← Back to Distinction 9

Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 3

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 9

Textus Latinus
p. 205

Quaestio III. Utrum cultus latriae Matri Christi exhiberi debeat.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum cultus latriae Matri eius debeat exhiberi. Et quod sic, videtur:

(Ad oppositum) 1. Per illud quod dicit Damascenus in capitulo de Imaginibus1: «Honor, qui est ad ipsam, ad eum qui est ex ipsa incarnatus, reducitur»: ergo si honor latriae exhibendus est imagini Christi, quia refertur ad prototypum, pari ratione beatae Virgini honor latriae exhibendus est, cum honor sibi exhibitus ad Filium referatur.

2. Item, ex hoc quod Virgo Maria effecta est mater Dei, est effecta mater omnium creaturarum2: ergo Filius communicat Matri dominium maiestatis: ergo cum latria sit cultus maiestati debitus, pari ratione communicat ei latriae cultum.

3. Item, caro Christi consimilis fuit naturae et consubstantialis carni Virginis; sed Christus secundum humanam naturam adorandus est adoratione latriae3: ergo pari ratione humana natura in Virgine, eius matre.

4. Item, Filius Dei exhibuit reverentiam et honorem ipsi Virgini, sicut suae matri: ergo si subiecit se, vult per consequens, quod unusquisque eidem subiiciatur, et quod honor, qui sibi impenditur, ei impendatur: si ergo huiusmodi est latria, videtur etc.

Sed contra: (Fundamenta) 1. Virgo beata adorat Filium suum adoratione latriae; sed unius et eiusdem secundum eandem naturam non est adorare et adorari4: si ergo in beata Virgine est una tantum natura, videtur, quod ipsa non sit latria adoranda.

2. Item, beata Virgo est pura creatura: ergo non debetur ei honor, nisi qui est inter terminos creaturae; sed iste est honor duliae, non latriae: ergo etc.

3. Item, honor latriae redditur Deo ratione summae maiestatis; sed hanc non est reperire in Virgine: ergo non videtur, quod sit cultu latriae adoranda.

p. 206

4. Item, qui adorat aliquem cultu latriae confitetur, ipsum esse Deum: ergo qui adorat Virginem cultu latriae confitetur, ipsam esse deam5: ergo si hoc est impietatis maximae, videtur, quod etc.

Conclusio

Virgini Mariae non est exhibendus cultus latriae, sed hyperduliae.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod beatissima Virgo Maria pura creatura est; et ideo ad honorem et cultum latriae non ascendit (Conclusio 1). Sed quoniam excellentissimum nomen habet, ita quod excellentius purae creaturae convenire non potest; ideo non tantum debetur ei honor duliae, sed hyperduliae (Conclusio 2). Hoc autem nomen est, quod Virgo existens, Dei Mater est, quod quidem tantae dignitatis est, quod non solum viatores, sed etiam comprehensores, non solum homines, verum etiam Angeli eam6 revereantur quadam praerogativa speciali (Notandum). Ex hoc enim, quod Mater Dei est, praelata est ceteris creaturis, et eam prae ceteris decens est honorari et venerari. Hic autem honor consuevit a magistris hyperdulia vocari. Et accipitur verbum illud de Glossa super primi Regum octavum7, ubi dicitur dulia maior et dulia minor. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes, quod Virgini Mariae non sit exhibendus cultus latriae.

