De Montfort's absolute "no" to idolatry

  • Thread starter Thread starter DBRANDT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are three degrees of worship in Catholicism called Latria, Dulia, and Hyperdulia. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia defines them as follows:
“1.) Latria: is the worship which is due to God alone. It is the superior, absolute, supreme worship and adoration of God alone. This degree of worship, if directed at any creature, would be idolatry.

2.) Dulia: is when worship is addressed only indirectly to God, that is, when its object is the veneration of martyrs, of angels, or of saints, it is a subordinate worship dependent on the first, and relative, in so far as it honours the creatures of God for their peculiar relations with Him. It is a term denoting servitude, and implying, when used to signify our worship of distinguished servants of God, that their service to Him is their title to our veneration (cf. Chollet, loc. cit., col. 2407, and Bouquillon , Tractatus de virtute religionis , I, Bruges , 1880, 22 sq.).

3.) Hyperdulia: As the Blessed Virgin has a separate and absolutely supereminent rank among the saints, the worship paid to her is called hyperdulia (for the meaning and history of these terms see Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus , 1728).”
Click to expand...
The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia beautifully gives further explanation of the special honor granted to the Most Holy Mother of God through hyperdulia:
“The Blessed Virgin, as manifesting in a sublimer manner than any other creature the goodness of God, deserves from us a higher recognition and deeper veneration than any other of the saints; and this peculiar cultus due to her because of her unique position in the Divine economy, is designated in theology hyperdulia, that is dulia in an eminent degree.”
Click to expand...
From this website:Virgin Most Powerful — Virgo Potens
 
Also remember that the word worship has shifted meanings in the English language over the years.
 
Final sentence of selection states de Montfort rejected both of dulia and of hyperdulia by extension. I do however understand the idea of progressive revelation, if you will, and its function in the development of doctrine. That is the only explanation I can see, that is, did the doctrines develop pre- or post-Montfort. Please excuse me if my terms may not be concise. I am not a scholar.
 
He didn’t reject dulia or even hyperdulia. He was making a larger point about why Mary was deserving of hyperdulia and why that hyperdulia is not idolatry. As your excerpt says, he qualifies dulia. That’s not the same thing as ruling dulia out completely.
 
Aha. I see. Thank you. Now I may proceed with the article with a clear understanding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top