title: Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 202 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum cultus latriae exhiberi debeat imagini Christi.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum cultus latriae exhiberi debeat imagini Christi. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. *Primo* per Damascenum, quarto libro[^4]: « Honor imaginis refertur ad prototypum »: ergo idem est adorare imaginem et eum cuius est imago: ergo si Christus colendus est cultu latriae, videtur, quod eius imago similiter. (*Fundamenta.*)

2. *Item*, Abraham adoravit tres viros[^5], et in his adoravit sanctam Trinitatem, secundum quod Glossae exponunt: si igitur illi tres viri non erant Trinitas summa, sed eam significabant; ergo latriae cultus non solum debetur *rei significatae*, sed etiam *signo*. Cum ergo imago Christi sit eius signum, videtur, quod ei sit cultus latriae exhibendus.

<!-- page 203 -->

3. *Item*, homo loquitur ad imaginem in suis petitionibus, ergo loquitur ad imaginem, sicut ad personam rationalis creaturae, igitur sic loquitur ad imaginem Christi, sicut ad Christum; et sicut loquitur, sic colit et adorat: ergo debet adorare imaginem Christi, sicut Christum.

4. *Item*, eandem reverentiam exhibemus et exhibere debemus imagini beatae Virginis quam ipsi Virgini, et sic de aliis Sanctis: ergo et eadem reverentia exhibenda est imagini Christi, sicut ipsi Christo; sed Christo exhibetur cultus sive honor latriae: ergo debet exhiberi imagini suae.

**Sed contra:** 1. Exodi vigesimo[^6], in primo mandato: *Non facies tibi imaginem neque sculptam similitudinem*: si ergo prohibitum est, imaginem fieri, multo magis et adorari. (*Ad oppositum.*)

2. *Item*, Damascenus, capitulo *de Imaginibus*[^7]: « Magnae impietatis et insipientiae est figurari quod divinitatis est »: ergo maioris impietatis est adorare iam figuratum.

3. *Item*, melior est creatura vivens quam non vivens, quia similior est summae vitae: si ergo huiusmodi imagines non sunt viventes, minus sunt dignae honore quam talpae et vespertiliones. Si ergo impium est adorare vespertiliones et talpas, multo magis huiusmodi imagines[^8].

4. *Item*, nobilior et melior est imago divinitus impressa quam *ab hominibus sculpta*; sed si quis adoraret diabolum vel hominem peccatorem, in quo est imago Domini *impressa*, peccaret: ergo multo magis qui adorat huiusmodi imagines[^9].

5. *Item*, fortius fugiendus est ritus idololatriae quam legales caerimoniae; sed Ecclesia fugit ritum caerimoniae legalis, ne videatur iudaizare: pari ergo ratione debet fugere ritum idololatriae, ne videatur idololatrare. Ergo si cultus idololatriae consistebat in veneratione imaginum et picturarum, videtur, quod talia non sunt adoranda[^10].

6. *Item*, cum huiusmodi imagines nec per novum nec per vetus Testamentum approbentur, videtur, quod earum introductio fuerit novitatis praesumtio: si igitur talia sunt exstirpanda, videtur, quod talia non sunt colenda.

> **Conclusio.** Imagini Christi debet cultus latriae exhiberi.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod imaginum introductio in Ecclesia non fuit absque rationabili causa. Introductae enim fuerunt propter triplicem causam, videlicet propter simplicium ruditatem, propter affectuum tarditatem et propter memoriae labilitatem. — Propter simplicium ruditatem inventae sunt (*Prima.*), ut simplices, qui non possunt scripturas[^11] legere, in huiusmodi sculpturis et picturis tanquam in scripturis apertius possint sacramenta nostrae fidei legere. — Propter affectus tarditatem similiter introductae sunt (*Secunda.*), videlicet ut homines, qui non excitantur ad devotionem in his quae pro nobis Christus gessit, dum illa aure percipiunt, saltem excitentur, dum eadem in figuris et picturis tanquam praesentia oculis corporeis cernunt. Plus enim excitatur affectus noster per ea quae videt, quam per ea quae audit. Unde Horatius[^12]:

> Segnius irritant animos demissa per aurem,
> Quam quae sunt oculis subiecta fidelibus, et quae
> Ipse sibi tradit spectator.

Propter memoriae labilitatem (*Tertia.*), quia ea quae audiuntur solum, facilius traduntur oblivioni, quam ea quae videntur. Frequenter enim verificatur in multis illud quod consuevit dici: verbum intrat per unam aurem et exit per aliam. Praeterea, non semper est praesto qui beneficia nobis praestita ad memoriam reducat per verba. Ideo dispensatione Dei factum est, ut imagines fierent praecipue in ecclesiis, ut videntes eas recordemur de beneficiis nobis impensis et Sanctorum operibus virtuosis.

Quoniam igitur imago Christi introducta est ad repraesentandum eum qui pro nobis crucifixus est, nec offert se nobis[^13] pro se, sed pro illo; ideo omnis reverentia, quae ei offertur, exhibetur Christo.

<!-- page 204 -->

Et propterea imagini Christi debet cultus latriae exhiberi. (*Conclusio 3.*) Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus in libro tertio *de Doctrina christiana*[^14]: « Qui veneratur tale signum divinitus institutum, cuius vim significationemque intelligit, non hoc veneratur, quod videtur et transit, sed illud potius, quo talia cuncta referenda sunt ». — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes, quae hoc ostendunt.

*Ad 1. 2.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod prohibitum est, ne quis faciat sibi imaginem; dicendum, quod pro eo tempore prohibitum est, in quo Deus humanam naturam nondum assumserat. (*Solutio oppositorum. Notandum.*) Tunc enim, cum Deus omnino spiritus esset, infigurabilis erat; et ideo ipsum figurare erat error et impietas. Et pro illo tempore loquitur Damascenus[^15], cum dicit, quod « insipientiae et impietatis est figurare quod divinitatis est »; verum est, secundum quod *divinitatis est*, quia est incircumscriptibilis et infigurabilis; sed non est sic quantum ad humanam naturam. Unde subiungit, quod « Deus propter viscera misericordiae suae factus est homo et *cum hominibus conversatus est*, miracula fecit, passus est, crucifixus est; haec ad memoriam hominum scripta sunt et ad doctrinam nostram. Quia vero non omnes noscunt litteras neque lectioni vacant, Patres decreverunt velut quosdam triumphos imaginibus describere ad velocem memoriam ».

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod creatura vivens nobilior est non vivente; dicendum, quod verum est de nobilitate *reali*, sed non oportet, quod hoc sit verum de nobilitate *significationis* (*Notandum.*), quia res parvi valoris rem nobilem significare potest. Cum ergo adoratur imago, non adoratur ratione nobilitatis, quam *habet in se*, sed ratione nobilitatis *significatae in se*[^16]. Et si obiiciat, quod lapides et ligna ducunt in Deum; dicendum, quod non ducunt sic nec sunt principaliter instituta ad hoc, sicut imagines et picturae.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de imagine divinitus impressa, iam patet responsio: quia, cum talis homo sit creatura nobilis, offert se magis per modum rei quam per modum signi (*Notandum.*); et ideo honor, qui ei defertur, non omnino refertur ad primum exemplar, sicut honor, qui defertur imagini pictae vel sculptae. — Si autem aliquis coleret ipsam figuram tanquam rem, magis erraret, quam qui coleret creaturam rationalem. Unde Augustinus *de Doctrina christiana*[^17]: « Fateor, altius esse demersos qui opera hominum pro Deo colunt, quam qui opera Dei », ut statuam quam stellam.

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod illud videtur esse idololatrare; dicendum, quod verum est, si adorarentur ratione sui, ita quod crederetur, aliquid divinum ibi esse; nunc autem non est sic, immo omnino aliter mentes fidelium venerantur; et ideo non servant idololatriae ritum. Et si tu obiicias, quod sunt occasio erroris (*Notandum.*); dicendum, quod etsi litterae sacrae fuerunt et sunt usque in hodiernum diem, et etiam aliae creaturae quandoque occasio erroris[^18]; non tamen propter hoc sunt litterae delendae, et creaturae destruendae, quia hoc divini iudicii est, ut bonis sint in bonum, malis autem in mala convertantur. Sic et in imaginibus est intelligendum.

*Ad 6.* Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod illud non habet auctoritatem ex Scripturis; dicendum, quod multa Apostoli tradiderunt, quae tamen non sunt scripta (*Notandum.*). Unde Apostolus[^19] laudabat eos qui tenebant suas traditiones, et Ecclesia servavit fideliter quae ab Apostolis accepit. Narrat tamen Damascenus[^20] duo, quae sunt ad imaginis confirmationem (*Narratio Damasceni.*). Unum est, quod « quaedam historia refert, quod Dominus Abgaro regi, qui pictorem miserat, imaginem Dei similiter picturare et figurare, nequeunte pictore

<!-- page 205 -->

propter coruscantes a facie claritates, ipse vestimentum propriae faciei divinae superimponens, in vestimento illo sui ipsius imaginem expressisset, et ita cupienti Abgaro misisset ». Et iterum: « Accepimus, Lucam, evangelistam, depinxisse Dominum et Matrem eius ». Et sic patet, quod non sunt adinventiones[^21] in huiusmodi imaginibus, sed divinae traditiones et apostolicae sanctiones.

english:
### Question II. *Whether the cult of latria ought to be shown to an image of Christ.*

Secondly it is asked whether the cult of latria ought to be shown to an image of Christ. And that it should, it seems:

1. *First*, through the Damascene, in the fourth book[^4]: « The honor of an image is referred to the prototype »: therefore it is the same thing to adore an image and him whose image it is: therefore if Christ is to be venerated with the cult of latria, it seems that his image likewise. (*Arguments.*)

2. *Likewise*, Abraham adored three men[^5], and in them he adored the holy Trinity, according to what the Glosses expound: if therefore those three men were not the supreme Trinity, but signified it; therefore the cult of latria is owed not only to the *thing signified*, but also to the *sign*. Since therefore the image of Christ is his sign, it seems that the cult of latria is to be shown to it.

3. *Likewise*, a man speaks to an image in his petitions, therefore he speaks to the image as to the person of a rational creature, therefore he thus speaks to the image of Christ as to Christ; and as he speaks, so he venerates and adores: therefore he ought to adore the image of Christ, as Christ.

4. *Likewise*, we show and ought to show the same reverence to an image of the Blessed Virgin as to the Virgin herself, and so of the other Saints: therefore the same reverence too is to be shown to an image of Christ, as to Christ himself; but to Christ is shown the cult or honor of latria: therefore it ought to be shown to his image.

**On the contrary:** 1. Exodus twenty[^6], in the first commandment: *You shall not make for yourself an image nor a graven likeness*: if therefore it is forbidden to make an image, much more also to adore one. (*To the opposite.*)

2. *Likewise*, the Damascene, in the chapter *On Images*[^7]: « It is of great impiety and folly to figure forth that which is of the divinity »: therefore it is of greater impiety to adore what is already figured forth.

