/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>684326

both are wrong, you don't worship an image of Christ nor a cross. You can use them as helpers in worship, but you do not worship them directly neither as objects nor as abstractions.

You can worship "through" them, like seeing through a window…but you don't worship the window itself.

>aquinas has to be mistaken

of course thomism is wrong in many respects.

>>684327

This thread is not for Protestants man, I'm hoping some of my fellow Catholic brethren here will assist me. I've honestly never even heard the Church teach this, I've always been taught that latria is due to members of the Trinity alone, and that anything else that is worthy of it may only receive dulia and some, like Mary and the cross, can be given hyperdulia but absolutely nothing more. I've been re-studying Aquinas lately, but I don't remember reading this nor do I ever remember it ever being mentioned by any priests or bishops. Aquinas must've been wrong, right my Catholic brethren? He was still a fallible man after all. R-right?

>>684330

Im not protestant and I gave you the correct answer. Aquinas is mistaken. You can't worship anything besides Christ/Godhead himself, not even something that "belongs" to Christ, neither his sandal, nor his mother, nor his cross nor his image without falling into idolatry.

These things may act as pointers for us, to point us towards God, but they can't be worshiped in themselves.

>Aquinas must've been wrong, right my Catholic brethren? He was still a fallible man after all. R-right?

Yes. For example his entire theology is mistaken since it's promotes the idea of divine simplicity and created grace.

>>684330

>i want the truth

>but not if it comes from outside my echo chamber

smh

>>684332

>i'm protestant

>objects to created grace and divine simplicity

You sound like an Orthodox LARPer because Protestants generally accept divine simplicity and "created" grace.

But to clarify, he does not actually teach created grace. Rather what he teaches is, by virtue of God moving a person by his eternal divine grace, and infusing eternal grace into the soul, being the subject of grace, it becomes an accidental quality of the soul inasmuch as it now belongs to the being's nature which has been moved/changed. Hence it only becomes "created" in a relative sense, whereas in God grace is uncreated. My explanation doesn't do it justice, but it might make more sense when actually reading him:

>Reply to Objection 2. Every substance is either the nature of the thing whereof it is the substance or is a part of the nature, even as matter and form are called substance. And because grace is above human nature, it cannot be a substance or a substantial form, but is an accidental form of the soul. Now what is substantially in God, becomes accidental in the soul participating the Divine goodness, as is clear in the case of knowledge. And thus because the soul participates in the Divine goodness imperfectly, the participation of the Divine goodness, which is grace, has its being in the soul in a less perfect way than the soul subsists in itself. Nevertheless, inasmuch as it is the expression or participation of the Divine goodness, it is nobler than the nature of the soul, though not in its mode of being.

>Reply to Objection 3. As Boethius [Pseudo-Bede, Sent. Phil. ex Artist] says, the "being of an accident is to inhere." Hence no accident is called being as if it had being, but because by it something is; hence it is said to belong to a being rather to be a being (Metaph. vii, text. 2). And because to become and to be corrupted belong to what is, properly speaking, no accident comes into being or is corrupted, but is said to come into being and to be corrupted inasmuch as its subject begins or ceases to be in act with this accident. And thus grace is said to be created inasmuch as men are created with reference to it, i.e. are given a new being out of nothing, i.e. not from merits, according to Ephesians 2:10, "created in Jesus Christ in good works."

I understand Orthodox would object to this in their energies-essence distinction, but Latin theology tends not to make that distinction. Still, when you get down to it both are theologically sound even if the Latin explanation of it might seem heretical on the surface. However the essence-energy distinction is also heretical on surface level since to many it would seem to be promoting polytheism.

You don't "worship" the cross, man. You don't say, "Cross, heal my family, give good people peace and health," you ask these things of God.

The cross is just a symbol, a reminder of Christ's burden that while seeing we would never forget and our faith would be stronger in remembrance.

Kind of morbid, but it's not some idolitrious heresy that Prots and Orts make it out to be.

Can i suggest everyone who's seeking answers to these questions to read "De magistro".

After that you will understand that words does not count at all but what is really important are the intentions and the meaning for your soul that you imprint on a tought.

>>684339

>On the contrary, We show the worship of "latria" to that in which we place our hope of salvation. But we place our hope in Christ's cross, for the Church sings: "Dear Cross, best hope o'er all beside, That cheers the solemn passion-tide: Give to the just increase of grace, Give to each contrite sinner peace." Therefore Christ's cross should be worshiped with the adoration of "latria."

t. Aquinas

Aquinas explains fairly clearly what he means.

