"Latria" given to the Cross?

  • Thread starter Thread starter youthcrusader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Brain:
perhaps there are context clues? perhaps he did not mean the physical wood, but The Crucified Christ as a manifestation of god. I dont know.
Click to expand...
I was thinking something like this. I don’t think he means the wood. I think he means it in a different way.
 
40.png
youthcrusader:
The greatest theologian, doctor, and philosopher, St. Thomas Aquinas, couldn’t have commited such an error, could he? He can’t be teaching idolatry, can he?
Click to expand...
The only one spared from error is he who speaks from the Chair of Peter, and even then only by the Grace of the Holy Spirit when it is declared to be so.
 
I have also read ‘worship the cross’ in the Liturgy of the Hours. I may have also read something similar in something written by St. Louis de Montfort (but it’s been a while, so I could be mistaken on this one.)
 
40.png
Sacramentalist:
This thread is a perfect example of “The Blind leading the Blind.”

One should not respond to a thread if one does not know what he is talking about.

It’s always been understood that the “latria” given to the Cross of Christ is a relative latria. In other words, the latria shown to an image of Christ, or to an image of the cross saturated with His Sacred Blood, is really directed along that image to the Person of Jesus.

Images of God are shown relative latria.

Images of Mary are shown relative hyperdulia.

Images of the saints are shown relative dulia.

Yes, Saint Thomas was sometimes off the mark in his theology (the same can be said of every single Doctor of the Church); but it’s ludicrous to believe that he was so off the mark as to violate the principle foundation of Catholic Christianity: Monotheism!
Click to expand...
The 2nd Council of Nicea makes clear that images of God are to receive only dulia and never latria. St. Thomas erred, but his error does not even come close to polytheism. His error was that of suggesting that relative latria is acceptable.
 
The actual wood and paint and stone and metal can recieve neither dulia nor latria…inanimate objects cannot be venerated, or honored, or reverenced EXCEPT as regards the Rational Being they represent.

When you give veneration to an image, you are not giving it to the molecules that make up the image…but to the “idea” of the image itself…whatever the idea is. Thus, the “meaning” of an image of Christ is Christ…not the material atoms the image is made up…but the “idea” itself, which is Christ. There is a difference between an image and what makes it up…just like there is a difference between an idea and the neurons in the brain which contain and transmit it.

What is at problem here is an issue of semantics and how we should speak of things. The actual idea of images only representing things, and worship passing to what they represent is not denied by Thomas or anyone. It is only the matter of how to properly speak of this.
 
40.png
youthcrusader:
In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas asserts that the worship of “latria,” reserved for God alone, is to be given to the Cross (newadvent.org/summa/402504.htm). Rather simply, he writes:
On the contrary, We show the worship of “latria” to that in which we place our hope of salvation…[T]herefore Christ’s cross should be worshiped with the adoration of “latria.”

St. Thomas Aquinas is my patron saint, my hero, my model, and my elder brother in the holy Faith. I’m full aware that he has erred many times, mostly on small matters. But to believe that the Angelic Doctor worshiped the Cross, thus commiting idolatry, is too much for me to comprehend. Can someone expain to me what he meant lest my worst suspicions be confirmed?
Click to expand...
The altar is more close to being the true cross than the cross venerated on Good Friday (the cross on Good Friday is only symbolic- it is NOT to be given Latria- that would be idolatrous). We venerate the altar when we pass by it (with a bow- not a genuflection)- why should we give any more to the cross on Good Friday.

Needless to say I disagree with MANY of his theological points. I think he speculated too much on things that are truly mysteries, and they are now passed off as definite truths (like the nature of purgatory).
 
40.png
youthcrusader:
In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas asserts that the worship of “latria,” reserved for God alone, is to be given to the Cross (newadvent.org/summa/402504.htm). Rather simply, he writes:
On the contrary, We show the worship of “latria” to that in which we place our hope of salvation…[T]herefore Christ’s cross should be worshiped with the adoration of “latria.”

St. Thomas Aquinas is my patron saint, my hero, my model, and my elder brother in the holy Faith. I’m full aware that he has erred many times, mostly on small matters. But to believe that the Angelic Doctor worshiped the Cross, thus commiting idolatry, is too much for me to comprehend. Can someone expain to me what he meant lest my worst suspicions be confirmed?
Click to expand...

