Worship of the saints, relics and images

Worship here signifies any external action by which we show deference and respect to another. Such an act is grounded on the persuasion that the person honoured is worthy of our esteem, and that it is proper to mark our esteem by such an external act of deference.

If the qualities which command our respect belong to the sphere of civil life, our worship is civil; if they belong to the sphere of religion, it is religious worship. Religious worship which is paid exclusively to God on account of his infinite and uncreated excellence is called by divines latria. That paid to the saints is called dulia, while the special worship with which we honour the blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, on account of her created but pre-eminent excellence is called hyperdulia.

Worship is absolute when the excellence which grounds our esteem is in the object honoured; it is relative when paid to some object on account of its connection with a person worthy of our esteem and honour.

In this chapter we will briefly consider the regulations of the Church with regard to the worship of the saints, their relics and images, and the principles which underlie that worship. We suppose the truth of the Catholic doctrine on this subject—that the worship which the Church authorizes to be paid to the saints, to their relics and images—is lawful, praiseworthy, and meritorious. In the first place, then, we are allowed privately to show that inferior worship, which is called dulia, to anyone whom we know with moral certainty to have died in the grace and friendship of God. We may also show marks of relative worship to anything connected with him during life. It is evident that there is nothing reprehensible in such worship; the world is accustomed to show similar marks of its esteem to its great statesmen, generals, poets, and inventors. The Church does not interfere with private worship provided there is nothing in it that is objectionable.

Public worship, however, is subject to the authority of the Church, and she regulates it both as to its manner and objects. No signs of public worship may be used besides those. which are sanctioned, nor may the accustomed and approved signs of honour be shown to any except those who have been canonized or at least beatified by the Holy See. Only the saints, not the beatified, are invoked in the public litanies, and ordinarily it is not lawful to erect churches or altars in honour of the beatified; this mark of honour is reserved for the canonized saints. The pictures of the saints are painted with aureoles, those of the beatified with rays. With the permission of the Ordinary it is not forbidden to place statues of men who have not been canonized or beatified in our churches provided there be no marks of religious worship shown them; and paintings of such men may, under the same condition, be placed on the walls or windows of a church. Such paintings, however, may not be placed over an altar.

The Church is very careful to guard against abuse and fraud in the worship of the saints, their images and relics, as is shown especially by the wise decree of the Council of Trent on the invocation of the saints and the veneration paid to their relics and images (sess. 25). In that decree it is specially prescribed that no new relics or miracles are to be admitted except with the Bishop’s approbation after making a diligent inquiry into the truth of the matter. The question of the authenticity of relics is one of fact and proved by the ordinary rules of evidence. When there seems to be moral certainty of the genuineness of a relic, the Church permits relative honour to be paid to it on account of the spiritual excellence of the person with whom it was connected. The honour is thus referred to the person of the saint and to God who is glorified in all his saints. It is quite possible for mistakes to be made about the genuineness of a relic; the infallibility of the Church does not enter here. When a mistake is detected, of course the honour previously paid to a false relic should stop. No one need be scandalized or distressed when any such discovery is made. The merit of the worship previously paid in good faith is not lost; the saint whose relic it was supposed to be was really honoured by marks of devotion shown to it out of love for him. It is as if a devotee of Shakespeare were to keep a bust in his room, and show it marks of honour because he supposed it to represent the great poet; if he found out that it was a bust of Thomas Cromwell, he would be disappointed, but neither he nor Shakespeare would have suffered any great loss.

(4) Parents or those who hold the place of parents who knowingly give their children to be educated or trained in a non-Catholic religion. Again, even crass ignorance excuses from the censure. Educated means taught and brought up in general, trained means taught in some special branch or branches when the general education has been completed. Canon 2326 II. Qui falsas reliquias conficit, aut scienter vendit, distribuit, vel publicae fidelium venerationi exponit, ipso facto excommunicationem Ordinario reservatam contrahit. (Whoever manufactures false relics, or knowingly sells, distributes, or exposes them to the public veneration of the faithful, contracts ipso facto an excommunication reserved to the Ordinary.)

VI. Particular resolutions. The following are guilty of grave scandal:

1. Those who have a custom of blaspheming.

2. Those who speak very filthy things, especially if this happens before younger persons or persons of a different sex. A milder judgment must be made about immodest jokes among married persons and ruder persons (St. Alphonsus, III, 426).

3. Those who compose, print, circulate, or sing truly filthy songs.

4. Those who compose, print, etc., notably filthy or impious plays; likewise actors and actresses and others who cooperate in such plays (St. Alphonsus, III, 428); likewise dancers of scenic dances in which, on account of the dancers' dress, obscene manners of dancing, or lascivious gestures, the greatest turpitude appears.

5. Those who sculpt, paint, or represent by photograph very filthy statues or images; likewise those who represent obscene things by the help of a lifelike instrument, such as a stereoscope, cinematograph, or bioscope; likewise those who expose things of this kind in gardens, a workshop, a house, to the sight of all (St. Alphonsus, II, 56; Hom. Ap., tr. 4, n. 8); likewise makers and sellers of women's clothing or adornment who publicly expose models adorned in such a way that they are gravely offensive.

6. Those who compose, publish, print, circulate books, newspapers, or other writings notably opposed to religion or good morals; likewise booksellers, or any others, who sell books or newspapers of this kind to anyone, or procure them to be read, and thus spread the poison of souls; likewise those who in libraries erected for lending books expose poisonous works for the use of all; likewise those who introduce into schools a pernicious method of teaching or dangerous little books; likewise those who hand over to children books which, although not evil in themselves, treat of matter whose knowledge for them, on account of their natural innocence and sensitivity, is thought to be gravely offensive.¹

7. Husbands who retain at home a maidservant suspected by the wife not without reason; likewise wives who, by admitting their pretty lovers to familiar conversations, are an offense to their husbands and to others, as experience teaches; likewise clerics who, by visiting or not dismissing a person suspected by the people, give an occasion of sins of detraction, calumny, and contempt of the clerical state, at least if the suspicion of the people is founded on the morals of the person retained or on known excessive familiarity.²

8. Parents and other superiors who blaspheme before their children or commit other grave sins, or neglect grave duties of a Christian person; likewise those who, without grave cause and without precautions having been applied, send them to dangerous schools or permit them other occasions and dangers, such as solitary conversations with lovers and betrothed persons.

