Damascenus dicit, insipientiae summae est et impietatis figurare quod est divinum. Sed quia in novo testamento Deus factus est homo, potest in sua imagine corporali adorari. | Reply to Objection 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 passage quoted we are to understand the prohibition to adore those images which the Gentiles made for the purpose of venerating their own gods, i.e. the demons, and so it is premised: "Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me." But no corporeal image could be raised to the true God Himself, since He is incorporeal; because, as Damascene observes (De Fide Orth. iv, 16): "It is the highest absurdity and impiety to fashion a figure of what is Divine." But because in the New Testament God was made man, He can be adored in His corporeal image. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod apostolus prohibet communicare operibus infructuosis gentilium, communicare autem eorum utilibus operibus apostolus non prohibet. Adoratio autem imaginum est inter infructuosa opera computanda quantum ad duo. Primo quidem, quantum ad hoc quod quidam eorum adorabant ipsas imagines ut res quasdam, credentes in eis aliquid numinis esse, propter responsa quae Daemones in eis dabant, et alios mirabiles huiusmodi effectus. Secundo, propter res quarum erant imagines, statuebant enim imagines aliquibus creaturis, quas in eis veneratione latriae venerabantur. Nos autem adoramus adoratione latriae imaginem Christi, qui est verus Deus, non propter ipsam imaginem, sed propter rem cuius imago est, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 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 God, not for the sake of the image, but for the sake of the thing whose image it is, as stated above. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod creaturae rationali debetur reverentia propter seipsam. Et ideo, si creaturae rationali, in qua est imago, exhiberetur adoratio latriae posset esse erroris occasio, ut scilicet motus adorantis in homine sisteret inquantum est res quaedam, et non ferretur in Deum, cuius est imago. Quod non potest contingere de imagine sculpta vel picta in materia insensibili. | Reply to Objection 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 God, Whose image he is. This cannot happen in the case of a graven or painted image in insensible material. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod apostoli, familiari instinctu spiritus sancti, quaedam Ecclesiis tradiderunt servanda quae non reliquerunt in scriptis, sed in observatione Ecclesiae per successionem fidelium sunt ordinata. Unde ipse dicit, II Thess. II, state, et tenete traditiones quas didicistis, sive per sermonem, scilicet ab ore prolatum, sive per epistolam, scilicet scripto transmissam. Et inter huiusmodi traditiones est imaginum Christi adoratio. Unde et beatus Lucas dicitur depinxisse imaginem Christi, quae Romae habetur. |
Reply to Objection 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 worship of Christ's image. Wherefore it is said that Blessed Luke painted the image of Christ, which is in Rome. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 25 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod crux Christi non sit adoranda adoratione latriae. Nullus enim pius filius veneratur contumeliam patris sui, puta flagellum quo flagellatus est, vel lignum in quo erat suspensus, sed magis illud abhorret. Christus autem in ligno crucis est opprobriosissimam mortem passus, secundum illud Sap. II, morte turpissima condemnemus eum. Ergo non debemus crucem venerari, sed magis abhorrere. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's cross should not be worshiped 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. |
| Praeterea, humanitas Christi adoratione latriae adoratur inquantum est unita filio Dei in persona. Quod de cruce dici non potest. Ergo crux Christi non est adoranda adoratione latriae. | Objection 2: Further, Christ's humanity is worshiped with the adoration of "latria," inasmuch as it is united to the Son of God in Person. But this cannot be said of the cross. Therefore Christ's cross should not be worshiped with the adoration of "latria." |
| Praeterea, sicut crux Christi fuit instrumentum passionis eius et mortis, ita etiam et multa alia, puta clavi, corona et lancea, quibus tamen non exhibemus latriae cultum. Ergo videtur quod crux Christi non sit adoratione latriae adoranda. | Objection 3: Further, as Christ's cross was the instrument of His passion and death, so were also many other things, for instance, the nails, the crown, the lance; yet to these we do not show the worship of "latria." It seems, therefore, that Christ's cross should not be worshiped with the adoration of "latria." |
Sed contra, illi exhibemus adorationem latriae in quo ponimus spem salutis. Sed in cruce Christi ponimus spem, cantat enim Ecclesia,