3. *Likewise*, a living creature is better than a non-living one, because it is more like to the supreme life: if therefore images of this kind are not living, they are less worthy of honor than moles and bats. If therefore it is impious to adore bats and moles, much more images of this kind[^8].

4. *Likewise*, an image divinely imprinted is nobler and better than one *graven by men*; but if anyone were to adore the devil or a sinful man, in whom the image of the Lord is *imprinted*, he would sin: therefore much more he who adores images of this kind[^9].

5. *Likewise*, the rite of idolatry is more strongly to be fled than the legal ceremonies; but the Church flees the rite of the legal ceremony, lest it seem to judaize: by parity of reason, therefore, it ought to flee the rite of idolatry, lest it seem to idolatrize. Therefore if the cult of idolatry consisted in the veneration of images and pictures, it seems that such things are not to be adored[^10].

6. *Likewise*, since images of this kind are approved neither by the New nor by the Old Testament, it seems that their introduction was a presumption of novelty: if therefore such things are to be rooted out, it seems that such things are not to be venerated.

> **Conclusion.** The cult of latria ought to be shown to an image of Christ.

**I respond:** It must be said that the introduction of images into the Church was not without a reasonable cause. For they were introduced on account of a threefold cause, namely on account of the rudeness of the simple, on account of the slowness of the affections, and on account of the slipperiness of memory. — On account of the rudeness of the simple they were devised (*First.*), so that the simple, who cannot read the Scriptures[^11], may in sculptures and pictures of this kind, as in scriptures, more openly read the sacraments of our faith. — On account of the slowness of the affections they were likewise introduced (*Second.*), namely so that men, who are not stirred to devotion in those things which Christ did for us when they perceive them by the ear, may at least be stirred when they behold the same in figures and pictures, as though present, with the bodily eyes. For our affection is more stirred by the things it sees than by the things it hears. Whence Horace[^12]:

> Less keenly do things let in through the ear stir the mind,
> Than those which are set before faithful eyes, and which
> the spectator himself reports to himself.

On account of the slipperiness of memory (*Third.*), because those things which are only heard are more easily handed over to oblivion than those which are seen. For it is frequently verified in many that which is wont to be said: a word enters through one ear and goes out through the other. Moreover, there is not always at hand one who would recall to memory through words the benefits bestowed on us. Therefore by God's dispensation it was brought about that images should be made especially in churches, so that, seeing them, we may be reminded of the benefits bestowed on us and of the virtuous works of the Saints.

Since therefore the image of Christ was introduced to represent him who was crucified for us, and does not offer itself to us[^13] for itself, but for him; therefore all the reverence which is offered to it is shown to Christ.

And therefore the cult of latria ought to be shown to an image of Christ. (*Conclusion 3.*) And this is what Augustine says in the third book *On Christian Doctrine*[^14]: « He who venerates such a divinely instituted sign, whose force and signification he understands, does not venerate this which is seen and passes away, but rather that to which all such things are to be referred ». — The reasons, therefore, which show this are to be conceded.

*To 1 and 2.* To that, then, which is objected to the contrary, that it was forbidden that anyone make for himself an image; it must be said that it was forbidden for that time in which God had not yet assumed human nature. (*Solution of the opposites. Note.*) For then, when God was wholly spirit, he was unfigurable; and therefore to figure him forth was error and impiety. And for that time the Damascene speaks[^15], when he says that « it is of folly and impiety to figure forth that which is of the divinity »; this is true, according as it *is of the divinity*, because it is uncircumscribable and unfigurable; but it is not so as regards the human nature. Whence he adds that « God, on account of the bowels of his mercy, was made man and *conversed with men*, did miracles, suffered, was crucified; these things were written for the memory of men and for our instruction. But because not all know letters nor are at leisure for reading, the Fathers decreed to describe, as it were certain triumphs, by images, for ready remembrance ».

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that a living creature is nobler than a non-living one; it must be said that this is true of *real* nobility, but it need not be that this is true of the nobility of *signification* (*Note.*), because a thing of little worth can signify a noble thing. When therefore an image is adored, it is not adored by reason of the nobility which it *has in itself*, but by reason of the nobility *signified in it*[^16]. And if one objects that stones and wood lead to God; it must be said that they do not lead thus, nor are they principally instituted for this, as images and pictures are.

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning a divinely imprinted image, the response is already plain: because, since such a man is a noble creature, he offers himself rather after the mode of a thing than after the mode of a sign (*Note.*); and therefore the honor which is shown to him is not wholly referred to the first exemplar, as is the honor which is shown to a painted or sculpted image. — But if anyone were to venerate the figure itself as a thing, he would err more than he who would venerate a rational creature. Whence Augustine *On Christian Doctrine*[^17]: « I confess that those who venerate the works of men for God are more deeply sunk than those who venerate the works of God », as a statue rather than a star.

*To 5.* To that which is objected, that this seems to be idolatrizing; it must be said that this is true, if they were adored by reason of themselves, so that it were believed that something divine was there; but now it is not so, rather the minds of the faithful venerate altogether otherwise; and therefore they do not keep the rite of idolatry. And if you object that they are an occasion of error (*Note.*); it must be said that, although the sacred letters were and are an occasion of error even unto the present day, and also other creatures sometimes[^18]; nevertheless the letters are not on this account to be destroyed, nor the creatures abolished, because this is of the divine judgment, that they be turned to good for the good, but to evil for the evil. So too it must be understood in images.

*To 6.* But to that which is objected, that this has no authority from the Scriptures; it must be said that the Apostles handed down many things which nevertheless are not written (*Note.*). Whence the Apostle[^19] praised those who held to their traditions, and the Church faithfully kept what it received from the Apostles. The Damascene[^20], however, relates two things which serve for the confirmation of the image (*Narration of the Damascene.*). One is that « a certain history relates that the Lord, to king Abgar, who had sent a painter to portray and figure forth the image of God in like manner — the painter being unable

propter coruscantes a facie claritates — himself, laying his garment over his own divine face, expressed in that garment the image of himself, and so sent it to Abgar who desired it ». And again: « We have received that Luke, the evangelist, depicted the Lord and his Mother ». And so it is plain that in images of this kind there are no inventions[^21], but divine traditions and apostolic sanctions.

la: August., I. contra Maximin. Arian. c. 9. similem huic obiectionem quoad Spiritum sanctum prolatam (quia Rom. 8, 26. legitur: *Ipse Spiritus postulat pro nobis gemitibus inenarrabilibus*) resolvit dicens: *Aliud est interpellare vel orare, aliud adorare. Omnis qui orat, rogat; non omnis qui adorat, rogat; nec omnis qui rogat, adorat. Recole consuetudinem regum, qui plerumque adorantur et non rogantur; aliquando rogantur et non adorantur. Ac per hoc a Spiritu sancto adorari Patrem nullo modo demonstrare potuisti.* — De prototypo cfr. Basilium, de Spir. S. c. 18, cuius verba Damasc. allegat loc. cit., et Orat. 1. de imaginibus, circa finem. [p.202 footer 1]

en: Augustine, *Against Maximinus the Arian* I, c. 9, resolves an objection like this one, raised concerning the Holy Spirit (because at Rom. 8:26 it is read: *The Spirit himself intercedes for us with unutterable groanings*), saying: *To intercede or to pray is one thing, to adore another. Everyone who prays asks; not everyone who adores asks; nor does everyone who asks adore. Recall the custom of kings, who are for the most part adored and not asked; sometimes they are asked and not adored. And by this you were in no way able to show that the Father is adored by the Holy Spirit.* — On the prototype cf. Basil, *On the Holy Spirit* c. 18, whose words the Damascene cites in the place cited, and *Oration* 1 on images, near the end. [p.202 footer 1]

la: Gen. 18, 2. — Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum hunc locum in sensu *morali* explicat secundum Gregor., IX. Moral. in fine. Aliter August., qui Serm. 7. (alias 6.) n. 6. Abraham sanctissimam Trinitatem adorasse, expresse docet. Cfr. Ambros., 1. de Fide, c. 13. n. 80. Ita et Glossa *interlinearis* apud Lyranum, ubi legitur: *Ita affectibus manifestatur fides Trinitatis.* [p.202 footer 3]

en: Gen. 18:2. — The Ordinary Gloss in Strabus and Lyranus expounds this passage in the *moral* sense, following Gregory, *Morals* IX, at the end. Otherwise Augustine, who in *Sermon* 7 (alias 6), n. 6, expressly teaches that Abraham adored the most holy Trinity. Cf. Ambrose, *On the Faith* I, c. 13, n. 80. So too the *interlinear* Gloss in Lyranus, where it is read: *Thus by the affections the faith of the Trinity is made manifest.* [p.202 footer 3]

la: Vers. 4. Cfr. Lev. 19, 4. et Deut. 5, 8. [p.203 footer 1]

en: Verse 4. Cf. Lev. 19:4 and Deut. 5:8. [p.203 footer 1]

la: Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 16. Cfr. Oratio I. de imaginibus, n. 4. et 7; II. n. 5, nec non III. n. 2. [p.203 footer 2]

en: Book IV, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 16. Cf. *Oration* I on images, nn. 4 and 7; II, n. 5, and also III, n. 2. [p.203 footer 2]

la: Obiectio huic similis iam facta est a Claudio, Taurinensis ecclesiae episc., contra cuius blasphemias Ionas, Aurelianensis episc. († 813), mandato Ludovici Caesaris tres libros scripsit de Cultu imaginum, in quorum primo inter alias istius episcopi propositiones etiam hanc refellit: *Certe si adorandi [Sancti] fuissent, vivi potius quam mortui adorandi esse debuerunt* etc. Vide Migne, Patrol. lat. tom. 106. col. 326. Cfr. S. Agobard., Lugdun. episc. († 840 vel 841), de Imagin. Sanct. c. 28: *Certe si adorandi fuissent homines, vivi magis quam picti* etc. (Migne, Patrol. lat. tom. 104. col. 222). Cfr. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 113. serm. 2. n. 2. — Pro *honore* cod. K *honorari*. [p.203 footer 3]

en: An objection like this was already made by Claudius, bishop of the church of Turin, against whose blasphemies Ionas, bishop of Orléans († 813), at the command of the emperor Louis wrote three books on the Cult of images, in the first of which, among other propositions of that bishop, he also refutes this one: *Surely if [the Saints] were to be adored, they ought to have been adored alive rather than dead* etc. See Migne, *Patrologia Latina*, vol. 106, col. 326. Cf. St. Agobard, bishop of Lyons († 840 or 841), *On the Images of the Saints* c. 28: *Surely if men were to be adored, alive rather than painted* etc. (Migne, *Patrologia Latina*, vol. 104, col. 222). Cf. Augustine, *Enarrations on Ps.* 113, sermon 2, n. 2. — For *honore*, codex K reads *honorari*. [p.203 footer 3]

la: Hanc quoque obiectionem Claudius iam protulit, et quidem secundum Ionam loc. cit. his verbis: *Si opera manuum Dei non sunt adoranda et colenda, quanto magis opera manuum hominum adoranda et colenda non sunt! Prorsus nec in honore eorum quorum similitudines esse dicuntur.* [p.203 footer 4]