9. Daughters and maidservants of tavern-keepers who behave rather loosely before everyone, commonly permitting kisses and embraces.

10. Women and girls who use truly dishonorable dress. But this - since indeed the question is very current - let us explain more fully. Now:

a) Dress, with our matter considered, can be distinguished as threefold: honorable, indecent, and dishonorable or lascivious.

Honorable dress is that which, with the circumstances of places considered, in no way or scarcely excites to lust; as if nothing or only a small part of the breast is bared, and the garments are lowered at least below the knees.

Indecent dress is that which, with the circumstances of places considered, lightly or moderately excites to lust; as if the whole upper part of the breast, or a notable part of it, is bared, or the garments reach only to the knees.

Dishonorable dress is that which, with the circumstances of places considered, gravely provokes to lust; as if the breasts are wholly or partly bared, or are covered only with a transparent covering, or the garments do not even reach to the knees,³ or are fitted to the body in such a way that almost the entire form of the body is displayed.

b) Not only those who use dishonorable dress, but also those who introduce indecent dress, are guilty of grave scandal, if from a custom of this kind introduced the spiritual ruin of many is imminent.

c) Women, in church or outside church, while they assist at sacred rites, should be with the head covered and modestly dressed, especially when they approach the Lord's table (can. 1262, § 2); these things should be extended to Catholic gatherings, whether religious or social.

d) Dress not only dishonorable, but even indecent, must be earnestly restrained and uprooted by preachers and confessors, as far as this can be done. This also holds with respect to boys and girls, who thus lose natural modesty; and this must be urged all the more because indecent and dishonorable dress is today promoted by deliberate effort.

Corollary I. It is lawful for women and girls, provided propriety or honorableness is preserved, to dress themselves and adorn themselves in an elegant manner, whether so that they may please their husband more, or, if there is question of girls of marriageable age, so that they may arrive at an honorable marriage, or so that they may present themselves fittingly according to their condition. If they act thus from vanity, they sin lightly; if with that intention that they provoke men or young men to lust, they sin gravely (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 169, a. 2; St. Alphonsus, II, 54, 55; III, 425).

Corollary II. If someone uses the clothing of the other sex, "of itself it is not a grave sin... and sometimes none, if a just cause is present, for example for hiding oneself. But it could be grave from the circumstances of danger of lust or scandal" (St. Alphonsus, II, 52; St. Thomas, II-II, q. 169, a. 2, ad 3). These things you may also apply to the use of masks.

11. Finally, those introducing a manner of acting, for example women's adornment, as has already been noted, or amusements, which although they are not truly dishonorable, are nevertheless going to become for many an occasion of grave sins, are guilty of grave scandal (St. Alphonsus, II, 55).

¹ Konings, Theol. Mor., n. 295.

² Konings, loc. cit.

³ I do not speak of girls of lesser age, although this custom too cannot be approved.

I. Worship of the heavenly citizens. 1. To the Blessed Virgin Mary is due the worship of hyperdulia; to others reigning in heaven with Christ, the worship of dulia (can. 1255, § 1; n. 400).

2. With public worship it is lawful to venerate only those servants of God who have been numbered among the Saints or Blessed by the authority of the Church (can. 1277, § 1).

3. Saints can be worshiped everywhere and by any act of that kind, that is, of dulia; but the Blessed cannot be worshiped except in the place and manner which the Roman Pontiff has granted (can. 1277, § 2). To servants of God equivalently beatified¹ the same acts of public worship can be granted by which those formally beatified have customarily been honored (can. 2135).

4. Laudably also, with the things to be observed having been observed, Saints of nations, dioceses, provinces, confraternities, religious families, and other places and moral persons are chosen and, with the confirmation of the Apostolic See acceding, are constituted Patrons; not so the Blessed, without a special indult of the same Apostolic See (can. 1278).

Note 1. When a decree has been published by which, in the name of the Supreme Pontiff, it is authentically declared that all the virtues of a Servant of God have been well proved in a heroic degree, or that martyrdom has been well proved, once that decree has been published, I say, the Servant of God can be called venerable. Yet this title imports no permission of public worship (can. 2115).

Note 2. It is prohibited for a Servant of God, whose cause has only been introduced, to be adorned with the title venerable; and postulators should beware lest, on the occasion of the introduction of the cause, anything be done in honor of the Servant of God which smacks of public worship (can. 2084, § 2).

¹ Those servants of God are called equivalently beatified whose cause of beatification has proceeded by the extraordinary way of an excepted case or of worship. By this extraordinary way one proceeds when it is intended to be proved that some Servant of God is in possession of public and ecclesiastical worship (can. 2000, §§ 1 and 2). Such a process is admitted for those servants of God who after the pontificate of Alexander III and before the time fixed by the constitution of Urban VIII Coelestis Hierusalem in 1634, that is, before the year 1534, had worship by tolerance (can. 2135). When the process has been duly completed according to the norm of law (can. 2125-2134) and the worship confirmed by decree of the Roman Pontiff, the Servant of God is to be held as equivalently beatified (can. 2134). Aertnys-Damen, I, n. 44, note.

II. Worship of images. To sacred images also "... veneration and worship, relative to the person to whom... the images are referred, is due" (can. 1255, § 2). Nevertheless:

1. It is lawful for no one to place or to take care that any unusual image be placed in churches, even exempt ones, or in other sacred places, unless it has been approved by the Ordinary of the place (can. 1279, § 1). Note: 1. that there is question only of unusual images; 2. that only this is prohibited, that unusual images be exposed in a sacred place unless they have been approved by the Ordinary of the place. With respect to the Ordinary of the place it is established: the Ordinary is not to approve sacred images to be publicly exposed for the veneration of the faithful which do not agree with the approved usage of the Church (can. 1279, § 2). Nor is he ever to permit images of false dogma, or images which do not present due decency and propriety, or which offer to the unlearned an occasion of dangerous error, to be displayed in churches or other sacred places (can. 1279, § 3).

2. If images exposed to public veneration are solemnly blessed, this blessing is reserved to the Ordinary, who nevertheless can entrust it to any priest (can. 1279, § 4). It is said, to the Ordinary; hence this blessing also belongs, for example, to a major superior in his exempt church.