|
On the contrary, We show the worship 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:
|
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, honor seu reverentia non debetur nisi rationali creaturae, creaturae autem insensibili non debetur honor vel reverentia nisi ratione naturae rationalis. Et hoc dupliciter, uno modo, inquantum repraesentat naturam rationalem; alio modo, inquantum ei quocumque modo coniungitur. Primo modo consueverunt homines venerari regis imaginem, secundo modo, eius vestimentum. Utrumque autem venerantur homines eadem veneratione qua venerantur et regem. |
I answer that, As stated above (Article [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. |
| Si ergo loquamur de ipsa cruce in qua Christus crucifixus est, utroque modo est a nobis veneranda, uno modo scilicet inquantum repraesentat nobis figuram Christi extensi in ea; alio modo, ex contactu ad membra Christi, et ex hoc quod eius sanguine est perfusa. Unde utroque modo adoratur eadem adoratione cum Christo, scilicet adoratione latriae. Et propter hoc etiam crucem alloquimur et deprecamur, quasi ipsum crucifixum. Si vero loquamur de effigie crucis Christi in quacumque alia materia, puta lapidis vel ligni, argenti vel auri, sic veneramur crucem tantum ut imaginem Christi, quam veneramur adoratione latriae, ut supra dictum est. |
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]). |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in cruce Christi, quantum ad opinionem vel intentionem infidelium, consideratur opprobrium Christi, sed quantum ad effectum nostrae salutis, consideratur virtus divina ipsius, qua de hostibus triumphavit, secundum illud Coloss. II, ipsum tulit de medio, affigens illud cruci, et spolians principatus et potestates, traduxit confidenter, palam triumphans illos in semetipso. Et ideo dicit apostolus, I Cor. I, verbum crucis pereuntibus quidem stultitia est, his autem qui salvi fiunt, idest nobis, virtus Dei est. |
Reply to Objection 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 principalities 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 God." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod crux Christi, licet non fuerit unita verbo Dei in persona, fuit tamen ei unita aliquo alio modo, scilicet per repraesentationem et contactum. Et hac sola ratione exhibetur ei reverentia. | Reply to Objection 2: Although Christ's cross was not united to the Word of God 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. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, quantum ad rationem contactus membrorum Christi, adoramus non solum crucem, sed etiam omnia quae sunt Christi. Unde Damascenus dicit, in IV libro, pretiosum lignum, ut sanctificatum contactu sancti corporis et sanguinis, decenter adorandum; clavos, indumenta, lanceam; et sacra eius tabernacula. Ista tamen non repraesentant imaginem Christi, sicut crux, quae dicitur signum filii hominis, quod apparebit in caelo, ut dicitur Matth. XXIV. Ideoque mulieribus dixit Angelus, Iesum quaeritis Nazarenum crucifixum, non dixit, lanceatum, sed, crucifixum. Et inde est quod imaginem crucis Christi veneramur in quacumque materia, non autem imaginem clavorum, vel quorumcumque huiusmodi. |
Reply to Objection 3: By reason of the contact of Christ's limbs we worship 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 worshiped; 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 (Mt. 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 worship the image of Christ's cross in any material, but not the image of the nails or of any such thing. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 25 [ << | >> ]
Article: 5 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod mater Dei sit adoranda adoratione latriae. Videtur enim idem honor exhibendus esse matri regis et regi, unde dicitur III Reg. II quod positus est thronus matri regis, quae sedit ad dexteram eius. Et Augustinus dicit, in sermone de Assumpt., thronum Dei, thalamum domini caeli, atque tabernaculum Christi, dignum est ibi esse ubi est ipse. Sed Christus adoratur adoratione latriae. Ergo et mater eius. |
Objection 1: It would seem that the Mother of God is to be worshiped 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 Kgs. 2:19) that "a throne was set for the king's mother, and she sat on His right hand." Moreover, Augustine [*Sermon on the Assumption, work of an anonymous author] says: "It is right that the throne of God, the resting-place of the Lord of Heaven, the abode of Christ, should be there where He is Himself." But Christ is worshiped with the adoration of "latria." Therefore His Mother also should be. |