Point taken - I wondered about this myself at one time.​

If it helps, the latria rendered to the Cross is relative to it - that is, it is latria, the species of honour which can be rightly paid to God alone ; but it does not terminate in the Cross (if it did, that would most certainly be blatant idolatry) but in the One Crucified on the Cross.

The Cross is adored because He Who has made the Cross honourable and glorious is to be adored - take the Adorable Christ away, and the Cross is if no significance at all - the Cross is adorable only because it is related to Him. Of itself, it is no way to be honoured at all - but in fact, it is the instrument of His victory over sin, death, & the devil, so it is to be adored just as He is to be adored - never apart from from Him, but only for His sake: therefore, not in itself, but relatively to Him.

So why have the Cross at all ? Because it is a fact that Christ was crucified - it is one of the most important things about Him; to be crucified, is part of His identity; of Who He is: a Christ Who is not the Crucified, is no Christ at all. The Cross is the source of every grace and blessing we have, because that is how God in His infinite Wisdom commends his Love to us - by giving up His Son for us to die in this way. All salvation is summed up in the Cross, and comes through the Cross. ##
 
A general article on some aspects of the history of the Cross in Christianity:

answers.com/topic/true-cross

Adoration of the Cross in the fourth century:

home.infionline.net/~ddisse/egeria.html - a whole page of links and information relating to the Spanish nun Egeria, who is one of the earliest witnesses to the liturgcal veneration of the Cross at Jerusalem

cptryon.org/prayer/xstations/egeria.html

users.ox.ac.uk/~mikef/durham/egetra.html

Further information about her narrative:

orbilat.com/Languages/Latin_Vulgar/Texts/Peregrinatio_Aetheriae.html

Cyril of Jerusalem’s words on the Cross (about 350):

catholic-forum.com/saints/stc16001.htm ##
 
Alright, so after numberous opinions, this is the final question: IS THE CROSS TO BE GIVEN THE WORSHIP OF “LATRIA,” OR MERELY “DULIA”? DID SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS ERR?
 
The Cross, as an inanimate object, is to be given NIETHER latria NOR dulia in and of itself.

Only rational beings can be venerated in and of themselves. Inanimate objects can only be venerated RELATIVE TO rational beings which they represent.

If Aquinas erred, as some say he did, it was not an error of theology, really…merely an error of terminology.

Do we say that we “give latria to the cross, because it passes to Christ who the Cross represents” or do we say we “venerate the cross as it represents the Christ to whom we give latria”?

It’s really an issue of semantics, but the idea is the same: one may venerate images not in and of themselves as inanimate matter…but for what they represent. Some of the things they represent deserve dulia or hyperdulia, some of the things they represent deserve latria. How we speak of giving latria to something that deserves latria through its image is what is being discussed, but it is all a matter of what words to use to express the same idea.
 
The Church has always given relative latria to the Cross. Her Good Friday liturgy is proof-positive of this.

Thomas Aquinas did err on some things; but not on this issue. It’s always been understood that the latria given to artistic representations of the Cross is one of relative latria. This is firmly grounded in the Tradition of the Catholic Church, as I have documented.
 
The 2nd Council of Nicea explicitly forbids relative latria given to the cross, and implicitly forbids relative latria to ever be given to anything whatsoever. We venerate the cross, but never offer relative latria. St. Thomas was mistaken.
 
Relative Latria of St. Thomas is not an idolatry, for it is an honor to Jesus shown through a thing representing the Lord. On the other hand the early Christians were called cross worshipers why? because the name Jesus Christ is put into one form only a + .
 
youthcrusader said:
In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas asserts that the worship of “latria,” reserved for God alone, is to be given to the Cross (newadvent.org/summa/402504.htm). Rather simply, he writes:
On the contrary, We show the worship of “latria” to that in which we place our hope of salvation…[T]herefore Christ’s cross should be worshiped with the adoration of “latria.”