3. Precious images, that is, those outstanding by antiquity, art, or worship, exposed for the veneration of the faithful in churches or public oratories, if at any time they need repair, are never to be restored without written consent given by the Ordinary, who, before granting permission, is to consult prudent and expert men (can. 1280).

4. Notable precious images, and likewise other images which in some church are honored with great veneration of the people, cannot validly be alienated nor permanently transferred to another church without the permission of the Apostolic See (can. 1281, § 4).

Note. Unless ecclesiastical censorship has preceded, sacred images to be printed in any way are not to be published, even by laymen, whether they have prayers attached or are published without them (can. 1385, § 1, 3°). But by the law itself there are prohibited images printed in any way whatever of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of the Angels and Saints, or of other Servants of God, which are foreign to the mind and decrees of the Church (can. 1399, 12°).

III. Worship of relics. To sacred relics also "... veneration and worship, relative to the person to whom they are referred, is due" (can. 1255, § 2). Moreover, observe:

1. With respect to the manner of worshiping: a) Only those relics can be honored with public worship in churches, even exempt ones, which are known to be genuine by an authentic document of some Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, or of the Ordinary of the place, or of another ecclesiastical man to whom the faculty of authenticating has been granted by apostolic indult. The Vicar General cannot, without a special mandate, declare relics authentic (can. 1283). In addition:

a) Ordinaries of places should prudently remove from the worship of the faithful any relic which they know certainly is not authentic (can. 1284).

b) Sacred relics whose documents of authenticity have perished because of civil disturbances or any other case are not to be exposed to public veneration unless the judgment of the Ordinary of the place, but not of the Vicar General without a special mandate, precedes. Yet ancient relics are to be retained in that veneration in which they have been until now, unless in some particular case it is established by certain arguments that they are false or spurious (can. 1285).

c) Ordinaries of places should not permit questions about the authenticity of sacred relics to be agitated, especially in sacred sermons, books, periodicals, or reviews destined for fostering piety, from mere conjectures, from merely probable arguments, or from prejudiced opinions, especially in words savoring of mockery or contempt (can. 1286).

2. With respect to custody: a) Notable relics¹ of Saints or Blessed cannot be kept in homes or private oratories without the express permission of the Ordinary of the place. Non-notable relics can, with due honor, also be kept in private houses and piously carried by the faithful (can. 1282).

b) Rectors of churches, and others whom it concerns, should diligently watch lest sacred relics be profaned in any way, or perish through human neglect, or be kept less decently (can. 1289, § 2).

3. With respect to exposition. When relics are exposed, they must be in closed and sealed cases or capsules. Relics of the most holy Cross are never to be displayed for public veneration in the same case with relics of the Saints, but must have their own separate case. Relics of the Blessed, without a special indult, are not to be carried around in processions, nor exposed in churches, except where their office and Mass are celebrated by concession of the Apostolic See (can. 1287).

4. With respect to alienation: a) Notable relics, and likewise other relics which in some church are honored with great veneration of the people, cannot validly be alienated nor permanently transferred to another church without the permission of the Apostolic See (can. 1281, § 1).

b) Relics of the most holy Cross which a Bishop perhaps carries in his pectoral cross pass, after his death, to the cathedral church, to be transmitted to the successor Bishop; and if the deceased presided over several dioceses, they pass to the cathedral church of the diocese in whose territory he died, or, if he died outside the diocese, to the one from which he last departed (can. 1288).

c) It is unlawful to sell sacred relics. Therefore Ordinaries of places, vicars forane, pastors, and others having care of souls should diligently take care lest sacred relics, especially those of the most holy Cross, be sold, particularly on the occasion of inheritances or the alienation of a mass of goods, or pass into the hands of non-Catholics (can. 1289, § 1). This nevertheless does not prohibit a thing which neither belongs to the body of a Saint nor has been legitimately destined for public worship from being sold, not as a relic, but as more or less worthy of price, for example an autograph.

Note. One who fabricates false relics, or knowingly sells, distributes, or exposes them to the public veneration of the faithful, contracts by the fact itself an excommunication reserved to the Ordinary (can. 2326).

¹ Notable relics of Saints or Blessed are the body, head, arm, forearm, heart, tongue, hand, leg, or that part of the body in which the martyr suffered, provided it is whole and not small (can. 1281, § 2).

What is adoration and of how many kinds is it? - Adoration is honor exhibited to another by an external gesture of the body, by which we testify our submission and the excellence of another; or insofar as it is a sign of internal estimation, reverence, and submission toward another, and consequently also of his excellence. Therefore adoration requires two internal acts: one of the intellect, the other of the will. The former is a speculative judgment concerning the excellence of another, and a practical judgment that it is honorable for us to be submitted to him on account of his excellence and our inferiority with respect to him. But the latter is the command of the will to lower oneself on account of that superior excellence in another. Whence at last the execution itself exists in the exterior gesture of the body.

Adoration is one thing political, another religious, according as it exhibits worship to another on account of a merely civil dignity or excellence, or on account of a supernatural excellence which is found in God and in his Saints. The latter comprehends under itself three species or quasi-species. The first is latria, which, with the genus taken for the species, is also simply accustomed to be called adoration; it is supreme and singular, which we owe to God alone, on account of the divine excellence proper to him, and which therefore is communicable to no other, according to Matt. 4:10. The second is dulia, which belongs to the Angels and other Saints, on account of the supernatural and created excellence which is in them. The third is hyperdulia, which is exhibited to the Blessed Virgin, on account of her supernatural and created excellence, but one altogether singular and greater and more eminent than all other created excellences. Species or quasi-species, because there is not sufficient agreement whether they are one species from one relation to God or threefold from a threefold diverse proper excellence.

Moreover any species of adoration is divided into absolute and respective. It is absolute when something is adored or worshiped on account of an excellence intrinsic to itself; and thus God, the Most Holy Trinity, Christ also as man, and the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist are adored with absolute worship of latria; but the Saints with absolute worship of dulia, and the Most Holy Virgin with absolute worship of hyperdulia. It is respective when something is adored or worshiped on account of an excellence and sanctity extrinsic to itself, but intrinsic to him to whom it is referred in moral estimation; and thus the Most Holy Name of Jesus Christ, the instruments of the Passion, and the Cross are adored with respective worship of latria; relics and images of the Saints, etc., with respective worship of dulia; images of the Most Holy Virgin, etc., with respective worship of hyperdulia. The title "The Penitent Heart of Jesus" is altogether condemned. Holy Office, 15 July 1892. The image of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, representing the Heart alone, is permitted only for private devotion, but is by no means to be exposed on an altar for public veneration. Holy Office, 26 Aug. 1891. Because there is one excellence of the Three Divine Persons, one honor and reverence is owed to them, and consequently one adoration. Trent, sess. 25, Decree on Invocation, etc.; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 81, a. 3; q. 82, a. 2 ad 3; q. 84; q. 103, aa. 3, 4; Suarez, de Relig., tr. 2, l. 1, c. 2; Struggl 11 seqq.

