Chapter II — The worship of latria is owed to God alone, one and triune, and to Christ the Lord

I. God alone is of infinite dignity, which can be communicated to no creature. This infinite dignity, moreover, is common to all three Persons; therefore the worship of latria is owed to God alone, one and triune, according to that saying (Matthew 4): "The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve." For latria is the servitude which we are bound to show to God alone. Hence it follows that the individual Persons can be adored separately by the worship of latria, since each individually is God; provided, however, that none is explicitly excluded — for each can be conceived without the other. Wherefore the Church has dedicated to each individually a feast day, so that we might adore them distinctly.

II. Since, however, external adoration, generally considered, is indifferent, it is necessary to designate some sign by which we manifest the worship owed to God alone. This, moreover, is sacrifice, which it is unlawful, without superstition, to offer to any creature, however excellent. For, as the Angelic Doctor says (II-II, q. 84, art. 1): "No one ever thought to sacrifice, except to him whom he either worshipped, or thought, or feigned, as God" — which Augustine had already taught (Bk. X, On the City of God, ch. 4). It is certain, then, among all, that both the one God, and the three Persons individually, can, and ought, to be adored by us both jointly, and separately.

III. Question I. Can Christ the Lord, as man, be adored with the adoration of latria? Response: That Christ, as the second Person of the Trinity, ought to be worshipped with the worship of latria, is established from what has been said. This alone is brought into controversy: whether, as man, he ought to be adored with the same worship. All Theologians, with St. Thomas (Part III, q. 25, art. 1), affirm this, and give this reason: "Since in Christ there is only one divine person, and the human nature is also one hypostasis, and one supposit, there is indeed one adoration of him, and one honor, on the part of him who is adored; but on the part of the cause by which he is honored, several adorations can be said to exist, so that, namely, he is honored by one honor on account of his uncreated wisdom, and by another on account of his created wisdom. Christ, taking specifically both his divine nature, and..." his human nature, comprehends both; therefore in him shines infinite dignity, by which he claims for himself the worship of latria. For, that we may adore some whole, and its parts constituting that whole, it is not necessary that the reason of adoration be present in each and every part; but it is enough that the reason of adoration reside in some part. We adore the Eucharist with the worship of latria, because there is found there the flesh, which is the reason of adoration. And, while we worship some holy person, we venerate all his parts with the worship of latria, although the sanctity which is the cause of adoration is not present in all of them. Therefore, that we may adore Christ with the adoration of latria, even considered specifically as man, it suffices that his humanity be terminated by a divine subsistence, which is the formal reason of adoration.

IV. Question III. Is the humanity of Christ, considered as abstracted from the Word, to be adored with the worship of latria? Response: Theologians deny this, with the same St. Thomas — since humanity, considered as precisely abstracted from the Word, betrays only a created, and limited, dignity. Therefore, according to this reasoning, not the worship of latria, but of dulia, is owed to it. Here are the words of the Angelic Doctor (III Part, q. 25, art. 2): "The proper adoration of latria is owed to the hypostasis of infinite dignity; but the reason of honor can be that which does not subsist, on account of which the subsisting person is honored. Adoration of Christ's humanity, then, can be understood in a twofold way. In one way, so that it is the adoration of that which is adored, and thus to adore the flesh of Christ is nothing other than to adore the incarnate Word of God — just as to adore the King's garment is nothing other than to adore the clothed King; and according to this, the adoration of Christ's humanity is the adoration of latria. In another way, the adoration of Christ's humanity can be understood, so that the perfection of Christ's humanity itself is the reason for which Christ is adored, and thus the adoration of Christ's humanity is not the adoration of latria, but of dulia."

V. Question III (bis). Is it lawful in practice to adore the humanity of Christ with the worship of dulia, on account of the created perfections with which it shines? Response: Several deny this, such as Vázquez, Sylvius, and others. The contrary opinion affirms this, resting on the authority of St. Thomas, who says that the same person of Christ is adored with the worship of latria on account of his divinity, and with the worship of dulia on account of the perfection of his humanity (loc. cit.). That such a twofold adoration can be shown to Christ the Lord on account of the two natures is already established from what has been said. But whether they can, and ought, really to be offered separately in practice is not a question of such great moment as to need a more severe discussion. While we adore Christ with the worship of latria, we honor, by a supreme and more excellent worship, both his divinity, and the humanity conjoined to it. If someone wished to meditate separately on Christ's humanity, and to worship it with a peculiar veneration on account of its created perfections, he would perform a true office of religion. Nonetheless, as it seems to me, it is better, these distinctions set aside, to adore Christ the Lord with the worship of latria according to the common, and obvious, manner.

VI. Question IV. Was the body of Christ, during the three days of his death, to be adored with the worship of latria? Response: The common opinion affirms this, because it was united to the divine Word. The same must be asserted of the natural blood shed in his passion, since this was never separated from the Word. The same, too, must be said of the sacrament of the Eucharist, in which the body of Christ is coupled, in an ineffable manner, to the divine person by hypostatic union. And this the Council of Trent defined, against Luther and Calvin.

VII. Question V. Is the host to be adored by the Priest, elevated in the Mass, absolutely, or under an added condition? Response: This is St. Thomas's own response: "It must be said that one who adores a non-consecrated host can adore it under a condition, namely, if it is consecrated. It is not, however, necessary that this condition always be actually explicit; but it suffices that he hold it habitually. Whence one adoring it does not sin, because he does not adore a mere creature, but Christ according to his intention. The priest, however, so far as it is in him, makes the people commit idolatry, because he offers them a mere creature." It is not necessary that this condition be expressly added; but it suffices that it be present habitually, and implicitly. It is absolutely lawful to adore it, since no prudent reason of suspicion occurs that the Priest failed to consecrate it. It suffices that he be so disposed, as a Catholic, that, if he knew it was not consecrated, he would abstain from adoration. He, however, who adores a host really not consecrated, does not exercise an act of the virtue of religion, but an act of idolatry, which is not imputed to him as fault, on account of invincible error.

VIII. Question VI. Is the flesh, or blood, which sometimes appears in a consecrated host by miracle, to be adored with the worship of latria? Response: The common opinion affirms this. Because that flesh, or blood, either is Christ's, or is something divinely produced referring to Christ. No one doubts that the former is to be adored with the worship of latria; if it is something divinely produced, it represents Christ himself. Now every image of Christ is to be adored, if it truly is one, with the reverence of latria. And in all these apparitions which are narrated to be made divinely, Christ the Lord is represented; indeed they are instituted for the purpose of representing him, so that faith and devotion may be wondrously increased. To this opinion St. Thomas accedes (III Part, q. 76, art. 8), where he asks whether, when flesh, or a child, miraculously appears in the Eucharist, the body of Christ is truly there. To this question he responds thus: "But on the contrary is this, that by such an apparition made, the same reverence is shown to that which appears as was shown before — which indeed would not happen, if Christ were not truly there, to whom we show the reverence of latria." If all confess that the consecrated host, under the species of bread, presented to us, is to be adored with the worship of latria, by a stronger right we owe such worship to it once the miraculous apparition has occurred. Would God, then, work a notable prodigy so as to diminish the worship due to the most august sacrament? For we suppose the apparition to be wrought by divine power, for the greater glory of God, the confirmation of faith, and the devotion of the people.