| Praeterea, Damascenus dicit, in IV libro, quod honor matris refertur ad filium. Sed filius adoratur adoratione latriae. Ergo et mater. | Objection 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 16): "The honor of the Mother reflects on the Son." But the Son is worshiped with the adoration of "latria." Therefore the Mother also. |
| Praeterea, coniunctior est Christo mater eius quam crux. Sed crux adoratur adoratione latriae. Ergo et mater eadem adoratione est adoranda. | Objection 3: Further, Christ's Mother is more akin to Him than the cross. But the cross is worshiped with the adoration of "latria." Therefore also His Mother is to be worshiped with the same adoration. |
| Sed contra est quod mater Dei est pura creatura. Non ergo ei debetur adoratio latriae. | On the contrary, The Mother of God is a mere creature. Therefore the worship of "latria" is not due to her. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, quia latria soli Deo debetur, non debetur creaturae prout creaturam secundum se veneramur. Licet autem creaturae insensibiles non sint capaces venerationis secundum seipsas, creatura tamen rationalis est capax venerationis secundum seipsam. Et ideo nulli purae creaturae rationali debetur cultus latriae. Cum ergo beata virgo sit pure creatura rationalis, non debetur ei adoratio latriae, sed solum veneratio duliae, eminentius tamen quam ceteris creaturis, inquantum ipsa est mater Dei. Et ideo dicitur quod debetur ei, non qualiscumque dulia, sed hyperdulia. | I answer that, Since "latria" is due to God 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 worship 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 worship 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 God. For this reason we say that not any kind of "dulia" is due to her, but "hyperdulia." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod matri regis non debetur aequalis honor honori qui debetur regi. Debetur tamen ei quidam honor consimilis, ratione cuiusdam excellentiae. Et hoc significant auctoritates inductae. | Reply to Objection 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. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod honor matris refertur ad filium, quia ipsa mater est propter filium honoranda. Non tamen eo modo quo honor imaginis refertur ad exemplar, quia ipsa imago, prout in se consideratur ut res quaedam, nullo modo est veneranda. | Reply to Objection 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. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod crux, prout ipsa in se consideratur, ut dictum est, non est capax honoris. Sed beata virgo est secundum seipsam capax venerationis. Et ideo non est similis ratio. |
Reply to Objection 3: The cross, considered in itself, is not an object of veneration, as stated above (Articles [4],5). But the Blessed Virgin is in herself an object of veneration. Hence there is no comparison. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 25 [ << | >> ]
Article: 6 [ << | >> ]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sanctorum reliquiae nullo modo sint adorandae. Non enim est aliquid faciendum quod possit esse erroris occasio. Sed adorare mortuorum reliquias videtur ad errorem gentilium pertinere, qui mortuis hominibus honorificentiam impendebant. Ergo non sunt sanctorum reliquiae honorandae. | Objection 1: It would seem that the relics of the saints are not to be worshiped at all. For we should avoid doing what may be the occasion of error. But to worship the relics of the dead seems to savor of the error of the Gentiles, who gave honor to dead men. Therefore the relics of the saints are not to be honored. |
| Praeterea, stultum videtur rem insensibilem venerari. Sed sanctorum reliquiae sunt insensibiles. Ergo stultum est eas venerari. | Objection 2: Further, it seems absurd to venerate what is insensible. But the relics of the saints are insensible. Therefore it is absurd to venerate them. |
| Praeterea, corpus mortuum non est eiusdem speciei cum corpore vivo, et per consequens non videtur esse numero idem. Ergo videtur quod post mortem alicuius sancti, corpus eius non sit adorandum. | Objection 3: Further, a dead body is not of the same species as a living body: consequently it does not seem to be identical with it. Therefore, after a saint's death, it seems that his body should not be worshiped. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur in libro de Ecclesiast. Dogmat., sanctorum corpora, et praecipue beatorum martyrum reliquias, ac si Christi membra, sincerissime adoranda (scilicet, credimus). Et postea subdit, si quis contra hanc sententiam velit esse, non Christianus, sed Eunomianus et Vigilantius creditur. | On the contrary, It is written (De Eccles. Dogm. xl): "We believe that the bodies of the saints, above all the relics of the blessed martyrs, as being the members of Christ, should be worshiped in all sincerity": and further on: "If anyone holds a contrary opinion, he is not accounted a Christian, but a follower of Eunomius and Vigilantius." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Civ. Dei, si paterna vestis et anulus, ac si quid huiusmodi est, tanto carius est posteris quanto erga parentes est maior affectus, nullo modo ipsa spernenda sunt corpora, quae utique multo familiarius atque coniunctius quam quaelibet indumenta gestamus, haec enim ad ipsam naturam hominis pertinent. Ex quo patet quod qui habet affectum ad aliquem, etiam ipsa quae de ipso post mortem relinquuntur veneratur, non solum corpus aut partes corporis eius, sed etiam aliqua exteriora, puta vestes et similia. Manifestum est autem quod sanctos Dei in veneratione debemus habere, tanquam membra Christi, Dei filios et amicos, et intercessores, nostros. Et ideo eorum reliquias qualescumque honore congruo in eorum memoriam venerari debemus, et praecipue eorum corpora, quae fuerunt templum spiritus sancti, et organa spiritus sancti in eis habitantis et operantis, et sunt corpori Christi configuranda per gloriam resurrectionis. Unde et ipse Deus huiusmodi reliquias convenienter honorat, in eorum praesentia miracula faciendo. | I answer that, As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 13): "If a father's coat or ring, or anything else of that kind, is so much more cherished by his children, as love for one's parents is greater, in no way are the bodies themselves to be despised, which are much more intimately and closely united to us than any garment; for they belong to man's very nature." It is clear from this that he who has a certain affection for anyone, venerates whatever of his is left after his death, not only his body and the parts thereof, but even external things, such as his clothes, and such like. Now it is manifest that we should show honor to the saints of God, as being members of Christ, the children and friends of God, and our intercessors. Wherefore in memory of them we ought to honor any relics of theirs in a fitting manner: principally their bodies, which were temples, and organs of the Holy Ghost dwelling and operating in them, and are destined to be likened to the body of Christ by the glory of the Resurrection. Hence God Himself fittingly honors such relics by working miracles at their presence. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod haec fuit ratio Vigilantii, cuius verba introducit Hieronymus in libro quem contra eum scripsit, dicentis, prope ritum gentilium videmus sub praetextu religionis introductum, pulvisculum nescio quem in modico vasculo, pretioso linteamine circumdatum, osculantes adorant. Contra quem Hieronymus dicit, in epistola ad Riparium, nos, non dico martyrum reliquias, sed nec solem nec lunam nec Angelos adoramus, scilicet adoratione latriae. Honoramus autem reliquias martyrum, ut eum cuius sunt martyres adoremus, honoramus servos, ut honor servorum redundet ad dominum. Sic ergo honorando reliquias sanctorum non incidimus in errorem gentilium, qui cultum latriae mortuis hominibus exhibebant. | Reply to Objection 1: This was the argument of Vigilantius, whose words are quoted by Jerome in the book he wrote against him (ch. ii) as follows: "We see something like a pagan rite introduced under pretext of religion; they worship with kisses I know not what tiny heap of dust in a mean vase surrounded with precious linen." To him Jerome replies (Ep. ad Ripar. cix): "We do not adore, I will not say the relics of the martyrs, but either the sun or the moon or even the angels"---that is to say, with the worship of "latria." "But we honor the martyrs' relics, so that thereby we give honor to Him Whose martyrs [*The original meaning of the word 'martyr,' i.e. the Greek {martys} is 'a witness'] they are: we honor the servants, that the honor shown to them may reflect on their Master." Consequently, by honoring the martyrs' relics we do not fall into the error of the Gentiles, who gave the worship of "latria" to dead men. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod corpus insensibile non adoramus propter seipsum, sed propter animam, quae ei fuit unita, quae nunc fruitur Deo; et propter Deum, cuius fuerunt ministri. | Reply to Objection 2: We worship that insensible body, not for its own sake, but for the sake of the soul, which was once united thereto, and now enjoys God; and for God's sake, whose ministers the saints were. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod corpus mortuum alicuius sancti non est idem numero quod primo fuerit dum viveret, propter diversitatem formae, quae est anima, est tamen idem identitate materiae, quae est iterum suae formae unienda. | Reply to Objection 3: The dead body of a saint is not identical with that which the saint had during life, on account of the difference of form, viz. the soul: but it is the same by identity of matter, which is destined to be reunited to its form. |