St. Thomas Aquinas is my patron saint, my hero, my model, and my elder brother in the holy Faith. I’m full aware that he has erred many times, mostly on small matters. But to believe that the Angelic Doctor worshiped the Cross, thus commiting idolatry, is too much for me to comprehend. Can someone expain to me what he meant lest my worst suspicions be confirmed?
Click to expand...
The cross we venerate on Good Friday, which someone constructed many centuries after the time of Jesus, is not God- it’s an object to aid us in our devotion. There is no consecration of the cross to make it so. There is no transubstantiation of the substance that is the wood of the cross into the substance of God. It is not proper to give it the worship due to God alone. I’m not a theologian or philosopher, but I have enough of a sense of the Faith to know that we do not give the kind of honor that is rightfully given to God alone to an object that is not divine.
 
Why is this thread being revived after 8 and a half years? xD
 
youthcrusader said:
In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas asserts that the worship of “latria,” reserved for God alone, is to be given to the Cross (newadvent.org/summa/402504.htm). Rather simply, he writes:
On the contrary, We show the worship of “latria” to that in which we place our hope of salvation…[T]herefore Christ’s cross should be worshiped with the adoration of “latria.”

St. Thomas Aquinas is my patron saint, my hero, my model, and my elder brother in the holy Faith. I’m full aware that he has erred many times, mostly on small matters. But to believe that the Angelic Doctor worshiped the Cross, thus commiting idolatry, is too much for me to comprehend. Can someone expain to me what he meant lest my worst suspicions be confirmed?
Click to expand...
To understand Aquinas’ thought properly one must read article 3 (just before the one you cite) above. It is very much in line with the Eastern view of the union between the image/symbol and that portrayed/symbolized. He quotes Damascene and Basil: “‘The honor given to an image reaches to the prototype,’ i.e. the exemplar. But the exemplar itself–namely, Christ–is to be adored with the adoration of ‘latria’; therefore also His image.”

Along the same lines also refer to ad 2 in 4: “Although Christ’s cross was not united to the Word of God in Person, yet it was united to Him in some other way, viz. by representation and contact. And for this sole reason reverence is shown to it.”

In those two articles he clearly distinguishes between worship the material itself (which he explicitly rejects) and giving “latria” to the union of symbol and symbolized. Certainly it could be debated whether that same outlook exists today, at least in Latin Christianity. People today are much more fixated on the immediate and empirical.

Still, in general, today the veneration (not worship) of images and their use in prayer has sufficient justification.

The God of Israel is real. Idols are representations of gods that are not real–false gods. An image in Catholic and EOC usage is of something real. Anything with a body can be represented in art. To represent Jesus in art is to affirm the Incarnation.

So . . .

Given that an image of a pure spirit can’t be produced, what does it suggest about the reality of Jesus’ humanity if it is forbidden to represent Him in art?

Given that an idol (an image of a false/nonexistent god) is prohibited, what does that suggest about the reality of Jesus’ divinity if an image of Him is prohibited?

Since we have bodies, the senses have a role in worship. The physical body of man participates as much in worship as does his soul.
 
Cleb_Calimutan said:
Relative Latria of St. Thomas is not an idolatry, for it is an honor to Jesus shown through a thing representing the Lord. On the other hand the early Christians were called cross worshipers why? because the name Jesus Christ is put into one form only a + .
Click to expand...
( Hi Cleb, and welcome!! We are asked not to resurrect old threads. If this topic is of interest CAF’s invites us to start a new thread. God Bless)
 
youthcrusader said:
Alright, so after numberous opinions, this is the final question: IS THE CROSS TO BE GIVEN THE WORSHIP OF “LATRIA,” OR MERELY “DULIA”? DID SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS ERR?
Click to expand...
If Aquinas erred at all it is in semantics. The Catechism states:

2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, “the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype,” and “whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.” 70 The honor paid to sacred images is a “respectful veneration,” not the adoration due to God alone:
“Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 81, 3 ad 3)

Nicea II states: “The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models, and to pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full adoration in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honored and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels and to other sacred cult objects. Further, people are drawn to honor these images with the offering of incense and lights, as was piously established by ancient custom. Indeed, the honor paid to an image traverses it, reaching the model, and he who venerates the image, venerates the person represented in that image.”

I would say this is the sense of what St. Thomas wrote. Still he is not infallible and he would be the first one to take seriously arguments against his position as the articles in his Summa Theologica show.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top