A determinate place is not required for adoration as though by necessity of the thing itself, but only according to fittingness, not on account of God who is adored, as though he were enclosed by place, but on account of the adorers themselves: first indeed on account of the consecration of the place, from which those praying conceive special devotion, so that they may be heard more; secondly on account of the sacred mysteries and other signs of sanctity which are contained there; thirdly on account of the gathering of many adorers, from which prayer becomes more fit to be heard. The obligation of adoration is abundantly satisfied by otherwise fulfilling obligations toward God, in which adoration of God is contained implicitly and often also explicitly, as, for example, when prayers are poured forth to God, when one assists at the sacrifice of Mass, etc. E. M.

Note: For the public worship of relics, it must be certainly established that the relics to be venerated pertain to a Saint or Blessed one solemnly recognized as such by the Church. In addition, the seal of some Bishop or Prelate ought to be affixed; but the seal of the Bishop of the place suffices for relics to be honored with public worship, nor is an authentic written document necessary. In order that new relics, although authentic, be exposed for the public veneration of the faithful in a church or in a public oratory, it is required that they be recognized and approved by the Bishop of the place, even if they were sealed at Rome by the Apostolic Prefect. Trent, sess. 25, de Invocat., etc.; Sixtus V, Const. Dominus omnipotens, 13 Nov. 1588. For ancient relics, their immemorial exposition and public veneration suffice; this rightly supplies any other document and bears before itself a valid presumption of authenticity. For private worship only private moral certitude is required, such as, for example, is had from a man worthy of faith.

A relic of the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ for public veneration is to be separated from other Relics of Saints in a special case. S. C. Indulg., 22 Feb. 1847; S. R. C., 25 May 1906; A. A. S., v. 1, p. 507. One sins gravely by stealing notable relics, or even the smallest part of a very precious relic, for example of the Most Holy Cross, because, although they are not estimable by price, nevertheless this taking away can gravely sadden the possessor. But in the Roman district it is prohibited under penalty of excommunication to steal relics, even the smallest, pertaining to churches, from the Constitution of Clement VIII and Paul V. Therefore not in every case is the theft mortal sin, and it is a grave real sacrilege.

As to images, halos, or rays, cannot be placed on images of the deceased, although they are commonly held as Saints, unless they have been beatified by the Church; likewise neither tablets and images, nor lamps or any other lights, namely in veneration and worship, may be hung at their sepulchers. But with the license of the Ordinary or Bishop, it is permitted to keep similar relics of a Saint in a place separated from the church and secret, to receive offerings and tablets, and to recount in little books the benefits received, yet not without the recognition and approval of the Bishop, and with a declaration first made by the author that he does not intend to win for his statements any faith other than that of human history, as Urban VIII established in the Decree Sanctissimus, 13 March 1625, and another special Constitution Caelestis Hierusalem, 5 July 1634; S. R. C., 31 July 1821; General Decree, 14 Aug. 1894; Leo XIII, Const. Officiorum ac munerum, General Decree, sec. 13; Pius X, Encyclical Letter Pascendi, 8 Sept. 1907, paragraph De sacris Reliquiis.

Images of the Blessed are to be painted with rays only; of the Canonized, with a diadem around the head. Ferraris, v. Veneratio SS., n. 46. Likewise images of Our Lord and the Blessed Virgin, of Angels and Saints, ought to be painted or sculpted in that form and habit which from ancient time has been in use in the Church. Urban VIII, Const. Sacrosancta Tridentina, 15 March 1642; Benedict XIV, Const. Sollicitudini, 1 Oct. 1745.

As to the Blessed, it is not permitted to name churches or altars after them, and their images and relics can be retained and exposed only in those churches in which it is permitted to celebrate their office. Urban VIII, cited Decree Sanctissimus; Clement XI, Const. 82, n. 11. Images of Saints are laudably blessed, and privately any priest can bless them. S. R. C., 12 July 1704. S. R. C., 27 Sept. 1659; 17 Apr. 1660; 12 June 1660, Boianen.; Pius X, Motu proprio Sacrorum antistitum, 1 Sept. 1910; L. 1. 3, nn. 45, 532; Epist. Resp. at the end of c. 1; Benedict XIV, de Canon. SS., l. 2, c. 11; Struggl 18; Scav., ed. 12, Milan, 1874, l. 2, n. 168 seqq. There is an Instruction of the S. R. C., 22 May 1912, on the privileges which, in the triduum or octave to be celebrated within the year from beatification or canonization, are usually granted by Rescript of that Sacred Congregation from the Supreme Pontiff. E. M.

463.a What is the nature and obligation of sacrifices? - The offering of sacrifices, considered in common, is from the natural law itself. For it proceeds from natural reason that, just as some things are offered to temporal lords in recognition of dominion, so also we should offer to God, as the supreme lord of all, certain sensible things as a sign of due subjection and honor. But the determination of sacrifices is from human or divine institution. The sacrifice which is offered exteriorly signifies the interior spiritual sacrifice by which the soul offers itself to God, because exterior acts of religion are ordered to interior acts. But the soul offers itself to God in sacrifice, as to the principle of its creation and as to the end of its beatitude. Therefore the honor of sacrifices is to be exhibited to God alone. This also we see observed in every republic, that its supreme ruler is honored by some singular sign which, if it were offered to anyone else, would be the crime of lese majesty. Trent, sess. 22, c. 3.

Moreover there is a threefold good of man. The first indeed is the good of the soul, which is offered to God by a certain interior sacrifice through devotion and prayer and other interior acts of this sort, which are ordered to divine reverence. The second is the good of the body, which is offered to God in a certain way through martyrdom and abstinence or continence, or when someone subjects his own body to some affliction on account of divine reverence, and it is offered by exterior sacrifice. The third is the good of exterior things, from which an exterior sacrifice also is offered to God, if it again is ordered to divine reverence: directly indeed, when we immediately offer our things to God; mediately, when we communicate them to neighbors on account of God.