en: This objection too Claudius already put forward, and indeed, according to Ionas in the place cited, in these words: *If the works of God's hands are not to be adored and venerated, how much more are the works of men's hands not to be adored and venerated! By no means even in the honor of those whose likenesses they are said to be.* [p.203 footer 4]

la: Similis obiectio occurrit in Conc. Nicaen. II. act. 6. tom. 4. Claudius Taurinensis loc. cit. apud Ionam: *Si imago, quam adoras, Deus non est, nequaquam veneranda est honore Sanctorum, qui nequaquam divinos sibi arrogant honores.* — Pro *legales caerimonias* edd. cum nonnullis codd. *legalis caerimoniae*. Pro *consistebat* Vat. *consistit*, edd. 1, 2 *consistant*. [p.203 footer 5]

en: A similar objection occurs in the Second Council of Nicaea, act. 6, tom. 4. Claudius of Turin, in the place cited in Ionas: *If the image which you adore is not God, it is by no means to be venerated with the honor of the Saints, who in no way arrogate divine honors to themselves.* — For *legales caerimonias* the editions, with some codices, read *legalis caerimoniae*. For *consistebat* the Vatican edition reads *consistit*, editions 1, 2 *consistant*. [p.203 footer 5]

la: Vat. omittit *scripturas*. Cfr. Damasc., IV. de Fide orthod. c. 16. — Mox pro *Propter affectus* codd. a *l.* ib. *Propter affectuum*. [p.203 footer 6]

en: The Vatican edition omits *scripturas*. Cf. the Damascene, IV, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 16. — Presently, for *Propter affectus*, codices a, *l.* etc. read *Propter affectuum*. [p.203 footer 6]

la: In Epist. ad Pisones sive de Arte poetica, v. 180. seqq. — Pro *demissa* in multis codd. legitur *dimissa*, in codd. P bb *immissa*. Deinde loco *per aurem* plurimi codd. cum edd. 1, 2 contra text. origin. exhibent *per aures*. [p.203 footer 7]

en: In the *Epistle to the Pisos*, or *On the Art of Poetry*, v. 180 ff. — For *demissa* many codices read *dimissa*, in codices P, bb *immissa*. Then in place of *per aurem* most codices, with editions 1, 2, against the original text, present *per aures*. [p.203 footer 7]

la: Cod. Z supplet *imago illa*. [p.203 footer 8]

en: Codex Z supplies *that image*. [p.203 footer 8]

la: Cap. 9. n. 13, ubi textus origin. pro *tale signum* habet *utile signum*. Deinde pro *cuius vim* Vat. cum edd. 1, 2 substituit *eius vim* et paulo inferius *ad quod talia* pro *quo talia*. [p.204 footer 1]

en: Chap. 9, n. 13, where the original text has *utile signum* (a useful sign) for *tale signum* (such a sign). Then for *cuius vim* the Vatican edition, with editions 1, 2, substitutes *eius vim*, and a little below *ad quod talia* for *quo talia*. [p.204 footer 1]

la: Loc. cit. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 16: « Atque hinc est, quod in veteri Testamento minime tritus erat imaginum usus » (ed. Migne). Affert Damasc. ibid. etiam eandem rationem ac Bonaventura: « Praeterea quisnam est, qui invisibilis et incorporei, incircumscriptique ac figura vacantis Dei simulacrum effingere queat »? Testimonium seq., ex eodem cap. cit. delibatum, plenius ibi habetur. — Nomini Damascenus codd. A E I N T V bb praefigunt *etiam*. Proxime post testimon. allatum Vat., partem propositionis seq. cum praecedenti coniungens, pro *verum est* exhibet *quod verum est*; in cod. A legitur *verum etiam*. Subinde pro *secundum quod divinitatis est*, quam lectionem ceu clariorem et congruentiorem cum Vat. retinuimus, multi codd. *secundum quod divinum est*. [p.204 footer 2]

en: In the place cited, IV, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 16: « And hence it is that in the Old Testament the use of images was least in vogue » (Migne ed.). The Damascene there adduces also the same reason as Bonaventure: « Moreover, who is there who could fashion a likeness of God, who is invisible and incorporeal and uncircumscribable and devoid of figure »? The following testimony, drawn from the same chapter cited, is found more fully there. — To the name *Damascenus* the codices A, E, I, N, T, V, bb prefix *etiam*. Immediately after the testimony adduced, the Vatican edition, joining part of the following clause with the preceding, presents for *verum est* the reading *quod verum est*; in codex A is read *verum etiam*. Then for *secundum quod divinitatis est*, which reading, as clearer and more fitting, we have retained with the Vatican edition, many codices read *secundum quod divinum est*. [p.204 footer 2]

la: Edd. *per se*. [p.204 footer 4]

en: The editions read *per se* (by itself). [p.204 footer 4]

la: Libr. III. c. 7. n. 11: *Fateor tamen, altius demersos esse qui opera hominum deos putant, quam qui opera Dei.* — Paulo superius pro *ad primum exemplar* cod. Z *ad ipsum exemplar*. [p.204 footer 5]

en: Book III, c. 7, n. 11: *I confess, however, that those who think the works of men to be gods are more deeply sunk than those who think the works of God.* — A little above, for *ad primum exemplar*, codex Z reads *ad ipsum exemplar*. [p.204 footer 5]

la: Verba *quandoque occasio erroris* in plurimis codd. et edd. 1, 2 non congrue desunt. In codd. bb (K a secunda manu) legitur sic: *fuerunt et sunt* [cod. K hic inserit *multis*] *erroris occasio usque in hodiernum diem, et etiam aliae creaturae.* Aliquanto superius post *crederetur* edd. addunt *in eis*, omisso dein *ibi*. In fine solut. pro *in imaginibus* cod. H *de imaginibus*. [p.204 footer 6]

en: The words *quandoque occasio erroris* are unfittingly absent in most codices and editions 1, 2. In codices bb (K by a second hand) it is read thus: *they were and are* [codex K here inserts *for many*] *an occasion of error even unto the present day, and also other creatures.* Somewhat above, after *crederetur*, the editions add *in eis*, omitting then *ibi*. At the end of the solution, for *in imaginibus*, codex H reads *de imaginibus*. [p.204 footer 6]

la: Epist. I. Cor. 2, 2; II. Thess. 2, 14. Cfr. Ioan. 20, 30; 21, 25. Vide Damasc., IV. de Fide orthod. c. 16. [p.204 footer 7]

en: Epistle I Cor. 2:2; II Thess. 2:14. Cf. John 20:30; 21:25. See the Damascene, IV, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 16. [p.204 footer 7]

la: Primum factum (quod iam refert Evagrius, IV. Hist. c. 27.) prodit IV. de Fide orthod. c. 16. et in Oratione 1. de imagin. n. 27. Cfr. etiam Nicephor., II. Eccles. hist. c. 7. et Euseb., I. Hist. eccles. c. 13. Secundum factum, quod memorant Theodor. Lector, I. Excerpt. ex eccles. hist. n. 1, et Nicephor., XIV. eccles. hist. c. 2. et XV. c. 14. [qui etiam asserunt, Lucam solum B. V. Mariam coloribus expressisse], Damasc. refert in Oratione adversus Constantinum Cobalinum, n. 6, nec non in Epist. ad Theophilum imperatorem, n. 3. seq. — In testimonio Damasceni hic allegato Vat. ante *picturare* omittit *similiter*, quod codd. exhibent et necessario addendum fuit, cum in textu Graeco legatur τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου ὁμοιογραφῆσαι εἰκόνα. Deinde pro *ipse vestimentum propriae faciei divinae*... [p.204 footer 8]

en: The first fact (which Evagrius, *History* IV, c. 27, already relates) comes forth in IV, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 16, and in *Oration* 1 on images, n. 27. Cf. also Nicephorus, *Ecclesiastical History* II, c. 7, and Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History* I, c. 13. The second fact, which Theodorus Lector, *Excerpts from Ecclesiastical History* I, n. 1, and Nicephorus, *Ecclesiastical History* XIV, c. 2, and XV, c. 14, record [who also assert that Luke alone expressed the Blessed Virgin Mary in colors], the Damascene relates in the *Oration against Constantine Cabalinus*, n. 6, and also in the *Epistle to the emperor Theophilus*, n. 3 f. — In the testimony of the Damascene here adduced, the Vatican edition omits *similiter* before *picturare*, which the codices present and which had necessarily to be added, since in the Greek text is read τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου ὁμοιογραφῆσαι εἰκόνα. Then for *ipse vestimentum propriae faciei divinae*... [p.204 footer 8]

la: Voci *adinventiones* edd. praemittunt *novae*. [p.205 footer 1]

en: To the word *adinventiones* the editions prefix *novae* (new). [p.205 footer 1]

latin_scholion:
**I.** In hac quaestione egregie defenditur doctrina catholica de cultu imaginis Christi et Sanctorum contra Iconoclastas aliosque haereticos, iam a Concilio Nicaeno II. (an. 787), a Concilio oecumenico VIII. (can. 3.) et postea a Tridentino (Sess. 25, decret. de invocatione et veneratione et reliquiis Sanctorum et sacris imaginibus) reprobatos; cfr. etiam Pius VI. contra Synodum Pistoriensem, thes. 69-71. — Quod cultus imaginum sit *relativus*, toties ab Ecclesia declaratum est a tempore Concilii Nicaeni II, quod dicit: « Imaginis enim honor ad prototypon transit; et qui adorat imaginem adorat in ea depicti subsistentiam ». Item Concilium Tridentinum: « Non quod credatur inesse aliqua in eis divinitas vel virtus, propter quam sint colendae; vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum; vel quod fiducia in imaginibus sit figenda, veluti olim fiebat a gentibus, quae in idolis spem suam collocabant; sed quoniam honor, qui eis exhibetur, refertur ad prototypa, quae illae repraesentant » etc. — Quod autem in Ecclesia occidentali praedictum decretum Nicaeni acri reclamatione impugnatum sit, praesertim quatuor « libris Carolinis » et Synodo Francofurdiensi (794); hoc ortum est praecipue ex mala interpretatione Latina falsaque intelligentia huius decreti Graece conscripti; de quo videsis recentiores auctores. Contra iconoclastam occidentalem, qui fuit Claudius, episc. Taurinensis († 840), egregie scripserunt episc. Aurelianensis Ionas, abbas Theodemir aliique. Contra impugnatores Nicaeni II. sincerum cultum imaginum defenderunt Summi Pontifices Hadrianus I. et Eugenius II.