(Solutio oppositorum) 1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod honor Matris refertur ad Filium; dicendum, quod referri honorem ad aliquem est dupliciter: aut sicut ad subiectum, aut sicut ad finem (Distinctio notanda). Honor autem, qui exhibetur Matri, refertur ad Filium sicut ad finem; honor autem, quo adoramus imaginem Christi, refertur ad ipsum sicut ad subiectum. Unde qui adorat Christi imaginem Christum adorat, non imaginem; qui vero adorat Christi Matrem adorat Christum et Matrem suam8.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod communicat Matri dominium maiestatis; dicendum, quod est dominium praesidentiae et dominium maiestatis et omnipotentiae (Duplex dominium). Cum ergo dicitur, quod Filius communicat Matri dominium; intelligitur de dominio praesidentiae; cum vero subiungitur, quod dominio redditur cultus latriae; intelligitur de dominio maiestatis et omnipotentiae. Et hoc quidem Dominus nulli communicat purae creaturae.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod eiusdem naturae et consimilis est caro Virginis cum carne Verbi; dicendum, quod caro Verbi non adoratur adoratione latriae, in quantum est caro humana, sed in quantum est caro assumta9 (Notandum). Licet autem caro Virginis conformis sit carni Verbi quantum ad conformitatem naturae, non tamen conformis est quantum ad gratiam unionis. Et ideo in processu illo est paralogismus accidentis, quia secundum aliam et aliam comparationem communicat cum Virgine, et debetur sibi adoratio latriae.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Christus honoravit Matrem suam; dicendum, quod verum est: sed Christus non adoravit eam adoratione latriae, sed hyperduliae — non enim adoravit eam ut deam, sed ut filius matrem suam — ideo bene sequitur, quod Christus vere Matrem suam docet10 adorare et venerari sicut decet Matrem Dei (Notandum). Sed ex hoc non sequitur, quod velit, illum honorem Matri exhiberi, quem vult exhiberi sibi, pro eo quod ita est mater, quod ancilla; et persona Matris in infinitum inferior est persona Filii. Ideo etsi multum debeat adorari et amari, in infinitum tamen minus debet adorari et amari, secundum legem iustitiae et rectum ordinem, quam Filius eius, qui est Rex regum et Dominus dominantium11.

---

English Translation

Question III. Whether the cult of latria ought to be shown to the Mother of Christ.

Third, it is asked whether the cult of latria ought to be shown to His Mother. And that it should, it seems:

(To the contrary) 1. From what Damascene says in the chapter On Images1: «The honor which is given to her is referred back to Him who was incarnate from her»: therefore if the honor of latria must be shown to the image of Christ, because it is referred to the prototype, by parity of reasoning the honor of latria must be shown to the blessed Virgin, since the honor shown to her is referred to the Son.

2. Likewise, from the fact that the Virgin Mary was made the Mother of God, she was made the mother of all creatures2: therefore the Son shares with His Mother the dominion of majesty: therefore, since latria is the cult owed to majesty, by parity of reasoning He shares with her the cult of latria.

3. Likewise, the flesh of Christ was like in nature and consubstantial with the flesh of the Virgin; but Christ according to His human nature is to be adored with the adoration of latria3: therefore by parity of reasoning so is the human nature in the Virgin, His mother.

4. Likewise, the Son of God showed reverence and honor to the Virgin herself, as to His mother: therefore if He subjected Himself, He wills consequently that everyone be subject to her, and that the honor which is shown to Him be shown to her: if therefore such [honor] is latria, it seems etc.

On the contrary: (Fundamenta) 1. The blessed Virgin adores her Son with the adoration of latria; but it does not belong to one and the same [being], according to the same nature, both to adore and to be adored4: if therefore in the blessed Virgin there is only one nature, it seems that she is not to be adored with latria.

2. Likewise, the blessed Virgin is a pure creature: therefore no honor is owed to her except that which is within the limits of a creature; but that is the honor of dulia, not of latria: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the honor of latria is rendered to God by reason of His supreme majesty; but this is not to be found in the Virgin: therefore it does not seem that she is to be adored with the cult of latria.

4. Likewise, whoever adores someone with the cult of latria confesses that he is God: therefore whoever adores the Virgin with the cult of latria confesses that she is a goddess5: therefore if this is the greatest impiety, it seems that etc.

Conclusion

The cult of latria is not to be shown to the Virgin Mary, but [the cult] of hyperdulia.

