Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 6
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 9
Quaestio VI. Utrum cultus latriae possit exhiberi adversario Christi absque peccato.
Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum cultus latriae possit exhiberi Christi adversario absque peccato. Et quod sic, videtur.
1. (Ad oppositum.) Esto quod angelus satanae transfiguraret se in Angelum lucis, ut dicitur secundae ad Corinthios undecimo1; quantumcumque quis adhibeat diligentiam, potest videri, quod sit Christus; sed ignorantia facti, adhibita diligentia, excusat: ergo videtur, quod talis excusetur a peccato, si eum adoret.
2. Item, qui emit cuprum, intendens emere aurum, non damnificatur: ergo qui adorat angelum tenebrarum, credens adorare Christum, non incurrit peccatum; maior propositio manifestatur secundum regulam iuris civilis2.
3. Item, mulier, quae consentit in Petrum, putans consentire in Paulum, habetur pro non consentiente — error enim personae impedit matrimonium, secundum quod iura dicunt, et in quarto libro3 habetur — ergo pari ratione, qui adorat luciferum, putans Christum adorasse, habetur quasi non adorasset.
4. Item, opus sequitur intentionem et credulitatem4: ergo si aliquis credens, luciferum esse Christum, adorat luciferum, cum intentio eius ad Christum feratur: si adorando Christum meretur, nullum videtur ei esse peccatum.
Sed contra: (Fundamenta.) 1. Idololatra, cum adorat idolum, credit, idolum esse Deum; et tamen ex hoc non dicitur Deum adorare, sed magis idolum, unde committit idololatriae peccatum: ergo pari ratione, cum quis adorat luciferum, credens, illum esse Christum, propter credulitatem non evadit scelus idololatriae.
2. Item, diabolus ideo transfigurat se in Angelum lucis5, ut adoretur ab homine; sed hoc non faceret, nisi videret, hominem in illa adoratione peccare: ergo non videtur, quod sit possibile, absque peccato cultum latriae offerri diabolo.
3. Item, latria est de his quae sunt necessaria ad salutem; sed error vel ignorantia in his quae sunt necessaria ad salutem, non excusant a toto6: ergo videtur, quod ille qui adorat diabolum cultu latriae, non excusetur a peccato.
4. Item, in quadam Decretali7 dicitur, quod plus peccat malus sacerdos, qui non conficit et si-
mulat, se conficere, quam ille qui conficit, pro eo quod facit populum idololatrare: ergo ille qui adorat hostiam non consecratam, est idololatra nec excusatur propter ignorantiam: ergo pari ratione nec ille excusatur, qui adorat luciferum, credens esse Christum.
(Quaestio incidens.) Iuxta hoc quaeritur, quomodo illud ultimum habeat veritatem, quod sacerdos possit facere populum idololatrare. Tunc enim esset in potestate sacerdotis facere populum peccare, vellet nollet; quod absurdum est dicere.
### Conclusio. Qui simpliciter adorat Christi adversarium non excusatur a peccato propter ignorantiam, nec sufficit conditio habitualiter tantum apposita, quae tamen sufficit respectu adorationis in Sacramento altaris.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod honor latriae (Latria exhibetur dupliciter.) potest exhiberi adversario Christi dupliciter: aut simpliciter, aut sub conditione. Si simpliciter, dico, (Conclusio 1.) quod non potest esse sine peccato; offertur enim cultus latriae alteri8 quam Deo; et ideo est ibi peccatum idololatriae. Nec excusatur ratione ignorantiae. (Triplex adiutorium.) Habet enim triplex adiutorium, per quod potest errorem devitare. Primum est remedium praemonitionis sacrae Scripturae9, quae multoties dicit, quod multi in nomine Christi venturi sunt mendaciter. Secundum est remedium orationis internae, qua ad Deum debet homo recurrere, ut cor eius illuminet. Tertium est suspensio credulitatis suae. Non enim debet homo omni spiritui credere, sed probare, si ex Deo sunt10. Qui enim cito credit in talibus, levis est corde, et fortassis etiam inflatus corde, dum ad tales visiones et revelationes idoneum se esse aestimat. — (Corollarium.) Unde tales apparitiones potius sunt formidandae quam desiderandae. Narratur11 enim de quodam sancto Patre, quod cum ei diabolus in specie Christi appareret, ille clausis oculis dixit, se in hac vita Christum nolle videre; ac diabolus, eius humilitate confusus, statim evanuit. Econtra de pluribus narratur, qui se ad visiones idoneos reputaverunt et desideraverunt, qui in multas insanias et errores praecipitati sunt.
Et ideo, si simpliciter adorat quis Christi adversarium, non excusatur a peccato, etiamsi credat, ipsum esse Christum. Si autem adoret sub conditione, (Conditio apponitur dupliciter.) hoc potest esse dupliciter: aut quia est illa conditio habitualiter, aut actualiter considerata sive apposita. (Conclusio 2.) Si actualiter; sic non adorat ipsum luciferum, sed magis Christum, quia non stat adoratio, nisi stante conditione; et ad eum refertur adoratio, ad quem refertur adorationis implicatio. (Conclusio 3.) Si autem illa conditio sit sub consideratione12 habituali, hoc modo non sufficit ad vitandum peccatum idololatriae respectu huius apparitionis sive transfigurationis, sufficit tamen respectu Sacramenti altaris. Nam talis transfiguratio est insolita, et ideo non debet ad eam praecipitanter sequi adoratio, sed cum maturitate et praevia oratione. — (Conclusio 4.) Sed consecratio hostiae est consueta, ideo sufficit, quod adorans in habitu hanc habeat conditionem, videlicet si consecratio debito modo facta est; unde pauci vel nulli fideles in hac adoratione peccant. Omnes enim accedunt cum conditione ista. — (Ad quaestionem incidentem.) Quod autem obiicitur, quod sacerdos facit eos idololatrare, hoc intelligitur, quantum in se est, quia per ipsum non remanet13; scienter enim exhibet adorandum quod scit adorandum non esse. — Patet igitur, quod cultus latriae non potest exhiberi Christi adversario absque peccato idololatriae. Et concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc inductae.
Ad argumenta in oppositum: (Solutio oppositorum.) Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod ignorantia facti excusat, adhibita diligentia; dicendum, quod cum lucifer adoratur, nunquam debita diligentia adhibetur. Nam, sicut dictum est, triplex remedium potest contra hoc inveniri.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod emens cuprum, intendens emere aurum, non damnificatur; dicendum, quod intentio emendi aurum aut potest (Notanda distinctio.) esse solum in mente, aut in sermone. Si solum in mente, ut nulla praecedat mentio in sermone, non habet ius repetendi. Si autem in sermone fiat mentio de auro, fit circumventio ab alio; et quia contractus quantum ad verba et intentionem versatur circa aliam materiam, ideo non damnificatur, secundum iura. Ex hoc autem non sequitur, quod peccatum idololatriae non perpetretur adorando diabolum simpliciter, sed quod non perpetretur cum conditionis adiectione tacita, vel expressa.
Ad 3. Ad sequens, quod obiicitur de matrimonii consensu in errore personae, potest responderi similiter. — (Aliter.) Potest etiam dici, quod non est simile, quia sic non potest evitari error ille, sicut iste; habet enim homo ad vitandum hunc errorem adiutorium iuxta se.
Ad 4. (Notandum.) Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod opus sequitur credulitatem et intentionem; dicendum, quod illud verum est in his quae non sunt mala secundum se; in aliis autem, sicut ostensum est in secundo libro14, non habet veritatem. Praeterea, ipsa credulitas, qua credit, hunc esse Christum, temeraria est, et ideo ad opus temerarium deducit, ut hunc quem videat, adoret. Quia enim in credulitate et in intentione non solum cadit Christus, sed etiam hic quem videt; ideo honoris exhibitio aliquo modo determinatur ad hunc. Ideo nec recta fuit intentio vel credulitas, nec recta est adoratio15.
---
Question VI. Whether the worship of latria may be offered to Christ's adversary without sin.
Sixth and last it is asked, whether the worship of latria may be offered to Christ's adversary without sin. And that it can, seems [to be the case].
1. (To the contrary.) Suppose that an angel of Satan should transfigure himself into an angel of light, as is said in the second [letter] to the Corinthians, chapter eleven1; however much diligence one applies, it can [still] appear that it is Christ; but ignorance of fact, when diligence has been applied, excuses: therefore it seems that such a person would be excused from sin, if he should adore him.
