Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 6
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/3/d/9/q/bon-sent-III-d9-a1-q6
----------------------------------------
### Question VI. *Whether the worship of latria may be offered to Christ's adversary without sin.*

Sixth and last it is asked, whether the worship of latria may be offered to Christ's adversary without sin. And that it can, seems [to be the case].

1. (*To the contrary.*) Suppose that an angel of Satan should transfigure himself into an angel of light, as is said in the second [letter] to the Corinthians, chapter eleven; however much diligence one applies, it can [still] appear that it is Christ; but ignorance of fact, when diligence has been applied, excuses: therefore it seems that such a person would be excused from sin, if he should adore him.

2. Likewise, he who buys copper, intending to buy gold, is not harmed: therefore he who adores an angel of darkness, believing that he adores Christ, does not incur sin; the major proposition is made clear according to the rule of civil law.

3. Likewise, a woman who consents to Peter, thinking she consents to Paul, is held as not consenting — for error of person impedes matrimony, according to what the laws say, and is treated of in the fourth book — therefore by parity of reasoning, he who adores Lucifer, thinking he has adored Christ, is held as if he had not adored.

4. Likewise, the work follows the intention and the belief: therefore if someone, believing Lucifer to be Christ, adores Lucifer, since his intention is borne toward Christ: if by adoring Christ he merits, no sin seems to be his.

**On the contrary:** (*The foundations.*) 1. An idolater, when he adores an idol, believes the idol to be God; and yet from this he is not said to adore God, but rather the idol, whence he commits the sin of idolatry: therefore by parity of reasoning, when someone adores Lucifer, believing him to be Christ, on account of [his] belief he does not escape the crime of idolatry.

2. Likewise, the devil transfigures himself into an angel of light for this reason, that he may be adored by man; but he would not do this, unless he saw that man sins in that adoration: therefore it does not seem that it is possible for the worship of latria to be offered to the devil without sin.

3. Likewise, latria is among those things that are necessary for salvation; but error or ignorance in those things that are necessary for salvation does not excuse from the whole: therefore it seems that he who adores the devil with the worship of latria is not excused from sin.

4. Likewise, in a certain Decretal it is said that a bad priest who does not consecrate and pretends to consecrate sins more

than he who [really] consecrates, for the reason that he makes the people commit idolatry: therefore he who adores an unconsecrated host is an idolater and is not excused on account of ignorance: therefore by parity of reasoning neither is he excused who adores Lucifer, believing [him] to be Christ.

(*An incidental question.*) Alongside this it is asked how that last [point] holds true, that a priest can make the people commit idolatry. For then it would be in the priest's power to make the people sin, whether he will or no; which it is absurd to say.

> ### Conclusion.
> He who simply adores Christ's adversary is not excused from sin on account of ignorance, nor does a condition merely habitually attached suffice — which nevertheless suffices with respect to adoration in the Sacrament of the altar.

**I respond:** It must be said that the honor of latria (*Latria is offered in two ways.*) can be offered to Christ's adversary in two ways: either simply, or under a condition. If simply, I say (*Conclusion 1.*) that it cannot be without sin; for the worship of latria is then offered to another than God; and therefore there is the sin of idolatry there. Nor is one excused by reason of ignorance. (*A threefold aid.*) For he has a threefold aid by which he can avoid the error. The first is the remedy of the forewarning of sacred Scripture, which says many times that many will come falsely in the name of Christ. The second is the remedy of inward prayer, by which a man ought to have recourse to God, that He may illumine his heart. The third is the suspension of his own belief. For a man ought not to believe every spirit, but to test whether they are of God. For he who is quick to believe in such matters is light of heart, and perhaps even puffed up in heart, when he judges himself fit for such visions and revelations. — (*A corollary.*) Hence such apparitions are rather to be feared than to be desired. For it is related of a certain holy Father that, when the devil appeared to him in the appearance of Christ, he, with eyes closed, said that he did not wish to see Christ in this life; and the devil, confounded by his humility, immediately vanished. On the contrary, it is related of many who reckoned and desired themselves fit for visions, who were cast headlong into many follies and errors.

And therefore, if someone simply adores Christ's adversary, he is not excused from sin, even if he believes him to be Christ. But if he should adore under a condition, (*The condition is attached in two ways.*) this can be in two ways: either because that condition is considered or attached habitually, or actually. (*Conclusion 2.*) If actually; then he does not adore Lucifer himself, but rather Christ, because the adoration does not stand except while the condition stands; and the adoration is referred to him to whom the implication of the adoration is referred. (*Conclusion 3.*) But if that condition be under a habitual consideration, in this way it does not suffice to avoid the sin of idolatry with respect to this apparition or transfiguration, yet it does suffice with respect to the Sacrament of the altar. For such a transfiguration is unwonted, and therefore adoration ought not to follow it precipitately, but with maturity and prior prayer. — (*Conclusion 4.*) But the consecration of the host is customary, therefore it suffices that the one adoring should have this condition habitually, namely that the consecration has been done in the due manner; whence few or no faithful sin in this adoration. For all approach with this condition. — (*To the incidental question.*) But as to what is objected, that the priest makes them commit idolatry, this is understood as far as in him lies, because through him it does not fail to occur; for knowingly he sets forth as to be adored what he knows is not to be adored. — It is clear, therefore, that the worship of latria cannot be offered to Christ's adversary without the sin of idolatry. And the reasons adduced for this are to be granted.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**
(*Solution of the contrary arguments.*) *To 1.* To that which is objected, that ignorance of fact excuses when diligence has been applied; it must be said that when Lucifer is adored, due diligence is never applied. For, as has been said, a threefold remedy can be found against this.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that one buying copper, intending to buy gold, is not harmed; it must be said that the intention of buying gold can (*A distinction to be noted.*) be either only in the mind, or in speech. If only in the mind, so that no mention precedes in speech, he has no right to reclaim. But if in speech mention is made of gold, a circumvention is made by the other party; and because the contract, as to the words and the intention, turns upon another matter, therefore he is not harmed, according to the laws. From this, however, it does not follow that the sin of idolatry is not perpetrated by adoring the devil simply, but [only] that it is not perpetrated with the addition of a condition, tacit or expressed.

*To 3.* To the next, which is objected concerning the matrimonial consent in error of person, it can be answered similarly. — (*Otherwise.*) It can also be said that it is not similar, because in this way that error cannot be avoided, as this one can; for a man has an aid at hand for avoiding this error.

*To 4.* (*To be noted.*) To that which is objected, that the work follows the belief and the intention; it must be said that this is true in those things that are not evil in themselves; but in others, as was shown in the second book, it does not hold true. Moreover, the belief itself, by which he believes this one to be Christ, is rash, and therefore leads to a rash work, namely that he should adore this one whom he sees. For since in the belief and in the intention not only Christ falls [under it], but also this one whom he sees; therefore the showing of honor is in some way determined to this one. Therefore neither was the intention or belief right, nor is the adoration right.

---