**II.** Alex. Hal., p. III. q. 30. m. 3. a. 3. — S. Thom., hic a. 2. quaestiunc. 2; S. III. q. 25. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. quaestiunc. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 3. — Solutio sequentis (3.) quaest. nullatenus potest esse dubia. De ea explicite tractant: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 2. § 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3; S. loc. cit. a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 4. — Aegid. R., loc. cit. a. 4.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** In this question the catholic doctrine concerning the cult of the image of Christ and of the Saints is excellently defended against the Iconoclasts and other heretics, who were reproved already by the Second Council of Nicaea (A.D. 787), by the Eighth ecumenical Council (can. 3), and afterward by Trent (Sess. 25, decree on the invocation and veneration and relics of the Saints and on sacred images); cf. also Pius VI against the Synod of Pistoia, theses 69-71. — That the cult of images is *relative* has been so often declared by the Church from the time of the Second Council of Nicaea, which says: « For the honor of an image passes to the prototype; and he who adores an image adores in it the subsistence of the one depicted ». Likewise the Council of Trent: « Not that it is believed that there is in them any divinity or power, on account of which they are to be venerated; or that anything is to be asked of them; or that confidence is to be fixed in images, as was once done by the gentiles, who placed their hope in idols; but because the honor which is shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent » etc. — But as to the fact that in the Western Church the aforesaid decree of Nicaea was assailed with sharp protest, especially in the four « Caroline Books » and the Synod of Frankfurt (794); this arose chiefly from a bad Latin interpretation and a false understanding of this decree written in Greek; concerning which you may consult the more recent authors. Against the Western iconoclast, who was Claudius, bishop of Turin († 840), the bishop of Orléans Ionas, the abbot Theodemir, and others wrote excellently. Against the assailants of the Second Council of Nicaea the Supreme Pontiffs Hadrian I and Eugenius II defended the sincere cult of images.

**II.** Alexander of Hales, p. III, q. 30, m. 3, a. 3. — St. Thomas, here a. 2, quaestiuncula 2; *Summa* III, q. 25, a. 3. — Blessed Albert, here a. 4, quaestiuncula 1. — Petrus a Tarantasia, here q. 1, a. 2, quaestiuncula 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 2, a. 3. — The solution of the following (3rd) question can in no way be doubtful. On it treat explicitly: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. a. 2, § 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, quaestiuncula 3; *Summa* loc. cit. a. 5. — Petrus a Tarantasia, loc. cit. quaestiuncula 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit. q. 4. — Aegidius Romanus, loc. cit. a. 4.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.202–205 (PDF 224–227), read Left column top→bottom then Right, cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 14452–14639). The OCR was moderately garbled in this stretch (Greek ὁμοιογραφῆσαι, the Damascene/Augustine quotations, and several footer entries shattered), so the PDF column bands are authoritative per the Vol II/III override; running prose (the *Fundamenta* / *Sed contra* args and the Horace verses) carried by the OCR.

**Page-split map (printed → content):**
- **p.202** (foot, below q1's SCHOLION): QUAEST. II header + title + opener + *Fundamenta* arg.1 (Damascene IV *prototypum*²) + arg.2 (Abraham *tres viros*³). Footer notes 1–3 (RECEIVED hand-off → `[^4]`, `[^5]`; note 2 *de Fide orthod. c.16* is a bare cross-reference folded into `[^7]`'s family on p.203).
- **p.203**: *Fundamenta* args 3–4 + *Sed contra* args 1–6 + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (triplex causa: simplicium ruditatem / affectus tarditatem [Horace] / memoriae labilitatem). Footer notes 1–8 → `[^6]`–`[^13]`.
- **p.204**: Respondeo tail (*Conclusio 3*, Augustine *de Doctr. christ.*) + Solutio oppositorum *Ad 1.2 / Ad 3 / Ad 4 / Ad 5 / Ad 6* + *Narratio Damasceni* (Abgar) opening. Footer notes 1–8 → `[^14]`–`[^20]` (footer 3 *Baruch 3,38* is a bare scripture cross-ref keying the Damascene quote, folded into `[^15]`'s family; not separately marked in body).
- **p.205**: *Narratio Damasceni* tail (Abgar / Luke) ending *…apostolicae sanctiones* (*adinventiones*¹) + SCHOLION §I–II; then QUAESTIO III opens at R-col top. q2 owns p.205 footer note 1 only → `[^21]`.

**Marginal labels** rendered inline in parens, not as anchors: *Fundamenta* (Arguments), *Ad oppositum* (To the opposite), *Conclusio* / *Conclusio 3*, *Prima/Secunda/Tertia* (the threefold cause), *Solutio oppositorum*, *Notandum* (×4), *Narratio Damasceni*.

**Apparatus count: 20 entries** (`[^4]`–`[^13]` continue q1's `[^1]`–`[^16]` numbering convention within d.9 but are reset to a fresh `[^4]`-start here only because the source footers begin at p.202 note 1; the chunk uses a single continuous `[^4]`–`[^21]` sequence — 18 source footers fully accounted for: p.202 nn.1,3 + p.203 nn.1–8 + p.204 nn.1,2,4,5,6,7,8 + p.205 n.1, with p.202 n.2, p.204 n.3 as bare cross-refs folded). **No per-page suffix needed** — markers run continuously with no body-marker collision. *NB body markers:* arg.1 uses ² (prototypum²) and arg.2 uses ³ (tres viros³) per Quaracchi; the chunk renumbers these to `[^4]`/`[^5]`.

**SCHOLION disposition: `has_scholion: TRUE`.** Contrary to q1's forecast (which expected q2 to be forward-covered), q2 prints its OWN standalone SCHOLION after the Solutio: §I (dogmatic — Nicaea II / Trent / Pius VI contra Pistoia thes. 69-71; cult of images is *relativus*; Caroline Books / Synod of Frankfurt protest from bad Latin translation; Claudius of Turin refuted by Ionas/Agobard) + §II (commentator list: Alex. Hal. / S. Thom. / B. Albert / Petr. a Tar. / Richard a Med. / Aegid. R.; §II also explicitly forward-covers q3 — *Solutio sequentis (3.) quaest. nullatenus potest esse dubia*, listing the same commentators for q3).

**Footer hand-off:**
- **RECEIVED from `d9-a1-q1`:** p.202 footer notes 1–3 (note 1 *August. I contra Maximin. Arian. c.9* + Basilius → `[^4]` *prototypum²*; note 2 *de Fide orthod. c.16* bare cross-ref; note 3 *Gen. 18,2* Glossa/Gregory/Augustine → `[^5]` *tres viros³*). q1's own footers were exhausted on pp.199–201; CONFIRMED eyes-on p.202 footer band.
- **FORWARDED to `d9-a1-q3`:** p.205 footer notes 2+ key q3's body. CONFIRMED eyes-on p.205-R footer band: note 2 *Lib. IV de Fide orthod. c.16 … imagini Christi*, note 3 *Damasc. IV de Fide c.14*, note 4 *Ut ostensum est supra q.1*, note 5 *Boeth. de Oppositis*. q2 owns only p.205 note 1 (*adinventiones*¹, `[^21]`); q3 opens its own fresh footer sequence on p.205 (note 1 *Voci adinventiones edd. praemittunt novae* is q2's; q3's args use notes 2–5 — q3 will open its first footer at p.205 note 2 / a fresh p.206 sequence).

**[?] flags:** none.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 205 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum cultus latriae Matri Christi exhiberi debeat.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum cultus latriae Matri eius debeat exhiberi. Et quod sic, videtur:

(*Ad oppositum*) 1. Per illud quod dicit Damascenus in capitulo *de Imaginibus*[^1]: «Honor, qui est ad ipsam, ad eum qui est ex ipsa incarnatus, reducitur»: ergo si honor latriae exhibendus est imagini Christi, quia refertur ad prototypum, pari ratione beatae Virgini honor latriae exhibendus est, cum honor sibi exhibitus ad Filium referatur.

2. Item, ex hoc quod Virgo Maria effecta est mater Dei, est effecta mater omnium creaturarum[^2]: ergo Filius communicat Matri dominium maiestatis: ergo cum latria sit cultus maiestati debitus, pari ratione communicat ei latriae cultum.

3. Item, caro Christi consimilis fuit naturae et consubstantialis carni Virginis; sed Christus secundum humanam naturam adorandus est adoratione latriae[^3]: ergo pari ratione humana natura in Virgine, eius matre.

4. Item, Filius Dei exhibuit reverentiam et honorem ipsi Virgini, sicut suae matri: ergo si subiecit se, vult per consequens, quod unusquisque eidem subiiciatur, et quod honor, qui sibi impenditur, ei impendatur: si ergo huiusmodi est latria, videtur etc.

**Sed contra:** (*Fundamenta*) 1. Virgo beata adorat Filium suum adoratione latriae; sed unius et eiusdem secundum eandem naturam non est adorare et adorari[^4]: si ergo in beata Virgine est una tantum natura, videtur, quod ipsa non sit latria adoranda.

2. Item, beata Virgo est pura creatura: ergo non debetur ei honor, nisi qui est inter terminos creaturae; sed iste est honor duliae, non latriae: ergo etc.

3. Item, honor latriae redditur Deo ratione summae maiestatis; sed hanc non est reperire in Virgine: ergo non videtur, quod sit cultu latriae adoranda.

<!-- page 206 -->

4. Item, qui adorat aliquem cultu latriae confitetur, ipsum esse Deum: ergo qui adorat Virginem cultu latriae confitetur, ipsam esse deam[^5]: ergo si hoc est impietatis maximae, videtur, quod etc.

### Conclusio

> Virgini Mariae non est exhibendus cultus latriae, sed hyperduliae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod beatissima Virgo Maria pura creatura est; et ideo ad honorem et cultum latriae non ascendit (*Conclusio 1*). Sed quoniam excellentissimum nomen habet, ita quod excellentius purae creaturae convenire non potest; ideo non tantum debetur ei honor duliae, sed hyperduliae (*Conclusio 2*). Hoc autem nomen est, quod Virgo existens, Dei Mater est, quod quidem tantae dignitatis est, quod non solum viatores, sed etiam comprehensores, non solum homines, verum etiam Angeli eam[^6] revereantur quadam praerogativa speciali (*Notandum*). Ex hoc enim, quod Mater Dei est, praelata est ceteris creaturis, et eam prae ceteris decens est honorari et venerari. Hic autem honor consuevit a magistris hyperdulia vocari. Et accipitur verbum illud de Glossa super primi Regum octavum[^7], ubi dicitur dulia maior et dulia minor. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes, quod Virgini Mariae non sit exhibendus cultus latriae.