2. Likewise, he who buys copper, intending to buy gold, is not harmed: therefore he who adores an angel of darkness, believing that he adores Christ, does not incur sin; the major proposition is made clear according to the rule of civil law2.
3. Likewise, a woman who consents to Peter, thinking she consents to Paul, is held as not consenting — for error of person impedes matrimony, according to what the laws say, and is treated of in the fourth book3 — therefore by parity of reasoning, he who adores Lucifer, thinking he has adored Christ, is held as if he had not adored.
4. Likewise, the work follows the intention and the belief4: therefore if someone, believing Lucifer to be Christ, adores Lucifer, since his intention is borne toward Christ: if by adoring Christ he merits, no sin seems to be his.
On the contrary: (The foundations.) 1. An idolater, when he adores an idol, believes the idol to be God; and yet from this he is not said to adore God, but rather the idol, whence he commits the sin of idolatry: therefore by parity of reasoning, when someone adores Lucifer, believing him to be Christ, on account of [his] belief he does not escape the crime of idolatry.
2. Likewise, the devil transfigures himself into an angel of light5 for this reason, that he may be adored by man; but he would not do this, unless he saw that man sins in that adoration: therefore it does not seem that it is possible for the worship of latria to be offered to the devil without sin.
3. Likewise, latria is among those things that are necessary for salvation; but error or ignorance in those things that are necessary for salvation does not excuse from the whole6: therefore it seems that he who adores the devil with the worship of latria is not excused from sin.
4. Likewise, in a certain Decretal7 it is said that a bad priest who does not consecrate and pretends to consecrate sins more
than he who [really] consecrates, for the reason that he makes the people commit idolatry: therefore he who adores an unconsecrated host is an idolater and is not excused on account of ignorance: therefore by parity of reasoning neither is he excused who adores Lucifer, believing [him] to be Christ.
(An incidental question.) Alongside this it is asked how that last [point] holds true, that a priest can make the people commit idolatry. For then it would be in the priest's power to make the people sin, whether he will or no; which it is absurd to say.
### Conclusion. He who simply adores Christ's adversary is not excused from sin on account of ignorance, nor does a condition merely habitually attached suffice — which nevertheless suffices with respect to adoration in the Sacrament of the altar.
I respond: It must be said that the honor of latria (Latria is offered in two ways.) can be offered to Christ's adversary in two ways: either simply, or under a condition. If simply, I say (Conclusion 1.) that it cannot be without sin; for the worship of latria is then offered to another8 than God; and therefore there is the sin of idolatry there. Nor is one excused by reason of ignorance. (A threefold aid.) For he has a threefold aid by which he can avoid the error. The first is the remedy of the forewarning of sacred Scripture9, which says many times that many will come falsely in the name of Christ. The second is the remedy of inward prayer, by which a man ought to have recourse to God, that He may illumine his heart. The third is the suspension of his own belief. For a man ought not to believe every spirit, but to test whether they are of God10. For he who is quick to believe in such matters is light of heart, and perhaps even puffed up in heart, when he judges himself fit for such visions and revelations. — (A corollary.) Hence such apparitions are rather to be feared than to be desired. For it is related11 of a certain holy Father that, when the devil appeared to him in the appearance of Christ, he, with eyes closed, said that he did not wish to see Christ in this life; and the devil, confounded by his humility, immediately vanished. On the contrary, it is related of many who reckoned and desired themselves fit for visions, who were cast headlong into many follies and errors.
And therefore, if someone simply adores Christ's adversary, he is not excused from sin, even if he believes him to be Christ. But if he should adore under a condition, (The condition is attached in two ways.) this can be in two ways: either because that condition is considered or attached habitually, or actually. (Conclusion 2.) If actually; then he does not adore Lucifer himself, but rather Christ, because the adoration does not stand except while the condition stands; and the adoration is referred to him to whom the implication of the adoration is referred. (Conclusion 3.) But if that condition be under a habitual consideration12, in this way it does not suffice to avoid the sin of idolatry with respect to this apparition or transfiguration, yet it does suffice with respect to the Sacrament of the altar. For such a transfiguration is unwonted, and therefore adoration ought not to follow it precipitately, but with maturity and prior prayer. — (Conclusion 4.) But the consecration of the host is customary, therefore it suffices that the one adoring should have this condition habitually, namely that the consecration has been done in the due manner; whence few or no faithful sin in this adoration. For all approach with this condition. — (To the incidental question.) But as to what is objected, that the priest makes them commit idolatry, this is understood as far as in him lies, because through him it does not fail to occur13; for knowingly he sets forth as to be adored what he knows is not to be adored. — It is clear, therefore, that the worship of latria cannot be offered to Christ's adversary without the sin of idolatry. And the reasons adduced for this are to be granted.