But sacrifices are properly so called when something is done concerning things offered to God, as that animals were killed and burned, that bread is broken and eaten and blessed. And the name itself sounds this: for sacrifice is so called from this, that man makes something sacred.

Hence sacrifice is commonly defined: the offering of a sensible thing, made to God by a legitimate minister, through real change, for acknowledging his supreme dominion and our subjection. Wherefore only priests offer sacrifices which are specially ordered to divine worship not only for themselves, but also for others. But other sacrifices anyone can offer to God for himself. All are bound to offer interior sacrifice to God, for all are bound to offer a mind devoted to God. Likewise all are bound to offer exterior sacrifice to God when exterior acts of other virtues are assumed into divine reverence, which fall under precept. But as to the exterior sacrifice by which something is exteriorly offered to God in protestation of divine subjection, under the New Law the faithful are bound to that one sacrifice which Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper, concerning which there will be discussion in the treatise on the precepts of the Decalogue and of the Church, and on the Eucharist. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 85; Lessius, de Virt. Rel., c. 2, d. 4.

463.b What is the nature and obligation of oblations? - By the name of oblation here is understood the presentation of some thing for the worship of God, not so that some sacred thing is as it were consumed, as in sacrifice, but so that it remains whole to be deputed to divine worship, or to be expended for the uses of ministers. In the New Law, oblations of this sort are free, unless they are to be made from the necessity of the Church or from introduced custom. Since the priest is mediator between God and the people, oblations are to be presented to him by the people, not only that he may assume them for his own use, but that he may faithfully dispense them in those things which pertain to divine worship and for the uses of the poor, who, as far as possible, are to be sustained from the goods of the Church, because the Lord too had purses for the use of the poor.

Likewise in the New Law there is no special obligation to offer first fruits from the fruits of the earth received, unless according to the custom of the country and the need of the ministers of the Church. For first fruits are given by way of oblation, of whose nature it is that it be voluntary. But first fruits are offered because we ought to exhibit to God that which is chief, and in recognition of the benefit of God, who grants the earth and the fruits of the earth. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 86.

463.c Is there, and of what sort, an obligation of paying tithes? - The precept of tithes is partly of natural law, partly of positive law. "For natural reason dictates that the people should furnish the necessities of life to those who ministered in divine worship for the salvation of the whole people, just as stipends for livelihood are owed by the people also to those who watch over the common utility, namely Princes and soldiers and others of this sort.... The determination that a tenth part be paid was instituted by the authority of the Church in the time of the New Law.... Thus therefore it is clear that men are bound to the payment of tithes, partly indeed from natural law, but partly also from the institution of the Church, which nevertheless, the circumstances of times and persons being considered, could determine another part to be paid.... Ministers of the Church ought to have a greater care for promoting spiritual goods among the people than for collecting temporal goods; and therefore... they laudably do not demand tithes of the Church where they could not be demanded without scandal, because of desuetude or because of some other cause. Nor, however, are those in a state of damnation who do not pay in those places in which the Church does not ask, unless perhaps, on account of obstinacy of mind, they have the will not to pay even if they were asked. "But the root of the payment of tithes is a debt, by which carnal things are owed to those sowing spiritual things, according to that saying of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 9:11: If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it a great thing if we reap your carnal things?... For upon this debt the Church founded the determination of the payment of tithes. But all things whatsoever a man possesses are contained under carnal things, and therefore tithes are to be paid from all things possessed.... And therefore in the New Law men are bound to personal tithes, according to the custom of the country and the need of ministers. But the right of receiving tithes is spiritual, for it follows that debt by which expenses are owed to ministers of the altar from the ministry, and by which temporal things are owed to those sowing spiritual things; this pertains only to clerics having the right of souls. Tithes are owed by the faithful to clerics insofar as they are ministers of the altar sowing spiritual things among the people. Whence such clerics, insofar as they have ecclesiastical possessions, are not bound to pay tithes; but from another cause, namely because they possess by their own right, or by succession from parents, or in any other way of this sort, they are obliged to pay tithes. Clerics are bound to give a tithe to the Supreme Pontiff if he should require it. For natural reason dictates that provision be made from all goods for him who has care for the common state of the multitude, whence he can execute those things which pertain to the common salvation." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 87.

To n. 463. ON SAINTS OR BLESSEDS WITHOUT A CERTAIN DECREE OR INDULT OF THE HOLY SEE

"In perpetual calendars and propers which, according to the newest Rubrics in accord with the norm of the Bull Divino afflatu and the Motu Proprio Abhinc duos annos of our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius X, and the decrees of the S. R. C. of 12 December 1912 and 28 October 1913, are subjected to the revision and approval of the same sacred Congregation, sometimes Saints or Blesseds are noted, who are neither described in the Roman Martyrology, nor enjoy public worship by a certain decree or confirmed by the Holy See, as is especially prescribed by the general Decree n. 3926 of the day 19 July 1890, at 1 and 2. Since, however, those who are called Saints or Blesseds of this sort are honored in particular places by immemorial custom with public and religious worship, with Office and Mass; and, for this reason, they are inscribed by the Most Reverend Ordinaries in the aforesaid calendars and propers, the sacred Congregation of Rites, by mandate of the same Most Holy Lord, declares that from this inscription it is in no way lawful to argue that those called Saints or Blesseds have obtained formal or equipollent beatification, and that their worship, as in a case excepted from the Decrees of Pope Urban VIII of holy memory and from the more recent decrees or declarations of the S. R. C. dated 11 November 1912 and 31 January 1913, has been recognized and confirmed; but it is lawful only to conclude that the worship of these Saints or Blesseds remains in the state of its possession, and therefore can neither be increased nor extended without consulting the Holy See. Finally the Most Reverend Ordinaries are exhorted that the aforesaid Saints or Blesseds be distinguished in their calendars and particular propers by some sign or asterisk from other Saints or Blesseds described in the Roman Martyrology or duly canonized or beatified, as is laudably done in some places. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, even things worthy of special mention." S. R. C. 28 Apr. 1914.