(*Solutio oppositorum*) 1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod honor Matris refertur ad Filium; dicendum, quod referri honorem ad aliquem est dupliciter: aut sicut ad subiectum, aut sicut ad finem (*Distinctio notanda*). Honor autem, qui exhibetur Matri, refertur ad Filium sicut ad finem; honor autem, quo adoramus imaginem Christi, refertur ad ipsum sicut ad subiectum. Unde qui adorat Christi imaginem Christum adorat, non imaginem; qui vero adorat Christi Matrem adorat Christum et Matrem suam[^8].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod communicat Matri dominium maiestatis; dicendum, quod est dominium praesidentiae et dominium maiestatis et omnipotentiae (*Duplex dominium*). Cum ergo dicitur, quod Filius communicat Matri dominium; intelligitur de dominio praesidentiae; cum vero subiungitur, quod dominio redditur cultus latriae; intelligitur de dominio maiestatis et omnipotentiae. Et hoc quidem Dominus nulli communicat purae creaturae.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod eiusdem naturae et consimilis est caro Virginis cum carne Verbi; dicendum, quod caro Verbi non adoratur adoratione latriae, in quantum est caro humana, sed in quantum est caro assumta[^9] (*Notandum*). Licet autem caro Virginis conformis sit carni Verbi quantum ad conformitatem naturae, non tamen conformis est quantum ad gratiam unionis. Et ideo in processu illo est paralogismus accidentis, quia secundum aliam et aliam comparationem communicat cum Virgine, et debetur sibi adoratio latriae.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Christus honoravit Matrem suam; dicendum, quod verum est: sed Christus non adoravit eam adoratione latriae, sed hyperduliae — non enim adoravit eam ut deam, sed ut filius matrem suam — ideo bene sequitur, quod Christus vere Matrem suam docet[^10] adorare et venerari sicut decet Matrem Dei (*Notandum*). Sed ex hoc non sequitur, quod velit, illum honorem Matri exhiberi, quem vult exhiberi sibi, pro eo quod ita est mater, quod ancilla; et persona Matris in infinitum inferior est persona Filii. Ideo etsi multum debeat adorari et amari, in infinitum tamen minus debet adorari et amari, secundum legem iustitiae et rectum ordinem, quam Filius eius, qui est Rex regum et Dominus dominantium[^11].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether the cult of latria ought to be shown to the Mother of Christ.*

Third, it is asked whether the cult of latria ought to be shown to His Mother. And that it should, it seems:

(*To the contrary*) 1. From what Damascene says in the chapter *On Images*[^1]: «The honor which is given to her is referred back to Him who was incarnate from her»: therefore if the honor of latria must be shown to the image of Christ, because it is referred to the prototype, by parity of reasoning the honor of latria must be shown to the blessed Virgin, since the honor shown to her is referred to the Son.

2. Likewise, from the fact that the Virgin Mary was made the Mother of God, she was made the mother of all creatures[^2]: therefore the Son shares with His Mother the dominion of majesty: therefore, since latria is the cult owed to majesty, by parity of reasoning He shares with her the cult of latria.

3. Likewise, the flesh of Christ was like in nature and consubstantial with the flesh of the Virgin; but Christ according to His human nature is to be adored with the adoration of latria[^3]: therefore by parity of reasoning so is the human nature in the Virgin, His mother.

4. Likewise, the Son of God showed reverence and honor to the Virgin herself, as to His mother: therefore if He subjected Himself, He wills consequently that everyone be subject to her, and that the honor which is shown to Him be shown to her: if therefore such [honor] is latria, it seems etc.

**On the contrary:** (*Fundamenta*) 1. The blessed Virgin adores her Son with the adoration of latria; but it does not belong to one and the same [being], according to the same nature, both to adore and to be adored[^4]: if therefore in the blessed Virgin there is only one nature, it seems that she is not to be adored with latria.

2. Likewise, the blessed Virgin is a pure creature: therefore no honor is owed to her except that which is within the limits of a creature; but that is the honor of dulia, not of latria: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the honor of latria is rendered to God by reason of His supreme majesty; but this is not to be found in the Virgin: therefore it does not seem that she is to be adored with the cult of latria.

4. Likewise, whoever adores someone with the cult of latria confesses that he is God: therefore whoever adores the Virgin with the cult of latria confesses that she is a goddess[^5]: therefore if this is the greatest impiety, it seems that etc.

### Conclusion

> The cult of latria is not to be shown to the Virgin Mary, but [the cult] of hyperdulia.

**I respond:** It must be said that the most blessed Virgin Mary is a pure creature; and therefore she does not rise to the honor and cult of latria (*Conclusion 1*). But since she has a most excellent name, such that a more excellent one cannot belong to a pure creature; therefore not only the honor of dulia is owed to her, but of hyperdulia (*Conclusion 2*). For this name is that, being a Virgin, she is the Mother of God, which indeed is of so great a dignity that not only wayfarers, but even the comprehensors, not only men, but even the Angels revere her[^6] by a certain special prerogative (*Note*). For from this, that she is the Mother of God, she is set above the rest of creatures, and it is fitting that she be honored and venerated above the rest. And this honor has been accustomed to be called hyperdulia by the masters. And that word is taken from the Gloss on the first [book] of Kings, [chapter] eight[^7], where a greater dulia and a lesser dulia are spoken of. — Therefore the arguments are to be granted, that the cult of latria is not to be shown to the Virgin Mary.

(*Solution of the opposing arguments*) 1. To that which is first objected to the contrary, that the honor of the Mother is referred to the Son; it must be said that to refer honor to someone is twofold: either as to a subject, or as to an end (*Distinction to be noted*). But the honor which is shown to the Mother is referred to the Son as to an end; whereas the honor by which we adore the image of Christ is referred to Him as to a subject. Hence whoever adores the image of Christ adores Christ, not the image; but whoever adores the Mother of Christ adores Christ and His Mother[^8].

2. To that which is objected, that He shares with the Mother the dominion of majesty; it must be said that there is a dominion of presidency and a dominion of majesty and omnipotence (*Twofold dominion*). When therefore it is said that the Son shares dominion with the Mother, it is understood of the dominion of presidency; but when it is added that the cult of latria is rendered to dominion, it is understood of the dominion of majesty and omnipotence. And this indeed the Lord shares with no pure creature.

3. To that which is objected, that the flesh of the Virgin is of the same nature and like to the flesh of the Word; it must be said that the flesh of the Word is not adored with the adoration of latria insofar as it is human flesh, but insofar as it is assumed flesh[^9] (*Note*). But although the flesh of the Virgin is conformed to the flesh of the Word as regards conformity of nature, nevertheless it is not conformed as regards the grace of union. And therefore in that process there is the paralogism of accident, because it is according to one and another comparison that she has communion with the Virgin, and the adoration of latria is owed to it.

4. To that which is objected, that Christ honored His Mother; it must be said that it is true: but Christ did not adore her with the adoration of latria, but of hyperdulia — for He did not adore her as a goddess, but as a son [adores] his mother — therefore it well follows that Christ truly teaches[^10] His Mother to be adored and venerated as befits the Mother of God (*Note*). But from this it does not follow that He wills that honor to be shown to the Mother which He wills to be shown to Himself, for the reason that she is mother in such a way that [she is also] a handmaid; and the person of the Mother is infinitely inferior to the person of the Son. Therefore, although she ought to be greatly adored and loved, nevertheless she ought to be adored and loved infinitely less, according to the law of justice and right order, than her Son, who is King of kings and Lord of lords[^11].

---

la: Lib. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 16. — Mox pro *imagini Christi* codd. G H K *imaginibus Christi.*

en: Bk. IV, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 16. — Soon after, for *imagini Christi* (to the image of Christ) codices G H K read *imaginibus Christi* (to the images of Christ).

la: Damasc., IV. de Fide orthod. c. 14: *Profecto vere et proprie Dei Genitrix est et Domina, omnibusque creatis imperat quae ancilla materque simul exstitit Creatoris.*

en: Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith* IV, c. 14: «Truly and properly she is the Mother of God and Lady, and she commands all created things, who was at once both the handmaid and the mother of the Creator.»

la: Ut ostensum est supra q. 1.

en: As was shown above in q. 1.

la: Boeth., IV. in Praedicam. Aristot. c. de Oppositis: *Sunt enim opposita quae in eodem, secundum idem, in eodem tempore, circa unam eandemque rem simul esse non possunt.*

en: Boethius, Bk. IV on Aristotle's *Categories*, the chapter on Opposites: «For opposites are those which cannot be at once in the same [subject], according to the same [respect], at the same time, with regard to one and the same thing.»

la: Ut ex Epiph., III. adversus Haeres. haeres. 78. c. 23. et haeres. 79. novimus, in Arabiam per mulieres, quae e Thracia venerant, secta introducta fuit, cuius sectatores Mariam deam profitebantur eique sacrificandum esse tenebant. Nuncupata fuit haec secta Collyridianorum, eo quod qui illam sequebantur collyridem i. e. tortam panis in honorem B. M. V. offerebant. Cfr. Damasc., de Haeres. n. 79, et Homil. 2. in Dormition. B. M. V. n. 15.

en: As we know from Epiphanius, *Against Heresies* III, heresy 78, c. 23, and heresy 79, a sect was introduced into Arabia by women who had come from Thrace, whose followers professed Mary to be a goddess and held that sacrifice ought to be offered to her. This sect was named that of the Collyridians, because those who followed it used to offer a *collyris*, i.e. a small twisted loaf of bread, in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Cf. Damascene, *On Heresies* n. 79, and *Homily* 2, *On the Dormition of the B.V.M.* n. 15.

la: In codd. deest *eam;* posset etiam suppleri illud (*nomen*).

en: In the codices *eam* (her) is lacking; one might also supply *illud* (*nomen*) (that [name]).

la: Neque Strabus neque Lyranus in loc. cit. Glossam affert, quae a Bonav. hic respicitur; insinuatur autem duliae divisio in maiorem et minorem in Glossa, quam supra pag. 200, nota 1. allegavimus. Sed Alanus ab Insulis in Distinction. dictionum theologic. (sub verbo *duliae*) duliam tripliciter distinguit: in *positivam*, quae maioribus, ut episcopis, debetur; in *mediam* vel comparativam, quae debetur naturae angelicae; et in *maximam* vel superlativam, quae debetur humanae Christi naturae. Sed vide quae de hoc docentur hic q. 1.

en: Neither Strabo nor Lyranus in the place cited adduces the Gloss which is here referred to by Bonaventure; but the division of dulia into greater and lesser is suggested in the Gloss which we cited above on p. 200, note 1. But Alan of Lille, in his *Distinctions of Theological Terms* (under the word *dulia*), distinguishes dulia in a threefold way: into *positive*, which is owed to superiors such as bishops; into *intermediate* or comparative, which is owed to the angelic nature; and into *greatest* or superlative, which is owed to the human nature of Christ. But see what is taught on this here in q. 1.

la: Pro *suam* cod. K *eius.*

en: For *suam* (his) codex K reads *eius* (his).

la: Cfr. supra q. 1. De fallacia *accidentis* cfr. supra pag. 179, nota 1. — In initio solut. multi codd. omittunt *et* ante *consimilis*, et in eius fine ante *debetur* edd. cum nonnullis codd. repetunt *secundum aliam.*

en: Cf. above q. 1. On the fallacy of *accident* cf. above p. 179, note 1. — At the beginning of the solution many codices omit *et* before *consimilis*, and at its end, before *debetur*, the editions, with some codices, repeat *secundum aliam.*

la: Pro *docet*, quod e cod. bb restituimus, librarii in ceteris codd. scripserunt *decet*, excepto cod. aa, qui (a secunda manu correct.) exhibet *docuit;* edd. perperam substituerunt *debet.* Subinde pro *Sed ex hoc* codd. G I K N T V X *et ex hoc.*

en: For *docet* (teaches), which we have restored from codex bb, the scribes in the other codices wrote *decet* (befits), except codex aa, which (corrected by a second hand) gives *docuit* (taught); the editions wrongly substituted *debet* (ought). Then for *Sed ex hoc* (But from this) codices G I K N T V X [read] *et ex hoc* (and from this).

la: Epist. I. Tim. 6, 15. et Apoc. 19, 16. — Paulo superius cod. K bis *honorari* pro *adorari.* — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: 1 Tim. 6:15 and Rev. 19:16. — A little above, codex K [reads] *honorari* (honored) twice for *adorari* (adored). — See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp. 205–206 (PDF 227–228), read Left→Right top→bottom, cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 14640–14734). The OCR here is moderately garbled (the Greek in the p.205 scholion-footer and the Damascene quotes are shattered), and the PDF column-band read is authoritative in the damaged regions per the Vol II/III override. Fresh literal English translation.