To the arguments to the contrary: (Solution of the contrary arguments.) To 1. To that which is objected, that ignorance of fact excuses when diligence has been applied; it must be said that when Lucifer is adored, due diligence is never applied. For, as has been said, a threefold remedy can be found against this.
To 2. To that which is objected, that one buying copper, intending to buy gold, is not harmed; it must be said that the intention of buying gold can (A distinction to be noted.) be either only in the mind, or in speech. If only in the mind, so that no mention precedes in speech, he has no right to reclaim. But if in speech mention is made of gold, a circumvention is made by the other party; and because the contract, as to the words and the intention, turns upon another matter, therefore he is not harmed, according to the laws. From this, however, it does not follow that the sin of idolatry is not perpetrated by adoring the devil simply, but [only] that it is not perpetrated with the addition of a condition, tacit or expressed.
To 3. To the next, which is objected concerning the matrimonial consent in error of person, it can be answered similarly. — (Otherwise.) It can also be said that it is not similar, because in this way that error cannot be avoided, as this one can; for a man has an aid at hand for avoiding this error.
To 4. (To be noted.) To that which is objected, that the work follows the belief and the intention; it must be said that this is true in those things that are not evil in themselves; but in others, as was shown in the second book14, it does not hold true. Moreover, the belief itself, by which he believes this one to be Christ, is rash, and therefore leads to a rash work, namely that he should adore this one whom he sees. For since in the belief and in the intention not only Christ falls [under it], but also this one whom he sees; therefore the showing of honor is in some way determined to this one. Therefore neither was the intention or belief right, nor is the adoration right15.
---
- Vers. 14. De ignorantia facti cfr. II. Sent. d. 22. a. 2. q. 3. — Pro quantumcumque edd. quantamcumque.Verse 14. On ignorance of fact cf. II Sent., d. 22, a. 2, q. 3. — For quantumcumque ["however much"] the editions read quantamcumque.
- Vide Iustinian., III. Instit. iuris civil. c. 23. seq. et IV. Cod. iuris civil. tit. 38, ubi iurisconsulti, agentes de emptione, tres ponunt conditiones ad emptionem requisitas, scilicet quod adsit res, pretium et consensus; et inferunt, quod error in substantiali rei qualitate, v. gr. si venditor de cupro et emptor de auro se agere putet, emptionem vitiet et nullam reddat. Generalis de hac re regula: « Error in materia in contractibus bonae fidei [ad quos pertinet emptio] vitiat contractum », occurrit in L. Si sterilis, § quamvis, ff. de actio. empt. nec non in L. Cum ab eo, § B. ff. de cont. empt. et in L. Si id quod aurum, ff. de verbo oblig. — Pro secundum regulam cod. W per regulam.See Justinian, Institutes of Civil Law III, c. 23 ff., and Codex of Civil Law IV, title 38, where the jurists, treating of buying, set down three conditions required for a purchase, namely that there be a thing, a price, and consent; and they infer that an error in the substantial quality of the thing — e.g. if the seller thinks he is dealing in copper and the buyer in gold — vitiates the purchase and renders it null. The general rule on this matter, "An error in the matter, in contracts of good faith [to which buying belongs], vitiates the contract," occurs in L. Si sterilis, § quamvis, ff. de actionibus empti, and also in L. Cum ab eo, § B, ff. de contrahenda emptione, and in L. Si id quod aurum, ff. de verborum obligationibus. — For secundum regulam ["according to the rule"] cod. W per regulam.
- Dist. 30. q. I. — Mox post putans cod. U inserit se. In fine arg. pro adorasset plurimi codd. et edd. 1, 2 adorasse.Dist. 30, q. 1. — Just after putans cod. U inserts se. At the end of the argument, for adorasset most codices and editions 1, 2 read adorasse.
