Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 9
Articulus I. De ipsa adoratione per comparationem ad eum cui est exhibenda.
Quaestio I. Utrum cultus latriae sit exhibendus humanitati sive carni Christi.
Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum cultus latriae sit exhibendus humanitati sive carni Christi. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. (Fundamenta.) Primo auctoritate Damasceni1: «Christus est perfectus Deus et perfectus homo, quem adoramus una adoratione cum Patre et Spiritu et incontaminata carne eius»: ergo si persona Christi adoranda est latria, videtur, quod similiter caro eius.
2. Item, super illud Psalmi2: Adorate scabellum pedum eius, quoniam sanctum est; Glossa Augustini: «In Christo terra, id est caro, sine impietate adoratur a nobis, quia nemo carnem eius spiritualiter manducat, nisi prius adoret».
3. Item, eodem timore timetur ignis et ferrum ignitum igne: ergo si magis unita est divinitas carni quam ignis ferro; videtur, quod eadem reverentia sit exhibenda eius humanitati, quae exhibetur divinitati3.
4. Item, eadem adoratione adoratur caro animae unita, qua adoratur ipsa anima: ergo si non minus intime unitur Verbum ipsi carni quam anima, eadem ratione, qua adoratur Verbum, adoratur caro assumta. Sed Verbum adoratur latria: ergo etc.
Sed contra: (Ad oppositum.) 1. Lucae quarto4: Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et illi soli servies; Glossa exponit de servitute cultus latriae: ergo soli Deo est exhibenda, non ergo carni Christi.
2. Item, Augustinus decimo de Civitate Dei5 loquens de Christo: «Cum in forma Dei sacrificium cum Patre sumat, cum quo et unus est Deus; tamen in forma servi maluit sacrificium esse quam sumere». Et ibidem: «Quis sacrificandum censuit nisi ei quem Deum aut scivit, aut putavit, aut finxit»? Igitur humanitati illi non est sacrificandum sive carni Christi: ergo nec ille cultus est ei offerendus, qui offertur Deo.
3. Item, Glossa super illud Psalmi: Adorate scabellum pedum eius: «Caro Christi non est adoranda illa adoratione latriae, quae soli Deo debetur, sed illa dulia, quae dignior est»: ergo etc.
4. Item, humana natura in Christo quantumcumque sit sublimata, non exit terminos creaturae: ergo nec reverentia exhibenda ei debet exire terminos creaturae: si igitur latria est cultus, qui excedit omnes fines creaturae; videtur, quod qui exhibet latriam carni Christi committit idololatriam6.
5. Item, minori minor reverentia est exhibenda et maiori maior secundum rectum ordinem; sed Christus, secundum quod homo, minor est Patre7, et humanitas minor deitate, quantumcumque sit unita: ergo minor reverentia est ei exhibenda. Si ergo latria est reverentia summa, videtur, quod humanitati Christi non sit exhibenda.
6. Item, nullius est adorari adoratione latriae, cuius est adorare; sed humanitatis est adorare ipsam summam Trinitatem: ergo non debet adorari adoratione latriae. Maior probatur per hoc, quod nulli debetur latria, cuius est servire alteri. Minor probatur per hoc, quia eius est adorare, cuius est orare; Christus autem oravit, sicut legitur in diversis Evangeliis8: ergo etc.
### Conclusio. Humana natura Christi, quatenus semper est Verbo unita, semper adoranda est latria.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod caro Christi (Caro Christi tripliciter consideratur.) multipliciter consideratur. Uno modo caro Christi dicitur totus ille homo, iuxta illud quod dicitur Ioannis primo: Verbum caro factum est; et hoc modo, quia ille homo Deus est ratione unius personae, adorandus est adoratione latriae (Conclusio 1). — Alio modo caro consideratur, prout nominat ipsam partem humanitatis per se, non ut unitam; et hoc modo carni sic consideratae non debetur adoratio latriae, sed duliae (Conclusio 2). — Tertio modo consideratur caro quasi medio modo, prout nominat ipsam naturam creatam, prout divinitati unitam; et hoc modo dixerunt quidam, quod est adoranda dulia digniori, quae quidem est hyperdulia (Opinio 1). Et ratio huius est, quia solius Dei est adorari latria; et natura non communicat alteri naturae sua idiomata9. Unde sicut non est dicendum, humanam naturam esse in Christo aeternam, quia est unita aeternae; sic hoc modo dixerunt, quod natura humana non est adoranda latria, quamvis sit unita maiestati summae.