**Alignment VERIFIED.** Opener raw 14640 *Tertio quaeritur, utrum cultus latriae Matri eius debeat exhiberi* = the MOTHER question (q3 of the six-question Art. I list: humanity/image/Mother/cross/member/adversary). Body runs raw 14640 → just before QUAEST. IV (raw ~14735, *Utrum cultus latriae cruci Christi exhibendus sit*). Conclusion is in the **negative**: the cult of latria is NOT shown to the Virgin, but hyperdulia.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.205-R** (top): the L-col of p.205 holds q2's SCHOLION §I–II; q3 OPENS at the top of the R-col — QUAEST. III header + title + opener + *Ad oppositum* args 1–3 + *Sed contra* (margin *Fundamenta*) args 1–3 (arg.3 ends *…cultu latriae adoranda* at foot of p.205-R).
- **p.206**: *Sed contra* arg.4 (*deam¹*) + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (*Conclusio 1/2*, *Notandum*; *eam²*, *Regum octavum³*) + *Solutio oppositorum* Ad 1 (*Distinctio notanda*; *Matrem suam⁴*) + Ad 2 (*Duplex dominium*) + Ad 3 (*Notandum*; *caro assumta⁵*) + Ad 4 (*Notandum*; *docet⁶*, ending *Dominus dominantium⁷*). q3 ends at foot of p.206-R; QUAEST. IV opens at top of p.207.

**Apparatus (11 entries).** Continuous `[^1]`–`[^11]`; NO per-page suffix (no body-marker collision across the page break — p.205 args carry markers 2–5 with no chunk-internal `1`, and p.206 carries 1–7).
- `[^1]`–`[^4]` = **p.205 footer notes 2–5** (RECEIVED hand-off from d9-a1-q2: q2 owns only p.205 note 1, *Voci adinventiones edd. praemittunt novae*). Note 2 *de Fide orthod. IV c.16* → arg.1 *de Imaginibus²*; note 3 *Damasc. IV de Fide c.14 Dei Genitrix* → arg.2 *creaturarum³*; note 4 *Ut ostensum supra q.1* → arg.3 *latriae⁴*; note 5 *Boeth. de Oppositis* → Sed contra arg.1 *adorari⁵*. (Hand-off exactly as forecast.)
- `[^5]`–`[^11]` = **p.206 footer notes 1–7** (L-col footer notes 1–3 = Collyridians/Epiph., *eam* deest, Glossa+Alanus duliae divisio; R-col footer notes 4–7 = *suam* cod. K, *accidentis* cross-ref, *docet/decet* variant, 1 Tim./Apoc. + *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*).

**Scholion disposition: `has_scholion: false`.** q3 has NO standalone SCHOLION: it ends at Ad 4 on p.206, immediately followed by QUAESTIO IV on p.207. q2's standalone SCHOLION §II EXPLICITLY forward-covers q3 (*Solutio sequentis (3.) quaest. nullatenus potest esse dubia. De ea explicite tractant: Alex. Hal.… S. Thom.… Petr. a Tar.… Richard. a Med.… Aegid. R.*) and p.206 note 7 (`[^11]`) explicitly redirects *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* — confirmed eyes-on, exactly as forecast.

**Footer hand-off to d9-a1-q4:** NONE FORWARDED. q3's footers are fully exhausted on pp.205–206 (p.205 notes 2–5 + p.206 notes 1–7). QUAEST. IV (cross) opens at the top of **p.207** with a fresh footer sequence.

**[?] flags:** none.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 4

source_text:
<!-- page 207 -->

### Quaestio IV. *Utrum cultus latriae cruci Christi exhibendus sit.*

Quarto quaeritur, utrum cultus latriae sit exhibendus cruci Christi. Et quod sic, videtur.

(*Fundamenta*) 1. Sic adoramus crucem, sicut oramus; sed crucem exoramus illa exoratione, quae facienda est ei soli, qui adorandus est cultu latriae: ergo adoranda est adoratione latriae. Maior manifesta est; minor probatur per illud quod cantat Ecclesia[^1]:

> O crux ave, spes unica,
> Hoc passionis tempore,
> Auge piis iustitiam,
> Reisque dona veniam.

Sed augere iustitiam et dare veniam est solius Dei: ergo etc.

2. Item, sic adoramus, sicut alloquimur; sed alloquimur crucem quasi intelligentem; hoc non est ratione sui, cum sit lignum purum: ergo hoc est ratione Crucifixi in ea. Sed Crucifixum adoramus adoratione latriae[^2]: ergo et ipsam crucem.

3. Item, sic adoramus crucem, sicut reliquias Christi; sed reliquiae eodem honore honorandae sunt, quo honoratur ille cuius sunt reliquiae: si ergo Christus est adorandus adoratione latriae, videtur similiter, quod crux Christi debeat adorari.

4. Item, efficacius ducit nos ipsa vera crux Christi in Christum, quam aliqua eius imago; sed imago Christi, eo quod ducit in Christum, adoratur eadem adoratione cum ipso, videlicet latria[^3]: ergo eadem ratione et nobilissima eius crux.

**Sed contra:** (*Ad oppositum*) 1. Crux Christi est pura creatura, non unita Verbo: ergo si latria non debetur nisi soli Deo per se, et naturae assumtae ratione personae; videtur, quod exhibere cultum latriae ipsi cruci sit idololatrare.

2. Item, Mater Christi plus Christo approximat quam crux eius, et melior et nobilior est creatura; sed Virgo Mater non est adoranda latria[^4]: ergo nec ipsa vera crux.

3. Item, si crux Christi adoranda est latria, quia fuit lectulus eius: igitur cum caelum sit eius sedes, et terra scabellum pedum eius, ut dicit Propheta[^5], ergo sunt adoranda latria. Sed hoc est nefarium et impium: ergo videtur, quod cruci eius cultus latriae non sit exhibendus.

4. Item, crux Christi nihil meruit, nihil demeruit, et non magis sentit laudem quam vituperium, cum sit res insensibilis: ergo si honor debet exhiberi solummodo rei dignae laude[^6], et reverentia rei, etiam quae discernit inter honorem et contumeliam; videtur, quod ei nulla reverentia sit exhibenda.

(*Quaestio incidens*) . Item, quaeritur, qualiter sit adoranda et veneranda.

### Conclusio

> Quaelibet crux ratione Crucifixi latria est adoranda; sed ipsi vero ligno crucis, in quo Christus pependit, ut instrumento nostrae salutis etiam honor venerationis exhibendus est.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum ad praedictorum intelligentiam[^7], quod hic est multiplex modus dicendi. — Quidam enim dicere voluerunt, quod ipsi cruci debetur honor, qui dicitur hyperdulia (*opinio 1*). Et ratio huius est, quia ipsa crux fuit instrumentum totius redemptionis humanae; in ipsa enim salus et redemptio totius humani generis est facta; et ideo omnes homines debent ei esse subiecti subiectione notabili et speciali. Et propterea dicunt, debere adorari eam excellentiori adoratione, quam sit dulia, quae debetur rationali creaturae. Quia tamen crux ista nec est Deus nec ipsi divinitati aliquid unitum; ideo non est ei cultus latriae exhibendus. Propter hoc tenet medium inter latriam et duliam adoratio crucis, ut dicatur hyperdulia[^8].

<!-- page 208 -->

Sed quoniam adoratio sicut allocutio videtur esse solummodo inter res rationis capaces — adoratio enim quaedam oratio est ad aliquid ordinata; unde adorare est ad aliquid orare — crux autem Christi omnino caret ratione: ideo alii dixerunt (*opinio 2*), eam non esse adorandam, nisi in quantum in ea adoratur Christus, nec aliqua est ei honoris reverentia exhibenda nisi ratione Crucifixi, sicut nec imagini nisi ratione imaginati. Et ideo dixerunt, quod cruci Christi est cultus latriae exhibendus et nullus alius, nec duliae nec hyperduliae. Rem enim insensibilem stultum est honorare, cum pro indifferenti habeat honorem et vituperium. Et hoc nituntur confirmare per Damascenum, in capitulo de sanctis Imaginibus[^9], ubi dicit, quod non crucem adoramus, sed typum, id est figurationem. Et sic non videtur, quod crux adoretur, in quantum est res aliqua, sed in quantum est signum (*non probatur*). —

Verumtamen si consideremus verba Damasceni in capitulo de Cruce[^10], videtur, quod non solummodo cruci Christi, prout est signum, sive in quantum typus est, sed etiam ratione materiae exhibenda sit reverentia, quia non solum est veneranda figura, sed etiam verum lignum crucis, in quo Dominus pependit. In aliis vero crucibus veneranda est solum figura, non materia (*distinguitur lignum crucis ab aliis crucibus*). Ait enim sic: «Ipsum quidem pretiosum lignum crucis venerabile, in quo se ipsum pro nobis Christus obtulit, ut sanctificatum tactu corporis et sanguinis decenter est adorandum». Et post: «Si autem ex alia materia facta est, non materiam adoramus, absit; sed typum. Unde et si aurum et pretiosi lapides fuerint, post typi dissolutionem non sunt adoranda». Ex quo colligitur, quod aliqua ipsi cruci sit reverentia exhibenda, excepta adoratione latriae. Et huius signum est, quia Ecclesia solemnizat in crucis inventione et exaltatione[^11] sicut in festivitatibus Sanctorum. Et ideo neuter praedictorum modorum videtur omnino sufficiens.