XV. Those extracting relics from the sacred Cemeteries or Catacombs of Rome and its territory without legitimate permission, and those furnishing help or favor to them.

Of relics which are found in the Crypts and Cemeteries of the City, it is established that some are of the Holy Martyrs, e.g., "when glass or earthenware phials stained with blood are found at the tombs of the buried in the sacred cemeteries, either inside or outside them"; Sacred Congregation of Relics and Indulgences, December 10, 1863. But it is established that some are not of martyrs, such as those which are found in open loculi. Finally, concerning some it is doubtful whether they are of Martyrs or not. The present excommunication is incurred by one who extracts those former relics of Holy Martyrs, but by no means by one who extracts the rest, whether it is certainly established that they are not of Saints, or whether it is doubted. Relics, namely bones and ashes. Paul V, decree of August 23, 1613, and May 16, 1614, prohibited under grave obligation to take away without permission even the smallest particle of these, and at the same time declared that theft of this kind is never excused because of smallness of matter. Legitimate permission must be given by the Eminent Cardinal Vicar, with the form preserved which was established by Paul V in the places cited and by Clement X in the Brief Ex commissae nobis, January 13, 1672. Namely written permission is required, subscribed by the Eminent Cardinal Vicar of the City, furnished with his seal, and extraction from the catacombs must be done in the presence of a delegated priest. And to them, those extracting. Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 3, part 13, sec. Incidens.

Andreas, a priest, often heard speak about notable Relics; but he does not know what they are. He also heard speak about the exposition of Relics, and blessing with Relics, and also about their procession, but he does not know how all these things ought to be done. Wherefore he desires to be instructed briefly in all these things, as regards those things which more belong to practice.

R. Notable Relics are the Body, Head, Arm, Leg, or that part of the body in which a Martyr suffered, provided it is whole and not small, and legitimately approved by the Ordinaries. S. R. C., 8 April 1628, to 3, Urbis. Bones of the femur would not be. Nor likewise the tibia. S. R. C., 3 June 1662, Dubium. - Thorns from the Crown of Our Lord Jesus Christ are counted among notable Relics, and are worthy of special cult. - Notable relics are to be kept not in monasteries, but in the exterior Church of nuns.

As regards the exposition of Relics, in all Churches it is licit to expose Relics, provided they are recognized by the bishop. S. R. C., 2 Sept. 1690, Fundana. - The abuse is to be eliminated of placing the Relics of Saints and pious images upon the tabernacle in which the most august sacrament is reserved; nor before the little door of the tabernacle, even if it is a Relic of the Most Holy Cross. S. R. C., 31 March 1821, to 6, General Decree; 12 March 1836, to 1, Triden. - But a Relic of the Most Holy Cross is to be separated from the Relics of Saints. - Under the Relic of some Saint, exposed to public veneration among candlesticks, a pall ought not to be used. S. R. C., 7 Apr. 1832, to 3, Ariminen. - When Relics of Saints are exposed, beyond the lamp, at least two lights must continuously burn upon the altar, though not at night; otherwise they are not to be exposed. S. R. C., 22 Jan. 1701, to 9, Congr. Mont. Coron. - Relics of the Blessed can be exposed, as images and statues, in churches in which the office and Mass of the Blessed can be recited and respectively celebrated.

As regards blessing with Relics, a priest in a private Mass, the Mass having been finished, vested in the sacred vestments, can distribute ashes and present relics to be kissed, if there is such a custom, after Mass is completed. S. R. C., 16 March 1833, to 5, n. 2704. - Before the wood of the Holy Cross openly exposed, one must genuflect on one knee in passing. S. R. C., 23 May 1835, to 2, n. 2722. In blessing with a relic of the Most Holy Cross, it is not licit to sing: Benedicat vos omnipotens Deus, Pater, etc. S. R. C., 23 May 1835, to 3. - Blessing and the kiss of the Relic are to be omitted as long as the Most Holy Sacrament remains exposed. S. R. C., 17 July 1900.

As regards the procession of Relics, it is not licit, for any cause or custom whatever, to carry Relics of Saints processionally under a baldachin; nevertheless it can be tolerated and permitted that the wood of the Most Holy Cross and the other Instruments of the Lord's Passion, with attention to the peculiar veneration of these, and to the almost universal custom, be carried under a baldachin, provided it is done separately and apart from the Relics of Saints, to whom this distinctive honor is by no means fitting. S. R. C., 27 May 1826, n. 2647, General Decree. The decree seems to have to be understood of ordinary processions, which are customarily celebrated every year, but not of solemn ones for the translation of some sacred Image or Relics. - Relics of the Blessed are not to be carried about in processions. S. R. C., 27 Sept. 1659.

S. Th. II-II, q. 103.

836. Dulia (service) is taken: a) in a very broad sense, insofar as it says reverence exhibited to any lord and subjection to him, and thus it includes religion, by which we are subjected to divine lordship and which is eminent dulia on account of the excellence of that lordship (a. 3);

b) in a stricter sense, insofar as it says reverence exhibited to the excellence of any man, and thus it is divided into various species according to the various excellence which is found in saints, father, king, commander, teacher, etc., for example, civil dulia, sacred dulia, natural, supernatural, etc.

This is distinguished from latria because service is owed to God and to man under a different account, just as lordship belongs to God under one account (universal through essence because He is creator) and to man under another (particular through participation). Among the various species the first and more perfect is hyperdulia, by which we exhibit worship to the Blessed Virgin Mary because of the affinity which she has to God, as Mother of God (a. 4, ad 2, and III, q. 25, a. 5).

c) in the strictest sense, insofar as it says the reverence which a servant exhibits to a lord, and thus it is only one species of observance (a. 4).

837. The honor of dulia supposes some superiority or excellence. - It is not indeed necessary that he who is honored be more excellent than the one honoring, but perhaps than certain others, or even than the one honoring himself in some respect and not simply. And thus equals can be honored by equals and inferiors by superiors (a. 2). Moreover due honor is internal and external at the same time, because it is not sufficient that we honor superiors before God, but it is also necessary that we honor them before others (a. 1).

838. Honor or worship of supernatural dulia is owed to the Blessed as friends of God, who have supernatural excellence, virtue, and merits, and are our intercessors. Whence we ought to revere them 1) as lords and esteem ourselves happy if they deign to receive us among their servants; 2) as intercessors on whom we are dependent (can. 1276).

Public worship of dulia is licitly exhibited only to Saints recognized for the universal Church by solemn decree, or common consent, or immemorial course of time; and to the Blessed, by special concession of the Roman Pontiff, only in those places or by those persons to whom it was conceded (can. 1256 and 1277).

Private worship is licitly exhibited to servants of God or venerable persons who have died with a reputation for sanctity or martyrdom, indeed even to baptized infants, for example, a private vow or fast in their honor.

The same holds concerning their images and relics (can. 1279, 1283, 1287). Thus, for example, images of servants of God can in no way be placed on altars; nor outside an altar be painted with halos, rays, or other signs of sanctity; likewise lamps cannot be lit at their tomb; yet they can be displayed on the walls of a church or in colored glass or in painted tablets, provided they carry before themselves no indication of worship or sanctity (S. C. R. 14 Aug. 1894); likewise private worship can be exhibited to relics of servants of God by carrying them with oneself, kissing them, applying them to the sick, etc.

All Catholics affirm it.

I. Question I. Is the Cross of Christ to be adored? Response: All Catholics affirm this. For the Cross of Christ is an image of Christ. But the image of Christ is worshipped with the same worship as Christ himself. That the Cross is a special sign, or symbol referring to the person of Christ, is clear from that text of Matthew 24: then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man — from which text all the commentators teach that the Cross of Christ is meant. The Angelic Doctor explains this matter excellently. He says: it must be said that no reverence is shown to the image of Christ insofar as it is a mere thing (say, a carved or painted sign); for reverence is owed only to a rational nature. It remains, then, that reverence is shown to it only insofar as it is an image; and thus it follows that the same reverence is shown to the image of Christ as to Christ himself. Since, therefore, Christ is adored with the adoration of latria, it follows that his image is to be adored with the adoration of latria (III Part., q. 25, art. 3).

It should be added that the Cross to which the incarnate Word was affixed must be adored not only because it is an image of Christ himself, but also on account of its physical contact with his members, and on account of that precious blood with which it was sprinkled, as the same Angelic Doctor teaches in the place cited, art. 4. If, then, we speak of that very Cross on which Christ was crucified, it is to be venerated by us in two respects: in one respect insofar as it represents to us the figure of Christ, which is present in it; in another respect from its contact with the members of Christ, and from the fact that it was drenched with his blood. Hence in both respects it is adored with the same adoration as Christ, namely the adoration of latria.

II. Question II. Are the other inanimate instruments of Christ's most sacred Passion — the lance, the cords, the nails, the scourges, the crown, the reed, the sponge, and the like — to be adored with the worship of latria? Response: All Catholics affirm this, on account of their physical contact with the body of Christ. For it is from this contact that they become notable relics, and acquire a special relation to Christ himself, as St. Thomas explains in the place cited, ad 3: the precious wood, as sanctified by contact with the sacred body and blood, is fittingly to be adored; likewise the nails, the garments, the lance, and the like. These, however, do not represent the image of Christ as the Cross does, which is called the sign of the Son of Man that shall appear in heaven. It is, then, contact with the most sacred body of Christ that brings it about that we worship these inanimate instruments with the same worship as Christ, because it is entirely on account of Christ that we adore them; for they are not capable of any intrinsic adoration in themselves, since they possess no intrinsic dignity.

For this reason, animate instruments — such as the hands of those who crucified him, or the lips of those who kissed [Judas' kiss] that same Christ — are not to be adored, on account of the crime perpetrated by such members. For sins defile even the external members through this contact. Wherefore, although they would otherwise be worthy of adoration, on account of the crime committed they are worthy not of adoration but of detestation.

III. Azor adduces the authority of St. Augustine, drawn from Sermon 8 on the Words of the Lord, to argue that Augustine taught that inanimate instruments are to be adored not with the worship of latria but of dulia; and Leander presses the same authority — a man who marks even the smallest faults of other casuists with his censorious pen. But that sermon is in fact spurious, and is placed among the apocryphal works, as may be seen in the Appendix to Tome X [of Augustine's works]. Indeed, the very words that Azor and Leander cite in opposition are not even found in that sermon, as the theologians of Salamanca note (tract. 21, cap. 10, punct. 10).

IV. The arguments customarily raised against us by heterodox writers — namely, that we worship wood and metal — are wretched falsehoods, refuted so many times already. For in these symbols and figures we worship Christ himself, and we venerate these signs on this one ground alone: that they call to our memory the exemplar which they represent. Equally worthless is the other fabrication they blurt out, that no son worships the gallows or the noose by which his father was hanged. To this argument St. Thomas replies that in the Cross of Christ, insofar as it is considered according to the intention or opinion of the unbelievers, one sees the reproach of Christ; but insofar as it is considered according to its effect for our salvation, one sees in it the divine power by which he triumphed over his enemies. The Cross of Christ, therefore, is worshipped not as an infamous punishment chosen by the Jews to put Christ to a most shameful death, but as the standard of the victory which Christ won over the enemy of the human race, and as a triumphal monument of our salvation. Finally, as to the objection that the hands of the Virgin, of her spouse Joseph, and of the disciples, which touched the body of Christ, would likewise have to be adored with the worship of latria — the reply is that the case is not parallel. For instruments devoid of a soul are not, considered in themselves, capable of veneration; hence the whole of the worship we show them is referred entirely to Christ. The Virgin, her spouse, and the disciples, however, are themselves adorned with intimate excellence, and are therefore worthy of worship in themselves — though of the worship we show to the Saints, not of latria — because the Blessed Virgin, according to herself, is capable of veneration; and so the reasoning is not the same (III Part., q. 25, art. 5, ad 3, where he explains this more fully in the body of the article).

V. As to the Cross itself, a distinction must be drawn between that Cross on which Christ hung and other crosses fashioned in its likeness. The former is worshipped on a twofold ground: by reason of the image of the extended Christ which it bears in itself, and by reason of its contact with that same most holy body. Wherefore even if that Cross were broken into pieces and lost the very shape of a cross, it would still be to be adored with the worship of latria, on account of that distinct contact. All other crosses, made to represent that first one, are adored on the single ground of the image; hence, if they should lose the figure representing Christ, they are in no way to be worshipped. Finally, in order for the Cross of Christ to be worshipped, it must have been deliberately made for the purpose of recalling the sacred mystery. For this reason other crosses that happen to arise by chance — from timbers, straws, or other things crossing one another fortuitously — are not to be worshipped; rather, like any other wood, they may be disregarded or put to ordinary use. The names of God are to be venerated insofar as they refer to what they signify, and are honored as representing those persons; for they signify God, Christ, Jesus Christ, and the Blessed Virgin — names that make known persons worthy of holiness and veneration. Therefore, just as images are to be honored, so too such names, due proportion being kept, are to be honored. So the theologians commonly teach.