I respond: It must be said that the most blessed Virgin Mary is a pure creature; and therefore she does not rise to the honor and cult of latria (Conclusion 1). But since she has a most excellent name, such that a more excellent one cannot belong to a pure creature; therefore not only the honor of dulia is owed to her, but of hyperdulia (Conclusion 2). For this name is that, being a Virgin, she is the Mother of God, which indeed is of so great a dignity that not only wayfarers, but even the comprehensors, not only men, but even the Angels revere her6 by a certain special prerogative (Note). For from this, that she is the Mother of God, she is set above the rest of creatures, and it is fitting that she be honored and venerated above the rest. And this honor has been accustomed to be called hyperdulia by the masters. And that word is taken from the Gloss on the first [book] of Kings, [chapter] eight7, where a greater dulia and a lesser dulia are spoken of. — Therefore the arguments are to be granted, that the cult of latria is not to be shown to the Virgin Mary.

(Solution of the opposing arguments) 1. To that which is first objected to the contrary, that the honor of the Mother is referred to the Son; it must be said that to refer honor to someone is twofold: either as to a subject, or as to an end (Distinction to be noted). But the honor which is shown to the Mother is referred to the Son as to an end; whereas the honor by which we adore the image of Christ is referred to Him as to a subject. Hence whoever adores the image of Christ adores Christ, not the image; but whoever adores the Mother of Christ adores Christ and His Mother8.

2. To that which is objected, that He shares with the Mother the dominion of majesty; it must be said that there is a dominion of presidency and a dominion of majesty and omnipotence (Twofold dominion). When therefore it is said that the Son shares dominion with the Mother, it is understood of the dominion of presidency; but when it is added that the cult of latria is rendered to dominion, it is understood of the dominion of majesty and omnipotence. And this indeed the Lord shares with no pure creature.

3. To that which is objected, that the flesh of the Virgin is of the same nature and like to the flesh of the Word; it must be said that the flesh of the Word is not adored with the adoration of latria insofar as it is human flesh, but insofar as it is assumed flesh9 (Note). But although the flesh of the Virgin is conformed to the flesh of the Word as regards conformity of nature, nevertheless it is not conformed as regards the grace of union. And therefore in that process there is the paralogism of accident, because it is according to one and another comparison that she has communion with the Virgin, and the adoration of latria is owed to it.

4. To that which is objected, that Christ honored His Mother; it must be said that it is true: but Christ did not adore her with the adoration of latria, but of hyperdulia — for He did not adore her as a goddess, but as a son [adores] his mother — therefore it well follows that Christ truly teaches10 His Mother to be adored and venerated as befits the Mother of God (Note). But from this it does not follow that He wills that honor to be shown to the Mother which He wills to be shown to Himself, for the reason that she is mother in such a way that [she is also] a handmaid; and the person of the Mother is infinitely inferior to the person of the Son. Therefore, although she ought to be greatly adored and loved, nevertheless she ought to be adored and loved infinitely less, according to the law of justice and right order, than her Son, who is King of kings and Lord of lords11.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Lib. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 16. — Mox pro imagini Christi codd. G H K imaginibus Christi.
    Bk. IV, On the Orthodox Faith, c. 16. — Soon after, for imagini Christi (to the image of Christ) codices G H K read imaginibus Christi (to the images of Christ).
  2. Damasc., IV. de Fide orthod. c. 14: Profecto vere et proprie Dei Genitrix est et Domina, omnibusque creatis imperat quae ancilla materque simul exstitit Creatoris.
    Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith IV, c. 14: «Truly and properly she is the Mother of God and Lady, and she commands all created things, who was at once both the handmaid and the mother of the Creator.»
  3. Ut ostensum est supra q. 1.
    As was shown above in q. 1.
  4. Boeth., IV. in Praedicam. Aristot. c. de Oppositis: Sunt enim opposita quae in eodem, secundum idem, in eodem tempore, circa unam eandemque rem simul esse non possunt.
    Boethius, Bk. IV on Aristotle's Categories, the chapter on Opposites: «For opposites are those which cannot be at once in the same [subject], according to the same [respect], at the same time, with regard to one and the same thing.»
  5. Ut ex Epiph., III. adversus Haeres. haeres. 78. c. 23. et haeres. 79. novimus, in Arabiam per mulieres, quae e Thracia venerant, secta introducta fuit, cuius sectatores Mariam deam profitebantur eique sacrificandum esse tenebant. Nuncupata fuit haec secta Collyridianorum, eo quod qui illam sequebantur collyridem i. e. tortam panis in honorem B. M. V. offerebant. Cfr. Damasc., de Haeres. n. 79, et Homil. 2. in Dormition. B. M. V. n. 15.
    As we know from Epiphanius, Against Heresies III, heresy 78, c. 23, and heresy 79, a sect was introduced into Arabia by women who had come from Thrace, whose followers professed Mary to be a goddess and held that sacrifice ought to be offered to her. This sect was named that of the Collyridians, because those who followed it used to offer a collyris, i.e. a small twisted loaf of bread, in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Cf. Damascene, On Heresies n. 79, and Homily 2, On the Dormition of the B.V.M. n. 15.
  6. In codd. deest eam; posset etiam suppleri illud (nomen).
    In the codices eam (her) is lacking; one might also supply illud (nomen) (that [name]).
  7. Neque Strabus neque Lyranus in loc. cit. Glossam affert, quae a Bonav. hic respicitur; insinuatur autem duliae divisio in maiorem et minorem in Glossa, quam supra pag. 200, nota 1. allegavimus. Sed Alanus ab Insulis in Distinction. dictionum theologic. (sub verbo duliae) duliam tripliciter distinguit: in positivam, quae maioribus, ut episcopis, debetur; in mediam vel comparativam, quae debetur naturae angelicae; et in maximam vel superlativam, quae debetur humanae Christi naturae. Sed vide quae de hoc docentur hic q. 1.
    Neither Strabo nor Lyranus in the place cited adduces the Gloss which is here referred to by Bonaventure; but the division of dulia into greater and lesser is suggested in the Gloss which we cited above on p. 200, note 1. But Alan of Lille, in his Distinctions of Theological Terms (under the word dulia), distinguishes dulia in a threefold way: into positive, which is owed to superiors such as bishops; into intermediate or comparative, which is owed to the angelic nature; and into greatest or superlative, which is owed to the human nature of Christ. But see what is taught on this here in q. 1.
  8. Pro suam cod. K eius.
    For suam (his) codex K reads eius (his).
  9. Cfr. supra q. 1. De fallacia accidentis cfr. supra pag. 179, nota 1. — In initio solut. multi codd. omittunt et ante consimilis, et in eius fine ante debetur edd. cum nonnullis codd. repetunt secundum aliam.
    Cf. above q. 1. On the fallacy of accident cf. above p. 179, note 1. — At the beginning of the solution many codices omit et before consimilis, and at its end, before debetur, the editions, with some codices, repeat secundum aliam.
  10. Pro docet, quod e cod. bb restituimus, librarii in ceteris codd. scripserunt decet, excepto cod. aa, qui (a secunda manu correct.) exhibet docuit; edd. perperam substituerunt debet. Subinde pro Sed ex hoc codd. G I K N T V X et ex hoc.
    For docet (teaches), which we have restored from codex bb, the scribes in the other codices wrote decet (befits), except codex aa, which (corrected by a second hand) gives docuit (taught); the editions wrongly substituted debet (ought). Then for Sed ex hoc (But from this) codices G I K N T V X [read] et ex hoc (and from this).
  11. Epist. I. Tim. 6, 15. et Apoc. 19, 16. — Paulo superius cod. K bis honorari pro adorari. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    1 Tim. 6:15 and Rev. 19:16. — A little above, codex K [reads] honorari (honored) twice for adorari (adored). — See the scholion to the preceding question. ---
← Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 2Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 4→