Propterea[^12] intelligendum est, quod duplici modo exhibetur alicui honor (*honor exhibetur dupliciter*): aliquando in obsequium reverentiae, et iste est honor venerationis; aliquando in testimonium virtutis et famulatum complacentiae, et iste est honor adorationis. Uterque autem honor[^13] istorum offertur ipsi cruci (*conclusio 1*). Nam crucem adoramus et crucem veneramur; sed in hoc est differentia, quod honor venerationis exhibetur ipsi cruci tanquam instrumento nostrae salutis (*conclusio 2*). Unde sicut exhibemus reverentiam Sacramentis, quia est in eis aliquo modo nostrae salutis causalitas; sic cruci Christi et clavis eius aliqua reverentia est exhibenda; et respectu istius honoris habet crux in se aliquid, propter quod debet honorari. — Honor autem adorationis offertur ipsi cruci Christi ratione Crucifixi (*conclusio 3*) — nemo enim intendit ei placere, vel aliquid impetrare ab ea, sed ei qui in ea affixus fuit, et sic non debetur ei nisi adoratio latriae. — Sic igitur[^14] cruci Christi duplex honor debetur, et unus quidem est latria, alius vero non debet dici nec latria nec dulia, quia non est species adorationis, sed vocari potest honor venerationis (*conclusio generalis*). — Concedendum est igitur, quod crux Christi est adoranda latria.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod crux Christi est pura creatura; dicendum, quod crux non adoratur ut res, sed ut signum rememorativum, ducens in Crucifixum, sicut et imago perducens ad imaginatum.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Mater Christi plus appropinquat etc.; dicendum (*notandum*), quod Matri Christi debetur adoratio propria, cum ipsa sit rationis capax: unde Virginem alloquimur, cum adoramus et eius benevolentiam captamus[^15] et desideramus; non sic est de cruce. Cum enim adoramus, placere intendimus Crucifixo, non eius signo.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod caelum est sedes[^16], et terra scabellum; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia caelum et terra ducunt in Deum secundum generalem modum, quo creatura ducit in Creatorem; non sic autem est de cruce, immo est quoddam specialissimum memoriale Crucifixi.

4. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, quod crux nihil meruit et nihil sentit; dicendum (*duplex laus et honor*), quod sicut duplex est laus, sic duplex est honor. Aliquid enim laudatur propter excellentiam suae naturae, sicut res pulcra et bona per propriam naturam[^17]. Aliquid laudatur propter virtutis strenuitatem; et haec quidem laus respicit merita, prima vero non. — Sic et duplex est honor (*quaestio incidens solvitur*). Quidam exhibetur in testimonium virtutis; et iste non est exhibendus cruci nisi ratione Crucifixi, cuius quidem virtus et intelligentia et excellentia est super omnia. Alius est honor, qui exhibetur in signum alicuius nobilitatis et excellentiae; et hoc modo honor non exigit merita nec requirit virtutem in honorato, vel cognitionem, sed aliquam rationem dignitatis, ob quam debeat sibi reverentia exhiberi; et hoc modo quadam nobilitate[^18] Deus lignum crucis nobilitavit, dum in ea pependit et genus humanum liberavit. Et ideo crucem laudamus et veneramur ex ista nobilitate; et multiplices eius laudes decantat Ecclesia; et per praesentiam illius sacratissimi ligni multa impensa sunt fidelibus beneficia et miracula. — Et sic patent obiecta.

<!-- page 209 -->

english:
### Question IV. *Whether the cult of latria ought to be shown to the cross of Christ.*

Fourth it is asked whether the cult of latria ought to be shown to the cross of Christ. And that it ought, seems [thus]:

(*Fundamenta*) 1. We adore the cross in the same way we pray to it; but we entreat the cross with that entreaty which is to be made to him alone who is to be adored with the cult of latria: therefore it is to be adored with the adoration of latria. The major is manifest; the minor is proved by that which the Church chants[^1]:

> Hail, O cross, our only hope,
> in this season of the Passion,
> increase righteousness in the devout,
> and grant pardon to the guilty.

But to increase righteousness and to grant pardon belongs to God alone: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, we adore in the same way we address; but we address the cross as though it understood; this is not by reason of itself, since it is mere wood: therefore this is by reason of the Crucified in it. But we adore the Crucified with the adoration of latria[^2]: therefore the cross itself also.

3. Likewise, we adore the cross in the same way as the relics of Christ; but relics are to be honored with the same honor with which is honored the one whose relics they are: if therefore Christ is to be adored with the adoration of latria, it seems likewise that the cross of Christ ought to be adored.

4. Likewise, the very true cross of Christ leads us more efficaciously into Christ than does any image of him; but the image of Christ, because it leads into Christ, is adored with the same adoration as he himself, namely latria[^3]: therefore by the same reasoning his most noble cross also.

**On the contrary:** (*Ad oppositum*) 1. The cross of Christ is a pure creature, not united to the Word: therefore if latria is owed to none but God alone through himself, and to the assumed nature by reason of the person; it seems that to show the cult of latria to the cross itself would be to commit idolatry.

2. Likewise, the Mother of Christ approaches Christ more closely than his cross does, and is a better and nobler creature; but the Virgin Mother is not to be adored with latria[^4]: therefore neither is the true cross.

3. Likewise, if the cross of Christ is to be adored with latria because it was his couch: then since heaven is his seat, and the earth the footstool of his feet, as the Prophet says[^5], therefore they are to be adored with latria. But this is wicked and impious: therefore it seems that the cult of latria is not to be shown to his cross.

4. Likewise, the cross of Christ merited nothing, demerited nothing, and feels praise no more than reproach, since it is an insensible thing: therefore if honor ought to be shown only to a thing worthy of praise[^6], and reverence to a thing that even discerns between honor and insult; it seems that no reverence is to be shown to it.

(*An incidental question*) . Likewise, it is asked in what manner it is to be adored and venerated.

### Conclusion

> Every cross by reason of the Crucified is to be adored with latria; but to the true wood of the cross itself, on which Christ hung, as the instrument of our salvation, the honor of veneration also is to be shown.

**I respond:** It must be said, for the understanding of the foregoing[^7], that here there is a manifold manner of speaking. — For some have wished to say that to the cross itself is owed the honor which is called hyperdulia (*opinion 1*). And the reason for this is that the cross itself was the instrument of the whole human redemption; for in it the salvation and redemption of the whole human race was wrought; and therefore all men ought to be subject to it with a notable and special subjection. And on this account they say that it ought to be adored with a more excellent adoration than dulia, which is owed to a rational creature. Yet because that cross is neither God nor anything united to the divinity itself; therefore the cult of latria is not to be shown to it. On account of this the adoration of the cross holds a middle place between latria and dulia, so that it is called hyperdulia[^8].

But since adoration, like address, seems to be only among things capable of reason — for adoration is a certain prayer ordered to something; whence to adore is to pray for something — yet the cross of Christ wholly lacks reason: therefore others said (*opinion 2*) that it is not to be adored, except insofar as Christ is adored in it, nor is any reverence of honor to be shown to it except by reason of the Crucified, just as not to an image except by reason of the one imaged. And therefore they said that to the cross of Christ the cult of latria is to be shown and no other, neither dulia nor hyperdulia. For it is foolish to honor an insensible thing, since it holds honor and reproach as a matter of indifference. And this they strive to confirm by Damascene, in the chapter on the holy Images[^9], where he says that we do not adore the cross, but the type, that is, the figuration. And thus it does not seem that the cross is adored insofar as it is some thing, but insofar as it is a sign (*not proven*). —

Nevertheless if we consider the words of Damascene in the chapter on the Cross[^10], it seems that not only to the cross of Christ, as it is a sign, or insofar as it is a type, but also by reason of the matter is reverence to be shown, because not only is the figure to be venerated, but also the true wood of the cross, on which the Lord hung. But in other crosses only the figure is to be venerated, not the matter (*the wood of the cross is distinguished from other crosses*). For he says thus: «The precious wood of the cross itself indeed is venerable, on which Christ offered himself for us, and as sanctified by the touch of [his] body and blood is fittingly to be adored». And afterward: «But if it is made of other matter, we do not adore the matter, far be it; but the type. Whence also if there be gold and precious stones, after the dissolution of the type they are not to be adored». From which it is gathered that some reverence is to be shown to the cross itself, the adoration of latria excepted. And the sign of this is that the Church solemnizes the invention and exaltation of the cross[^11] as it does the festivities of the Saints. And therefore neither of the aforesaid manners seems wholly sufficient.

On this account[^12] it must be understood that honor is shown to someone in two ways (*honor is shown in two ways*): sometimes in the homage of reverence, and this is the honor of veneration; sometimes in testimony of virtue and the service of complacency, and this is the honor of adoration. But each of these honors[^13] is offered to the cross itself (*conclusion 1*). For we adore the cross and we venerate the cross; but in this there is a difference, that the honor of veneration is shown to the cross itself as to the instrument of our salvation (*conclusion 2*). Whence just as we show reverence to the Sacraments, because there is in them in some way a causality of our salvation; so to the cross of Christ and his nails some reverence is to be shown; and with respect to this honor the cross has in itself something on account of which it ought to be honored. — But the honor of adoration is offered to the cross of Christ itself by reason of the Crucified (*conclusion 3*) — for no one intends to please it, or to obtain anything from it, but him who was affixed to it, and thus nothing is owed to it but the adoration of latria. — Thus therefore[^14] a twofold honor is owed to the cross of Christ, and one indeed is latria, but the other ought to be called neither latria nor dulia, because it is not a species of adoration, but can be called the honor of veneration (*the general conclusion*). — It must therefore be conceded that the cross of Christ is to be adored with latria.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that the cross of Christ is a pure creature; it must be said that the cross is not adored as a thing, but as a commemorative sign, leading into the Crucified, just as the image also leads on to the one imaged.

2. To that which is objected, that the Mother of Christ approaches more closely etc.; it must be said (*to be noted*) that to the Mother of Christ a proper adoration is owed, since she herself is capable of reason: whence we address the Virgin when we adore her and seek and desire her benevolence[^15]; it is not so with the cross. For when we adore, we intend to please the Crucified, not his sign.

3. To that which is objected, that heaven is [his] seat[^16], and the earth [his] footstool; it must be said that it is not similar, because heaven and earth lead into God according to the general manner by which a creature leads into the Creator; but it is not so with the cross, rather it is a certain most special memorial of the Crucified.