Alii vero dixerunt aliter, quod si consideretur caro et anima, prout unita illi personae, adoranda est adoratione latriae, pro eo quod secus est de exhibitione honoris et proprietatibus aliis (Opinio 2). Honor enim non respicit hanc partem vel illam, sed respicit ipsam personam. Unde quamvis purpura et vestimentum non participet proprietates regis absolutas, communicat tamen in honore et reverentia, sicut dicit Augustinus, et Magister recitat in littera10. Et ideo, quia est una persona in Christo, cui debetur reverentia summa, una adoratione adoranda est, scilicet latria, quantum ad utramque naturam, scilicet Deitatem et humanitatem, sicut eadem adoratione adoratur in uno homine caput et pes (Conclusio 3).
Concedendum est ergo, quod non solum Christus homo adorandus est latria, sed etiam humanitas eius, in quantum est Verbo unita, quamvis, prout per se consideratur, nunquam ei debeatur nisi dulia (Conclusio 4). Et quoniam caro Christi nunquam est separata a Verbo, ideo semper consideranda est ut coniuncta et semper adoranda est latria, licet humanitati ut per se consideratae non debeatur nisi dulia. Et ideo secunda opinio melior est quam prima, et auctoritatibus Sanctorum est magis consona11. — Et ideo concedendae sunt rationes, quae sunt ad partem istam.
(Solutio oppositorum.) 1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod latria est cultus soli Deo debitus; dicendum, quod propter hoc non excluditur humanitas Christi. Sicut enim, cum dicitur: solus Petrus est hic intus, non excluditur manus vel pes eius; sic, cum dicitur: solus Deus est adorandus latria, non excluditur humanitas, quia humana natura et divina in unam concurrunt personam. Unde et haec adoratio non ponit in numerum cum illa.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod carni Christi non est sacrificandum; dicendum, quod verum est per se, sed non, prout est divinitati coniuncta, quia toti Christo sacrificandum est. Et quod dicit Augustinus12, quod «noluit Christus sacrificium sumere, sed offerre»; dicendum, quod hoc non dicit, quod non deberet in carne adorari et ei sacrificari, sed quia voluit vitare occasionem erroris, ne alicui creaturae exhiberetur per se honor divini numinis.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Glossa, quod caro non est adoranda latria; dicendum, quod verbum illud intelligitur de carne Verbi, prout in se nuda consideratione consideratur. Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus13: «Si hominem separaveris a Deo, illi nunquam credo nec servio»; hoc autem non obviat, quin, secundum quod unita est, adoranda sit latria. Unde Damascenus: «Non ut nudam carnem adoramus, sed ut unitam Deitati in unam hypostasim Dei Verbi».
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod creatura non exit terminos creaturae; dicendum, quod verum est ratione sui; et ideo honor ratione sui terminos creaturae non exit; sed quia unitur in una hypostasi Dei Verbi14, cui debetur unicus honor, in quacumque sit natura; hinc est, quod debetur ei latria.
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod minori minor debetur reverentia; dicendum, quod verum est, quando minor et maior sic se habent, quod sunt diversorum honorum susceptibiles; hoc autem est, (Notandum.) quando sunt diversae personae gradu dignitatis distantes; hoc autem in proposito non est reperire, cum una in Christo sit personalitas, et illa attendatur secundum naturam supremam, unica et summa debetur ei reverentia, qualiscumque sit natura; sicut honor unus debetur regi, in qualicumque sit indumento. Honor enim naturam respicit digniorem, et per consequens illud quod adest annexum ei; sicut caro viri sancti honorari debet secundum dignitatem animae, non secundum ignobilitatem propriae naturae.
6. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod Christi est adorare; dicendum, quod secundum quod «oratio est ascensus intellectus in Deum», sic proprie (Notandum.) ad Christum non pertinet, pro eo quod omnia quaecumque voluit, fecit15; etiam Verbum semper praesens habet, per omnia faciens, quaecumque vult anima eius; exemplum tamen orandi et adorandi edit secundum naturam inferiorem in sua oratione; et ideo non sequitur, quod non debeat adorari. Sicut enim ipse baptizat interius, et tamen baptizatus fuit, ut alios informaret; sic oravit et adoravit, ut alios erudiret; quia, sicut vult Damascenus16, in Christo humana natura non tenet naturam ancillae.
Ait enim sic: «Serva est caro, si non est unita Dei Verbo; semel tamen unita secundum hypostasim, qualiter erit ancilla? Unum enim ens Christus non potest esse servus sui ipsius et dominus; cuius ergo erit servus? Patris non, quia quaecumque habet Pater, sunt Filii. Et ita, qui dicunt, ipsum esse servum, distare faciunt unum Christum in duo per modum Nestorii». Et ita ad Christum non pertinet adorare, sed adorari, quia magis competit ei ratio dominii quam servitutis. — (Alia solutio.) Aliter etiam posset dici, quod quamvis esset ipsius adorare, non tamen sequeretur, quod non deberet adhuc adorari adoratione latriae; quia nos, qui debemus adorare, non debemus aspicere ad eius humanitatem, sed ad personae dignitatem. — Et in hoc ultimo consistit summa quaestionis praedictae.
I. Christum, quatenus est hic homo et Verbo in unitate personae unitus, esse adorandum una adoratione latriae, fide constat tum anathematismo 8. S. Cyrilli, a Concilio Ephesino approbato, tum Synodi oecumenicae V. can. 9: «Si quis adorari in duabus naturis dicit Christum, ex quo duae adorationes introducuntur, semotim Deo Verbo et semotim homini; aut si quis ad peremptum (ἀναιρέσει) carnis, aut in confusionem Deitatis et humanitatis unam naturam sive essentiam convenientium portentuose dicens, sic adorat Christum, sed non una adoratione Deum Verbum incarnatum cum eius carne adorat, iuxta quod sanctae Dei Ecclesiae ab initio traditum est, talis a. s.» Accedunt tres theses Synodi Pistoriensis (scilicet 61–63), a Pio VI. per constitutionem Auctorem fidei an. 1794 condemnatae, quibus ista Synodus tum adorationem humanitatis Christi, tum cultum Ss. Cordis Iesu captiose insectabatur asserendo (thesis 61.), adorare directe humanitatem Christi, magis vero aliquam eius partem, fore semper honorem divinum datum creaturae. Quorum verborum censura ita sonat: «Quatenus per hoc verbum directe intendat reprobare adorationis cultum, quem fideles dirigunt ad humanitatem Christi, proinde ac si talis adoratio, qua humanitas ipsaque caro vivifica Christi adoratur, non quidem propter se et tanquam nuda caro, sed prout unita divinitati, foret honor divinus impertitus creaturae, et non potius una eademque adoratio, qua Verbum incarnatum cum propria ipsius carne adoratur; ex Concil. C. P. V. Gen. can. 9. falsa, captiosa, pio ac debito cultui humanitati Christi a fidelibus praestito ac praestando detrahens et iniuriosa». — His definitionibus non tantum conclusiones quaestionis confirmantur, sed etiam distinctiones insinuantur, quae ad intelligendas conclusiones requiruntur. Distinguuntur enim communiter materia (obiectum), circa quam versatur adoratio, et ratio adorandi, atque asseritur, humanitatem Christi esse quidem adorandam in se, sed non propter se et per se (cfr. ultima verba quaestionis). Item distinguuntur id quod primo et per se adoratur (ipsum Verbum incarnatum), atque id quod ut obiectum partiale coadoratur. — Quod autem humanitati per se consideratae, et praescindendo ab unione hypostatica, non conveniat latria, manifestum est; item quod eidem sic consideratae ob excellentiam gratiae et sanctitatis creatae competat dulia, vel potius, ut Matri Christi, hyperdulia, communiter docetur. Sed auctor noster bene addit, hoc non valere nisi theoretice, uti dicunt, non pro praxi (saltem pro cultu publico Ecclesiae), «quoniam caro Christi nunquam est separata a Verbo, ideo semper consideranda est ut coniuncta et semper adoranda est latria, licet humanitati ut per se consideratae non debeatur nisi dulia» (in corp.). — In modo explicandi conclusiones posteriores aliquatenus dissentiunt; v. g. Durand. vult, latriam humanae naturae Christi competere non nisi per accidens, quae locutio aliis merito displicet. Alii pauci cum Suarez distinguunt duplicem latriam, scilicet praeter superiorem etiam inferiorem, quae competat humanitati Christi. — De ratione latriae et duliae cfr. infra a. 2. per totum.
II. Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 30. m. 2. — Scot., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica. — S. Thom., hic a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; S. III. q. 25. a. 1. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 9. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica. — Biel, de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.
---
Article I. On adoration itself by comparison to the one to whom it is to be shown.
Question I. Whether the cult of latria is to be shown to the humanity or flesh of Christ.
On the first point one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether the cult of latria is to be shown to the humanity or flesh of Christ. And that it is, it seems:
1. (Foundations.) First, on the authority of Damascene1: «Christ is perfect God and perfect man, whom we adore with one adoration together with the Father and the Spirit and his uncontaminated flesh»: therefore if the person of Christ is to be adored with latria, it seems that likewise his flesh is.
2. Likewise, on that text of the Psalm2: Adore the footstool of his feet, for it is holy; the Gloss of Augustine: «In Christ the earth, that is, the flesh, is adored by us without impiety, for no one eats his flesh spiritually unless he first adores it».
3. Likewise, with the same fear is feared fire and iron made glowing by fire: therefore if the divinity is more united to the flesh than fire to iron, it seems that the same reverence is to be shown to his humanity which is shown to the divinity3.
4. Likewise, with the same adoration is adored flesh united to a soul with which the soul itself is adored: therefore if the Word is united to the flesh no less intimately than the soul, by the same reason by which the Word is adored, the assumed flesh is adored. But the Word is adored with latria: therefore etc.
On the contrary: (To the opposite.) 1. Luke four4: The Lord thy God thou shalt adore, and him only shalt thou serve; the Gloss expounds this of the servitude of the cult of latria: therefore it is to be shown to God alone, and therefore not to the flesh of Christ.
2. Likewise, Augustine in the tenth book On the City of God5, speaking of Christ: «Since in the form of God he receives sacrifice together with the Father, with whom he is also one God; yet in the form of a servant he preferred to be the sacrifice rather than to receive it». And in the same place: «Who has judged that sacrifice should be made except to him whom one has known, or supposed, or imagined to be God»? Therefore to that humanity, that is, to the flesh of Christ, sacrifice is not to be made: therefore neither is that cult to be offered to it which is offered to God.
3. Likewise, the Gloss on that text of the Psalm: Adore the footstool of his feet: «The flesh of Christ is not to be adored with that adoration of latria which is owed to God alone, but with that dulia which is more worthy»: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, however much the human nature in Christ may be exalted, it does not go beyond the bounds of a creature: therefore neither ought the reverence shown to it to go beyond the bounds of a creature: if therefore latria is a cult which exceeds all the limits of a creature, it seems that whoever shows latria to the flesh of Christ commits idolatry6.
5. Likewise, to the lesser a lesser reverence is to be shown, and to the greater a greater, according to right order; but Christ, according as he is man, is less than the Father7, and the humanity is less than the deity, however much it is united: therefore a lesser reverence is to be shown to it. If therefore latria is the highest reverence, it seems that it is not to be shown to the humanity of Christ.
6. Likewise, it belongs to none to be adored with the adoration of latria whose part it is to adore; but it is the humanity's part to adore the most high Trinity itself: therefore it ought not to be adored with the adoration of latria. The major is proved by this, that latria is owed to none whose part it is to serve another. The minor is proved by this, that it is his part to adore whose part it is to pray; but Christ prayed, as is read in the various Gospels8: therefore etc.
### Conclusion. The human nature of Christ, inasmuch as it is always united to the Word, is always to be adored with latria.
I respond: It must be said that the flesh of Christ (The flesh of Christ is considered in three ways.) is considered in many ways. In one way the flesh of Christ is called that whole man, according to that which is said in John one: The Word was made flesh; and in this way, because that man is God by reason of one person, he is to be adored with the adoration of latria (Conclusion 1). — In another way the flesh is considered as it names the part of the humanity itself in itself, not as united; and in this way to the flesh so considered is owed not the adoration of latria, but of dulia (Conclusion 2). — In a third way the flesh is considered as it were in a middle way, as it names the created nature itself, as united to the divinity; and in this way certain men said that it is to be adored with a more worthy dulia, which indeed is hyperdulia (Opinion 1). And the reason for this is that it belongs to God alone to be adored with latria, and a nature does not communicate to another nature its own idioms9. Hence, just as it is not to be said that the human nature in Christ is eternal because it is united to the eternal, so in this way they said that the human nature is not to be adored with latria, although it is united to the most high majesty.
But others said otherwise, that if the flesh and soul be considered as united to that person, it is to be adored with the adoration of latria, since it is otherwise concerning the showing of honor and the other properties (Opinion 2). For honor does not regard this part or that, but regards the person itself. Hence, although the purple and the garment do not share the absolute properties of the king, nevertheless it shares in honor and reverence, as Augustine says and the Master recounts in the letter10. And therefore, because there is one person in Christ, to whom the highest reverence is owed, it is to be adored with one adoration, namely latria, as regards each nature, namely the Deity and the humanity, just as with the same adoration in one man the head and the foot are adored (Conclusion 3).
It must therefore be conceded that not only is Christ as man to be adored with latria, but also his humanity, inasmuch as it is united to the Word, although, as it is considered in itself, nothing but dulia is ever owed to it (Conclusion 4). And since the flesh of Christ is never separated from the Word, therefore it is always to be considered as conjoined and is always to be adored with latria, although to the humanity as considered in itself nothing but dulia is owed. And therefore the second opinion is better than the first, and is more consonant with the authorities of the Saints11. — And therefore the reasons which are for this side are to be conceded.
(Solution of the opposing arguments.) 1. To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that latria is a cult owed to God alone; it must be said that on this account the humanity of Christ is not excluded. For just as, when it is said: only Peter is in here, his hand or foot is not excluded; so, when it is said: God alone is to be adored with latria, the humanity is not excluded, because the human nature and the divine concur in one person. Hence this adoration too does not count as a number alongside the other.
2. To that which is objected, that to the flesh of Christ sacrifice is not to be made; it must be said that this is true of itself, but not as it is conjoined to the divinity, because to the whole Christ sacrifice is to be made. And as to what Augustine says12, that «Christ willed not to receive sacrifice, but to offer it»; it must be said that he does not say this to mean that he ought not to be adored and have sacrifice made to him in the flesh, but because he willed to avoid the occasion of error, lest to any creature should be shown of itself the honor of the divine majesty.
3. To that which is objected concerning the Gloss, that the flesh is not to be adored with latria; it must be said that that statement is understood of the flesh of the Word as it is considered in itself in a bare consideration. And this is what Augustine says13: «If you separate the man from God, I never believe in him nor serve him»; but this does not stand against the fact that, according as it is united, it is to be adored with latria. Hence Damascene: «We adore it not as bare flesh, but as united to the Deity in one hypostasis of God the Word».
4. To that which is objected, that a creature does not go beyond the bounds of a creature; it must be said that this is true by reason of itself; and therefore honor by reason of itself does not go beyond the bounds of a creature; but because it is united in one hypostasis of God the Word14, to whom a unique honor is owed, in whatever nature it be; hence it is that latria is owed to it.
5. To that which is objected, that to the lesser a lesser reverence is owed; it must be said that this is true when the lesser and the greater are so related that they are susceptible of diverse honors; but this is so (Note.) when they are diverse persons standing apart in grade of dignity; but this is not to be found in the matter at hand, since in Christ there is one personality, and since that is regarded according to the supreme nature, a unique and supreme reverence is owed to it, of whatever nature it be; just as one honor is owed to a king, in whatever garment he be. For honor regards the more worthy nature, and consequently that which is attached to it; just as the flesh of a holy man ought to be honored according to the dignity of the soul, not according to the ignobility of its own nature.
6. To that, however, which is objected, that it is Christ's part to adore; it must be said that according as «prayer is the ascent of the intellect into God», so properly (Note.) it does not pertain to Christ, since whatsoever he willed, he did15; and the Word always has present, accomplishing through all things whatsoever his soul wills; yet he gives an example of praying and adoring according to the lower nature in his prayer; and therefore it does not follow that he ought not to be adored. For just as he himself baptizes inwardly, and yet was baptized, to instruct others; so he prayed and adored, to teach others; because, as Damascene holds16, in Christ the human nature does not hold the nature of a handmaid.
For he speaks thus: «The flesh is a servant if it is not united to God the Word; but once united according to hypostasis, how will it be a handmaid? For Christ, being one being, cannot be the servant and lord of his very self; whose servant then will he be? Not the Father's, because whatever the Father has belongs to the Son. And so those who say that he is a servant make of one Christ a division into two in the manner of Nestorius». And so it does not pertain to Christ to adore, but to be adored, because the character of lordship befits him more than that of servitude. — (Another solution.) It might also be said otherwise that, although it were his part to adore, nevertheless it would not follow that he ought not still to be adored with the adoration of latria; because we who ought to adore ought not to look to his humanity, but to the dignity of the person. — And in this last point consists the summit of the aforesaid question.
I. That Christ, inasmuch as he is this man and is united to the Word in unity of person, is to be adored with one adoration of latria, is held by faith both from the 8th anathematism of St. Cyril, approved by the Council of Ephesus, and from canon 9 of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod: «If anyone says that Christ is adored in two natures, from which two adorations are introduced, separately to God the Word and separately to the man; or if anyone, speaking monstrously of a removal (ἀναιρέσει) of the flesh, or of a confusion of the Deity and humanity coming together into one nature or essence, thus adores Christ, but does not with one adoration adore God the Word incarnate together with his flesh, as has been handed down to the holy Church of God from the beginning, let such a one be anathema». There are added the three theses of the Synod of Pistoia (namely 61–63), condemned by Pius VI through the constitution Auctorem fidei in the year 1794, by which that Synod captiously assailed both the adoration of the humanity of Christ and the cult of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, asserting (thesis 61) that to adore the humanity of Christ directly, and still more some part of it, would always be a divine honor given to a creature. The censure of these words runs thus: «Inasmuch as by this word directly it intends to reprobate the cult of adoration which the faithful direct to the humanity of Christ, as if such adoration, by which the humanity and the very life-giving flesh of Christ is adored, not indeed for itself and as bare flesh, but as united to the divinity, would be a divine honor bestowed on a creature, and not rather one and the same adoration by which the incarnate Word is adored together with his own flesh; from the Fifth General Council of Constantinople, canon 9: false, captious, detracting from and injurious to the pious and due cult shown and to be shown by the faithful to the humanity of Christ». — By these definitions not only are the conclusions of the question confirmed, but also the distinctions are intimated which are required for understanding the conclusions. For there are commonly distinguished the matter (object) about which adoration is concerned, and the ground of adoring, and it is asserted that the humanity of Christ is indeed to be adored in itself, but not for itself and through itself (cf. the last words of the question). Likewise there are distinguished that which is adored first and through itself (the incarnate Word itself), and that which is co-adored as a partial object. — That to the humanity considered in itself, and prescinding from the hypostatic union, latria does not belong, is manifest; likewise that to it so considered, on account of the excellence of its created grace and sanctity, dulia belongs, or rather, as to the Mother of Christ, hyperdulia, is commonly taught. But our author well adds that this holds only theoretically, as they say, not in practice (at least for the public cult of the Church), «because the flesh of Christ is never separated from the Word, therefore it is always to be considered as conjoined and is always to be adored with latria, although to the humanity as considered in itself nothing but dulia is owed» (in the body). — In the manner of explaining the conclusions the later authors dissent somewhat; e.g. Durand holds that latria belongs to the human nature of Christ only per accidens, which manner of speaking rightly displeases others. A few others, with Suarez, distinguish a twofold latria, namely, besides the higher, also a lower, which belongs to the humanity of Christ. — On the ground of latria and dulia cf. below, a. 2, throughout.