- Sive, ut Ambros., I. de Officiis, c. 30. n. 147. dicit: Affectus tuus operi tuo nomen imponit.Or, as Ambrose says, On the Duties I, c. 30, n. 147: "Your disposition imposes the name upon your work."
- Epist. II. Cor. 11, 14. — In edd. hoc argum. terminatur sic: absque peccato idololatriae diabolum adorare.Epistle, II Cor. 11:14. — In the editions this argument ends thus: "to adore the devil without the sin of idolatry."
- Cfr. II. Sent. d. 22. a. 2. q. 2. seq. — De maiori cfr. infra a. 1. q. 1.Cf. II Sent., d. 22, a. 2, q. 2 ff. — On the major [premise] cf. below, a. 1, q. 1.
- Libr. III. Decret. Gregor. IX. tit. 41. de celebrat. Missarum, c. 7: Gravius tamen videtur offendere qui sic fraudulenter illud praesumserit simulare; cum ille in solius misericordis Dei manum incidat. Ille vero non solum Deo, cui non veretur illudere, sed populo, quem decipit, se astringat.Book III of the Decretals of Gregory IX, title 41, On the Celebration of Masses, c. 7: "Yet he seems to offend more gravely who has thus fraudulently presumed to feign it; since the former falls into the hand of God who alone is merciful, whereas the latter binds himself fast not only against God, whom he does not fear to mock, but also against the people, whom he deceives."
- Cod. F nulli alteri.Cod. F nulli alteri ["to no other"].
- Matth. 24, 5; Marc. 13, 6; Luc. 21, 8. — Paulo inferius pro illuminet edd. illuminetur.Matt. 24:5; Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8. — A little below, for illuminet ["that He may illumine"] the editions read illuminetur ["that it may be illumined"].
- Cfr. I. Ioan. 4, 1. — Testimonium, quod sequitur, habetur Eccli. 19, 4. — Post probare cod. U cum Vulgata supplet spiritus. Paulo inferius voci apparitiones edd. praemittunt visiones vel; cod. A pro apparitiones substituit visiones.Cf. 1 John 4:1. — The testimony that follows is found in Sirach 19:4. — After probare ["to test"] cod. U, with the Vulgate, supplies spiritus ["the spirits"]. A little below, before the word apparitiones ["apparitions"] the editions place visiones vel ["visions or"]; cod. A substitutes visiones for apparitiones.
- Libr. V. de Vitis Patrum, libell. 15. n. 70. (ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. tom. 73.). — Aliquanto inferius pro reputaverunt codd. G H I L N T V X aa reputaverant, et subinde pro qui in multas codd. I bb quod in multas, cod. H qui etiam in multas, edd. quod ad multas.Book V of the Lives of the Fathers, little-book 15, n. 70 (Migne ed., Patrologia Latina vol. 73). — Somewhat below, for reputaverunt codd. G H I L N T V X aa read reputaverant, and thereupon for qui in multas codd. I bb quod in multas, cod. H qui etiam in multas, the editions quod ad multas.
- Codd. A G H I L U V X aa erronee conditione. Paulo inferius pro debet ad eam non pauci codd. et edd. 1, 2 vitiose debet ad eum.Codd. A G H I L U V X aa erroneously read conditione. A little below, for debet ad eam not a few codices and editions 1, 2 corruptly read debet ad eum.
- Sive non impeditur (scil. idololatria): cfr. Du Cange, Glossar. etc., sub verbo remanere. — Cod. A omittit quia per.Or it is not prevented (namely, the idolatry): cf. Du Cange, Glossary etc., under the word remanere. — Cod. A omits quia per.
- Dist. 40. a. 1. q. 1. — Mox post credit edd. supplent homo. Pro Praeterea, ipsa credulitas, qua cod. A Ipsa prima credulitas, quae. Deinde pro quem videat Vat. quem videt.Dist. 40, a. 1, q. 1. — Just after credit the editions supply homo. For Praeterea, ipsa credulitas, qua cod. A reads Ipsa prima credulitas, quae. Then for quem videat the Vatican [edition] reads quem videt.
- Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion to the preceding question. ---