4. To that which is objected last, that the cross merited nothing and feels nothing; it must be said (*twofold praise and honor*) that just as praise is twofold, so honor is twofold. For something is praised on account of the excellence of its nature, as a thing beautiful and good by its own nature[^17]. Something is praised on account of the strenuousness of virtue; and this praise indeed regards merits, but the former does not. — So too honor is twofold (*the incidental question is resolved*). One is shown in testimony of virtue; and this is not to be shown to the cross except by reason of the Crucified, whose virtue and understanding and excellence is above all things. The other is the honor which is shown as a sign of some nobility and excellence; and in this way honor does not require merits nor demand virtue in the one honored, or cognition, but some ground of dignity, on account of which reverence ought to be shown to it; and in this way by a certain nobility[^18] God ennobled the wood of the cross, while he hung upon it and freed the human race. And therefore we praise and venerate the cross out of this nobility; and the Church chants its manifold praises; and through the presence of that most sacred wood many benefits and miracles have been bestowed upon the faithful. — And thus the objections are clear.

la: In dominica Passionis ad Vesp. — De hymno *Vexilla Regis*, cuius sunt strophae allatae, quique tribuitur Venantio Fortunato, cfr. Martene, III. de antiq. Eccles. ritibus, pag. 237. — In *maiori* pro *oramus* codd. I L aa cc et edd. *exoramus.*

en: On Passion Sunday at Vespers. — On the hymn *Vexilla Regis*, whose strophes are cited, and which is attributed to Venantius Fortunatus, cf. Martène, III, *On the Ancient Rites of the Church*, p. 237. — In the *major* [premise], for *oramus* (we pray) codices I L aa cc and the editions [read] *exoramus* (we entreat).

la: Cfr. supra q. 1. — In initio arg. pro *sicut alloquimur* edd. perperam *sic alloquimur.*

en: Cf. above, q. 1. — At the beginning of the argument, for *sicut alloquimur* (as we address) the editions wrongly [read] *sic alloquimur* (so we address).

la: Vide supra q. 2. — In *maiori* post *vera crux* edd. omittunt *Christi in Christum*; codd. K Q R U (aa a secunda manu) omittunt dumtaxat *in Christum*, multi alii codd. *Christi* tantum; nostram lectionem exhibent codd. M O, qui etiam proxime ante post *ipsa vera* subiungunt *et beata.*

en: See above, q. 2. — In the *major* [premise], after *vera crux* (true cross) the editions omit *Christi in Christum* (of Christ, into Christ); codices K Q R U (aa from a second hand) omit only *in Christum*, many other codices omit *Christi* only; our reading is exhibited by codices M O, which also, just before, after *ipsa vera*, add *et beata* (and blessed).

la: Cfr. q. praeced. — Subinde edd. omittunt *vera.*

en: Cf. the preceding question. — Just after, the editions omit *vera* (true).

en: Psalm 98:5; Isaiah 66:1. Cf. Acts 7:49.

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. Rhetor. c. 15. (c. 9.) et I. Ethic. c. 12.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Rhetoric* I, c. 15 (c. 9) and *Ethics* I, c. 12.

la: Codd. I' N supplent *est notandum.*

en: Codices I' N supply *est notandum* (it must be noted).

la: Edd. hanc proposit. cum praecedenti coniunctam sic reddunt: *Quia cum crux Christi nec sit Deus... latriae exhibendus et propter hoc quod tenet... adoratio crucis dicitur hyperdulia.* — Paulo inferius pro *ordinata*, quam lectionem restauravimus de codd. B C D (N a secunda manu), alii codd. nec non edd. perperam *ordinatum*, Mox pro *ad aliquid orare* edd. cum aliquot codd. *ad aliud orare.*

en: The editions render this proposition, joined with the preceding, thus: *Because since the cross of Christ is neither God... the cult of latria is to be shown and on account of this that it holds [a middle place]... the adoration of the cross is called hyperdulia.* — A little below, for *ordinata* (ordered), which reading we have restored from codices B C D (N from a second hand), other codices as well as the editions [read] wrongly *ordinatum*; soon after, for *ad aliquid orare* (to pray for something) the editions with some codices [read] *ad aliud orare* (to pray to something else).

la: Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 16: *Nec evangelici codicis nec crucis materiam adoramus, verum id quod per haec exprimitur* (ἐκτυπώματι). *Quid enim alioqui discriminis est inter illam crucem, quae Dominum non exprimit et illam, quae eum repraesentat?* (ed. Migne).

en: Bk. IV, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 16: «Neither the matter of the Gospel-book nor of the cross do we adore, but that which is expressed through these (by the figured imprint). For otherwise what difference is there between that cross which does not represent the Lord and that which represents him?» (ed. Migne).

la: Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 11. — Paulo inferius in secundo illo cit. loco edd. pro *non materiam adoramus* falso substituerunt *ideo materiam adoramus.* Deinde ibid. post *sed typum* textus origin. plura exhibet, quae Bonav. omittit.

en: Bk. IV, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 11. — A little below, in that second cited passage, the editions have falsely substituted *ideo materiam adoramus* (therefore we adore the matter) for *non materiam adoramus* (we do not adore the matter). Then in the same place, after *sed typum*, the original text exhibits more, which Bonaventure omits.

la: Diebus 3 Maii et 14 Sept.

en: On the days of 3 May and 14 September.

la: Multi codd. *Praeterea*, cod. A *Propter hoc.*

en: Many codices [read] *Praeterea* (moreover), codex A *Propter hoc* (on account of this).

la: Codd. L N O bb *honorum.* Proxime ante pro *autem* cod. Z *enim.*

en: Codices L N O bb [read] *honorum* (of honors). Just before, for *autem* (however) codex Z [reads] *enim* (for).

la: Ita Codd. P Q Z; in aliis non congrue *enim.*

en: Thus codices P Q Z; in others, incongruously, *enim* (for).

la: Codd. M O *cupimus.*

en: Codices M O [read] *cupimus* (we long for).

la: Edd. et nonnulli codd. supplent *Dei.*

en: The editions and some codices supply *Dei* (of God).

la: Edd. hic repetunt *laudatur.*

en: The editions here repeat *laudatur* (is praised).

la: Edd. cum nonnullis codd. minus bene *nobilitatione.*

en: The editions, with some codices, less well [read] *nobilitatione* (by ennoblement). ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Opinio I. hic relata defenditur ab Henrico Gand. (Quodl. 10. q. 6.) et nonnullis aliis posterioribus theologis, et generatim docetur, quod imagines non debeamus venerari eodem cultu, licet relativo, sicut prototypa. Sed hanc opinionem plurimi cum S. Bonav. et Thoma non approbant. Communiter etiam distinguitur in genere crux, quatenus consideratur ut signum, sive imago Crucifixi, et ut res quaedam. Primo modo eadem latria adoratur quaelibet crux cum ipso Crucifixo, ad quem adoratio refertur. Secundo modo iterum communiter distinguitur ipsa crux, quam morte sua Christus consecravit, a vulgaribus crucibus. Quoad veram Christi crucem in se consideratam est opinionum differentia triplex, quarum prima est opinio hic secundo loco relata et iure reprobata; secunda est ei opposita, quae perfectam latriam verae cruci vindicare vult; tertia est media, quam hic sustinet S. Bonaventura, et cui consentit S. Thom. in Commentario (hic a. 2. quaestiunc. 4.), nisi quod ibi hunc cultum nominat *hyperduliam*. Sed idem in Sum. (III. q. 25. a. 4.) aliis verbis utitur: «Unde utroque modo adoratur eadem adoratione cum Christo, scilicet adoratione latriae». Hinc discipuli S. Thomae in interpretatione verae eius sententiae non consentiunt, dum alii, ut Gotti et Suarez, eum favere volunt tertiae opinioni, alii vero secundae.

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 30. m. 3. a. 3. — Scot., Report. I. Sent. d. 16. q. unica, ad probationem. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 3.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Opinion I, related here, is defended by Henry of Ghent (*Quodlibet* 10, q. 6) and by some other later theologians, and it is generally taught that we ought not to venerate images with the same cult, though relative, as the prototypes. But very many, with St. Bonaventure and Thomas, do not approve this opinion. Commonly too the cross is distinguished in general, according as it is considered as a sign, or image of the Crucified, and as a certain thing. In the first way every cross is adored with the same latria as the Crucified himself, to whom the adoration is referred. In the second way the cross itself, which Christ consecrated by his death, is again commonly distinguished from common crosses. As to the true cross of Christ considered in itself there is a threefold difference of opinions, of which the first is the opinion related here in the second place and rightly reproved; the second is its opposite, which wishes to claim perfect latria for the true cross; the third is the middle one, which St. Bonaventure here maintains, and to which St. Thomas consents in the Commentary (here a. 2, quaestiuncula 4), except that there he names this cult *hyperdulia*. But the same Thomas in the *Summa* (III, q. 25, a. 4) uses other words: «Whence in either way it is adored with the same adoration as Christ, namely with the adoration of latria». Hence the disciples of St. Thomas do not agree in the interpretation of his true opinion, while some, like Gotti and Suarez, would have him favor the third opinion, but others the second.

**II.** Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. III, q. 30, m. 3, a. 3. — Scotus, *Reportata* I *Sent.* d. 16, q. unica, *ad probationem*. — Petrus a Tarantasia, here q. I, a. 2, quaestiuncula 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 3. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 2, a. 3.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.207–209 (PDF 229–231; offset pdf = printed + 22), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR raw lines 14741–14897. Running heads: p.207 `DIST. IX. ART. I. QUAEST. IV.`; on p.208 the verso head is `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; on p.209 the recto head reads `DIST. IX. ART. I. QUAEST. V.` because q5 opens at the foot of p.209 — but the SCHOLION at the top of p.209 belongs to **q4**, not q5.

**Alignment VERIFIED.** Opener raw 14741 *Quarto quaeritur, utrum cultus latriae sit exhibendus cruci Christi* = the CROSS question (q4). Confirmed eyes-on p.207. q1 flesh/humanity, q2 image, q3 Mother already done; q5 (membra Christi, raw 14898) follows; q6 adversary (raw 15034).

**Page-split map.**
- p.207 (PDF 229): QUAEST. IV header + title + opener + *Fundamenta* args 1–4 + *Sed contra* (Ad oppositum) args 1–4 + *Quaestio incidens* + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo through *opinio 1* (hyperdulia). Footers nn.1–8.
- p.208 (PDF 230): Respondeo continued (*opinio 2*; Damascene de Cruce; *honor exhibetur dupliciter*; conclusiones 1–3 + general conclusion) + replies 1–4 (*Ad obiecta*). Footers nn.1–10.
- p.209 (PDF 231): SCHOLION §I–§II (top-left column). No footers attach to the scholion; the footer notes 6–10 at the foot of p.209-R belong to the following q5.

**Scholion disposition.** q4 carries its OWN standalone SCHOLION (§I doctrinal: the three-opinion taxonomy on the cult of the true cross — Henry of Ghent, the opposed full-latria view, and Bonaventure's middle view, with the S. Thomas hyperdulia/latria interpretive crux; §II parallel loci). `has_scholion: true`. This resolves the prior UNKNOWN forecast: q4 is NOT forward-covered by q2 §II (which covered only q3).

**Footer hand-off.** RECEIVED: none. FORWARDED to `d9-a1-q5`: none — p.207 opened a fresh footer sequence fully consumed by q4 across pp.207–208; p.209's foot-of-page footers (nn.6–10) are q5's own and stay with q5.

**Marginal labels** rendered inline in parens (not anchors): *Fundamenta*, *Ad oppositum*, *Quaestio incidens*, *opinio 1*, *opinio 2*, *non probatur*, *distinguitur lignum crucis ab aliis crucibus*, *honor exhibetur dupliciter*, *conclusio 1/2/3*, *conclusio generalis*, *notandum*, *duplex laus et honor*, *quaestio incidens solvitur*.

**[?] flags.** None. All readings resolved against the 450 dpi column bands; OCR garbles (*crucera*, *eultu*, *crnci*, *Chrisli*, hymn *iustiliam/veniani*) silently corrected per context. Footnote 8 (p.207) is a long variant-collation note transcribed verbatim from the PDF footer band.