II. Alex. of Hales, Summa p. III, q. 30, m. 2. — Scotus, on this and the following questions, here a single question. — St. Thomas, here a. 2, quaestiuncula 1; Summa III, q. 25, a. 1–2. — B. Albert, here a. 9. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2, quaestiuncula 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 2, a. 1. — Durand, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following questions, here a single question. — Biel, on this and the following questions, here a single question.
---
- Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 8. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri.Book III, On the Orthodox Faith, c. 8. Cf. here the letter of the Master.
- Psalm. 98, 5. — In Glossa, ex August. in hunc Ps. n. 9, delibata, et a Strabo Lyranoque ceu ordinaria allata, Vat. pro spiritualiter substituit digne, sed iniuria, siquidem Augustinus loc. cit. (exponit ibi illud verbum Domini apud Ioan. 6, 64: Spiritus est qui vivificat) ait: Verba, quae locutus sum vobis, spiritus est et vita. Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum; non hoc corpus, quod videtis, manducaturi estis... Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi, spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos etc.Psalm 98:5. — In the Gloss, drawn from Augustine on this Psalm n. 9, and adduced by Strabo and Lyranus as the ordinary [gloss], the Vatican edition substitutes digne (worthily) for spiritualiter, but wrongly, since Augustine in the cited place (expounding there that word of the Lord in John 6:64: It is the Spirit that gives life) says: The words that I have spoken to you, that is spirit and life. Understand spiritually what I have spoken; it is not this body that you see that you are going to eat... I have commended to you a certain sacrament; understood spiritually it will give you life, etc.
- Argumentum hoc est secundum Damasc., III. de Fide orthod. c. 8, cuius verba videsis hic in lit. Magistri et d. IV. c. 3.This argument is according to Damascene, Book III On the Orthodox Faith c. 8, whose words you may see here in the letter of the Master and at d. IV, c. 3.
- Vers. 8. — Glossa, quae hic memoratur, est ordinaria et sumta ex Beda, in hunc loc. nec non in Matth. 4. 10, ubi venerabilis ille commentator sic eloquitur: Latria autem vocatur servitus illa, quae soli Divinitatis cultui debita neque ulli est participanda creaturae... Iubemur uni Deo servire, quod est Graece λατρεύειν. Unde dicitur: Et illi soli servies, quod est Graece λατρεύσεις. Cfr. August., l. de Trin. c. 6. n. 13; X. de Civ. Dei, c. 1. n. 2. seq.; contra Serm. Arianor. c. 20. n. 9. et 29. n. 27.; Epist. 170. (alias 66.).Verse 8. — The Gloss here mentioned is the ordinary [gloss], taken from Bede, on this place and also on Matthew 4:10, where that venerable commentator speaks thus: Latria is the name for that service which is owed to the cult of the Divinity alone and is to be shared with no creature... We are commanded to serve one God, which in Greek is λατρεύειν. Hence it is said: And him only shalt thou serve, which in Greek is λατρεύσεις. Cf. Augustine, book On the Trinity c. 6, n. 13; On the City of God X, c. 1, n. 2 ff.; Contra Sermonem Arianorum c. 20, n. 9 and c. 29, n. 27; Epist. 170 (alias 66).
- Cap. 20. — Seq. testimonium invenitur ibid. c. 4. — Cod. A hoc argument. sic terminat: est ei exhibendus, qui exhibetur Deo.Chapter 20. — The following testimony is found in the same book, c. 4. — Codex A ends this argument thus: is to be shown to it which is shown to God.
- August., l. de Trin. c. 6. n. 13: Unde idololatrae dicuntur qui simulacris eam servitutem exhibent, quae debetur Deo [i. e. latria].Augustine, book On the Trinity c. 6, n. 13: Hence those are called idolaters who show to images that service which is owed to God [that is, latria].
- Symb. Athanas.: Minor Patre secundum humanitatem. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 23. n. 13: Honoratur enim homo Christus, sed non sicut Pater Deus. Quare? Quia secundum hoc dixit: Pater maior me est (Ioan. 14, 28.).Athanasian Creed: Less than the Father according to the humanity. Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John tr. 23, n. 13: For Christ as man is honored, but not as God the Father. Why? Because according to this he said: The Father is greater than I (John 14:28).