>As the Philosopher says (De Memor. et Remin. i), there is a twofold movement of the mind towards an image: one indeed towards the image itself as a certain thing; another, towards the image in so far as it is the image of something else. And between these movements there is this difference; that the former, by which one is moved towards an image as a certain thing, is different from the movement towards the thing: whereas the latter movement, which is towards the image as an image, is one and the same as that which is towards the thing. Thus therefore we must say that no reverence is shown to Christ's image, as a thing—for instance, carved or painted wood: because reverence is not due save to a rational creature. It follow therefore that reverence should be shown to it, in so far only as it is an image. Consequently the same reverence should be shown to Christ's image as to Christ Himself. Since, therefore, Christ is adored with the adoration of "latria," it follows that His image should be adored with the adoration of "latria."

I.e., an image isn't to be worshiped as a thing in itself, but it is to be worshiped in the sense that we direct our worship to what it represents.

>>684339

Actually, Aquinas says (correctly) that we do pray to the cross.

>And for this reason also we speak to the cross and pray to it, as to the Crucified Himself.

But again, he's clear that we pray to the Cross (e.g. in the Hymn Vexilla Regis) as a figure of Christ.

>>684523

Even as an Orthodox that makes me extremely uncomfortable. You're edging so close to idolatry right now.

>>684333

Why do they all look like Jews?

>>684544

no because the cross isn't actually God, unlike idolatry actually believing the physical object is literally God. If the eucharist wasn't truly God then it would be idolatry 100% though. Except it is truly God.

>>684596

Oh wow, the mods deleted it. I forgot this was really only an exclusively a catholic board.

>>684596

But you're literally admitting to praying to the cross, which is not God. Y

>>684540

St. Thomas is basing his teaching on St. John Damascene, whom you can't deny is a saint in your own Church. Here are some quotes from the passages cited by St. Thomas.

Book 4, chapter 11:

>Moreover we worship even the image of the precious and life-giving Cross, although made of another tree, not honouring the tree (God forbid) but the image as a symbol of Christ. For He said to His disciples, admonishing them, Then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in Heaven Matthew 24:30, meaning the Cross. And so also the angel of the resurrection said to the woman, You seek Jesus of Nazareth which was crucified. Mark 16:6 And the Apostle said, We preach Christ crucified. 1 Corinthians 1:23 For there are many Christs and many Jesuses, but one crucified. He does not say speared but crucified. It behooves us, then, to worship the sign of Christ. For wherever the sign may be, there also will He be. But it does not behoove us to worship the material of which the image of the Cross is composed, even though it be gold or precious stones, after it is destroyed, if that should happen. Everything, therefore, that is dedicated to God we worship, conferring the adoration on Him.

Book 4, hapter 16

> But since some find fault with us for worshipping and honouring the image of our Saviour and that of our Lady, and those, too, of the rest of the saints and servants of Christ, let them remember that in the beginning God created man after His own image. Genesis 1:26On what grounds, then, do we show reverence to each other unless because we are made after God's image? For as Basil, that much-versed expounder of divine things, says, the honourgiven to the image passes over to the prototype. Now a prototype is that which is imaged, from which the derivative is obtained. Why was it that the Mosaic people honoured on all hands the tabernacle Exodus 33:10 which bore an image and type of heavenly things, or rather of the whole creation? God indeed said to Moses, Look that thou make them after their pattern which was showed you in the mount. The Cherubim, too, which o'ershadow the mercy seat, are they not the work of men's hands Exodus 25:18? What, further, is the celebrated temple at Jerusalem? Is it not hand-made and fashioned by the skill of men 1 Kings viii?

…

>Often, doubtless, when we have not the Lord's passion in mind and see the image of Christ's crucifixion, His saving passion is brought back to remembrance, and we fall down and worship not the material but that which is imaged: just as we do not worship the material of which the Gospels are made, nor the material of the Cross, but that which these typify. For wherein does the cross, that typifies the Lord, differ from a cross that does not do so? It is just the same also in the case of the Mother of the Lord. For the honour which we give to her is referred to Him Who was made of her incarnate. And similarly also the brave acts of holy men stir us up to be brave and to emulate and imitate their valour and to glorify God. For as we said, the honourthat is given to the best of fellow-servants is a proof of good-will towards our common Lady, and the honour rendered to the image passes over to the prototype.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm