However, though none accuse him of idolatry, some believe that his distinction is ambiguous, and the terminology dangerous.
An article in the Catholic Encyclopedia says this:
Again, it should be noted that the cult of images and
relics is not that of
latria, which is the adoration due to
God alone, but is, as the Second Council of Nicæa teaches, a relative veneration paid to the image or
relic and referring to that which it represents. Precisely this same doctrine is repeated in Sess. XXV of the
Council of Trent: “Images are not to be worshipped because it is believed that some divinity or power resides in them and that they must be worshipped on that account, or because we ought to ask anything of them, or because we should put our trust in them, as was done by the gentiles of old who placed their hope in idols but because the honour which is shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent; so that through the images which we kiss, and before which we kneel, we may adore Christ, and venerate the saints, whose resemblances they bear.” (See also
IMAGES.)
This clear doctrine, which cuts short every objection, is also that taught by Bellarmine, by
Bossuet, and by Petavius. It must be said, however, that this view was not always so clearly taught. Following Bl. Albertus Magnus and Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure St. Thomas, and a, section of the Schoolmen who appear to have overlooked the Second Council of Nicæa teach that the worship rendered to the Cross and the image of Christ is that of
latria, but with a distinction: the same worship is due to the image and its exemplar but the exemplar is honoured for Himself (or for itself), with an absolute worship; the image because of its exemplar, with a relative worship. The object of the adoration is the same, primary in regard to the exemplar and secondary in regard to the image. To the image of Christ, then, we owe a worship of
latria as well as to His Person. The image, in fact, is morally one with its prototype, and, thus considered, if a lesser degree of worship be rendered to the image, that worship must reach the exemplar lessened in degree. Against this theory an attack has recently been made in “The Tablet”, the opinion attributed to the Thomists being sharply combated. Its adversaries have endeavoured to prove that the image of Christ should be venerated but with a lesser degree of honour than its exemplar. The cult paid to it, they say, is simply analogous to the cult of
latria, but in its nature different and inferior. No image of Christ, then, should be honoured with the worship of
latria, and, moreover, the term “relative
latria”, invented by the Thomists, ought to be banished from theological language as equivocal and dangerous.-- Of these opinions the former rests chiefly upon consideration of pure reason, the latter upon ecclesiastical tradition, notably upon the Second Council of Nicæa and its confirmation by the Fourth Council of Constantinople and upon the decree of the
Council of Trent.
Other articles, however, are less harsh on Thomas and his school.
Either way, he was never confusing a creature with God…or actually adoring matter…but rather saying that though God is worshipped with Absolute Latria…images may be worshipped with Relative Latria if they represent God. The worship is understood as going to what they represent…not to the wood and paint itself as matter, but to the “meaning” and “idea” of the image, which is Christ.
But as I said, some believe this distinction too vague and dangerous.