- Matth., 14, 23; 26, 36. seqq.; Marc. 1, 35; 6, 46; Luc. 5, 16. — Probatio maioris innititur definitione latriae, hic nota 2. allata.Matthew 14:23; 26:36 ff.; Mark 1:35; 6:46; Luke 5:16. — The proof of the major rests on the definition of latria adduced here in note 2.
- Cfr. supra d. 6. a. 1. q. 1. ad 6. — Paulo superius pro est hyperdulia codd. A P Q Z bb dicitur hyperdulia, et deinde post et natura codd. F N (K bb a secunda manu) subiiciunt divina. Post pauca codd. E G H L (K N primitus) T U V aa verbis sic hoc modo praemittunt et.Cf. above, d. 6, a. 1, q. 1, ad 6. — A little above, for est hyperdulia codices A P Q Z bb read dicitur hyperdulia, and then after et natura codices F N (K bb by a second hand) add divina. After a few words codices E G H L (K N originally) T U V aa prefix et to the words sic hoc modo.
- Hic, circa finem. Idem dicunt Epiph., Ancor. c. 51. et Damasc., IV. de Fide orthod. c. 3. — Codd. K U participent... communicant. Pro absolutas edd. absolute.Here, near the end. The same is said by Epiphanius, Ancoratus c. 51, and Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith IV, c. 3. — Codices K U read participent... communicant. For absolutas the editions read absolute.
- Cfr. Athanas., Epist. ad Adelphium episc. n. 3. seqq.; Cyrill., Schol. de incarn. Unigeniti, c. 18; Ambros., III. de Spir. S. c. 11. n. 79.Cf. Athanasius, Letter to Bishop Adelphius n. 3 ff.; Cyril, Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten c. 18; Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit III, c. 11, n. 79.
- Edd. reddunt dictum Augustini secundum textum originalem, ut et supra in ipsa obiectione exhibetur: quia maluit Christus sacrificium esse quam sumere.The editions render Augustine's saying according to the original text, as it is also presented above in the objection itself: because Christ preferred to be the sacrifice rather than to receive it.
- Vide hic lit. Magistri, ubi et sententia Damasceni habetur, quae mox sequitur.See here the letter of the Master, where the saying of Damascene is also found, which follows shortly.
- Edd. Verbo.The editions read of the Word (Verbo).
- Psalm. 113, 3. — Definitio orationis, in qua pro intellectus (νοῦ) edd. substituerunt mentis, sumta est ex Damasc., de Fide orthod. c. 24, ubi etiam de oratione Christi fere idem dicitur atque hic et infra d. 17. a. 2. q. 1. — Subinde pro etiam Verbum codd. F U et etiam Verbum, Vat. cum plurimis codd. et Verbum.Psalm 113:3. — The definition of prayer, in which the editions have substituted mentis (of the mind) for intellectus (νοῦ), is taken from Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith c. 24, where almost the same is said of the prayer of Christ as here and below at d. 17, a. 2, q. 1. — Then for etiam Verbum codices F U read et etiam Verbum, the Vatican edition with most codices et Verbum.
- Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 21. In testimonio allegato post et Dominus tum post sunt Filii plura addita habet. Circa initium testimonii cod. K cum textu origin. pro si non est exhibet si non esset. — Cum ratione a S. Bonav. hic prolata, quare Christus baptizari voluerit, convenit quod August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 4. n. 13, dicit: Et opus erat Domino baptizari? Et ego interrogans cito respondeo: opus erat Domino nasci? opus erat Domino crucifigi?... Et quid profuit, quia suscepit baptismum servi? Ut tu non dedignareris suscipere baptismum Domini etc.Book III, On the Orthodox Faith, c. 21. In the testimony adduced it has several additions, both after and the Lord and after they are the Son's. Near the beginning of the testimony codex K, with the original text, reads si non esset for si non est. — With the reason here brought forward by St. Bonaventure as to why Christ willed to be baptized agrees what Augustine says in Tractates on the Gospel of John tr. 4, n. 13: And was it needful for the Lord to be baptized? And I, questioning, quickly answer: was it needful for the Lord to be born? was it needful for the Lord to be crucified?... And what did it profit, that he received the baptism of a servant? That you might not disdain to receive the baptism of the Lord, etc. ---