I. God alone is to be adored by us with the religious worship of latria. This does not prevent us, however, from venerating other created persons with another, interior worship, on account of their special union with God himself, and on account of the heavenly gifts which God has communicated to them. The Blessed Virgin Mary shines above all creatures; she is therefore to be adored with a special worship, which we call the worship of hyperdulia. Countless Catholic theologians, against the modern innovators, bring forward the monuments of sacred antiquity by which they prove the most ancient tradition of devotion to Mary. Natalis Alexander adduces the testimonies of the Fathers of every age in his history [of the Church]. Splendid are the encomiums by which Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen extol her excellence and dignity. St. Gregory of Neocaesarea, in Homily III on the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin, expresses in these words the worship owed to her: "To you every nature — heavenly, earthly, and of the world below — offers, with trembling, its tribute, and venerates you. For you have truly been made a throne..." etc. St. Ephrem the Syrian, in his sermon on the praises of the Blessed Virgin, invokes her in this manner: "Under your protection... have mercy on us, who are defiled by crimes and by the filth of very many sins, who have offended our God and the judge of all..." Wondrous are the praises which Epiphanius composes for her in many places, above all in his treatise on the praises of the same Blessed Virgin. And what of the fact that even the heretics themselves...

II. There is, then, no doubt on this point: that it has been the practice of the Catholic Church to hold the Virgin, Mother of God, worthy of a worship set apart in this way [reading uncertain at this point in the scan] in prayer, as is likewise held by the Council of Trent, session 25, on the invocation of the Saints. Beyond the countless texts of Sacred Scripture confirming this truth — texts encountered throughout innumerable polemical theologians — natural reason too stands ready to hand. For the ground of adoration is the dignity and excellence of the person adored. On this ground, because God is of infinite majesty and dignity, we venerate him with the highest worship. Now the Angels, the Blessed, and the Saints reigning in heaven shine with a singular grace and dignity. Why, then, should worship be denied them? Is it because worship is owed to God alone? To God alone, indeed, is owed the worship of latria — that is, God alone is to be adored as God, and therefore with latria. This worship can be offered to no creature without the crime of idolatry. But why should a lesser worship be denied the Saints — the worship we call dulia, a worship proportioned to their created dignity and limited excellence, and which is ultimately referred to, and rests in, God himself? Why do heretics charge this worship with the stain of idolatry, when we testify, both by word and in writing, that we venerate and honor the Saints on account of the friendship they have with God, and on account of the gifts he has communicated to them — when we testify that we venerate the Saints with a worship distinct from, and vastly inferior to, that with which we worship God?

III. The heterodox object: the Angel in Apocalypse 22 forbade that he be worshipped, as did St. Paul, and St. Peter. That these and similar texts may be more fully understood, it is worth transcribing what St. Thomas teaches, II-II, q. 84, art. 1, ad 1: "Those [who were worshipped in the Old Testament] were worshipped so far as it pertains to latria in one sense; in the other veneration, by which creatures are venerated, which pertains to dulia... According to the reverence owed to an excellent creature, David worshipped [Saul, or Jonathan]; but according to the reverence owed to God, Mordecai refused to worship Haman, fearing lest he transfer the honor of God to a man, as is said in Esther 13. Likewise, according to the reverence owed to an excellent creature, Abraham worshipped the Angels, as did Joshua also, as is read in Joshua 5. It cannot, however, be understood that they worshipped with the worship of latria the God who appeared and spoke in the person of the Angel; rather, it was according to the reverence owed to man — so as to show the dignity which man has obtained through Christ, whereby he is made equal to the Angels; whence it is added there: 'I am your fellow-servant, and the fellow-servant of your brethren.' John, however, was forbidden to worship the Angel, in part also to remove any occasion of idolatry; whence it is added: 'Worship God.'"

By this angelic teaching all the heretics' sophistries on this matter are overthrown.

IV. From this it likewise follows that the adoration by which we worship the Saints differs from that owed to God not merely in its object, but in the very virtue [habit] it exercises. The Angelic Doctor gives the reason for this diversity: where the ground of what is owed differs, a different virtue is required to render it. Adoration is owed to God because he is the Creator of all things, and on account of his uncreated and eminent majesty; it is owed to the Saints on another ground, on account of a created, finite dignity received from God — and these two grounds are wholly different. Distinct virtues must therefore correspond to them. Let us cite the Angelic Doctor's own words: "Dominion belongs to man on one ground, and dominion belongs to God on another... for God has dominion in the principal sense, since every creature is wholly subject to his power; man, however, participates in a certain likeness of this, according as he has some particular power over another man, or over some other creature. And therefore dulia, which renders the service owed to a man who holds lordship, is a different virtue from latria, which renders the service owed to the divine Lord" (II-II, q. 103, art. 3). Much else bearing on this may be read in the same Angelic Doctor, where he shows that, although God and one's neighbor are loved with the same charity — since the ground of loving is the same, namely goodness — God is nonetheless worshipped by a different virtue from that by which the Saints are worshipped, on account of the different ground of the worship.

V. The worship owed to any creature whatsoever, then, is not latria but dulia. But because the Blessed Virgin Mary surpasses all creatures — Angels and Saints alike — in glory, grace, and dignity, she is worshipped with the most perfect form of dulia, which we call hyperdulia. This too is taught by the Angelic Doctor, III Part, q. 25, art. 5: "Although the Blessed Virgin is a mere rational creature, the worship of latria is not owed to her, but the worship of dulia — yet in a more eminent manner than to other creatures, inasmuch as she is the Mother of God. And so it is said that not just any dulia, but hyperdulia, is owed to her."

VI. The heretics object that this distinction between the worship of latria and of dulia is a fabrication, unknown in the earliest ages of the Church and nowhere indicated in Scripture; and indeed the following proposition was proscribed by Alexander VIII: "The praise that is paid to Mary, as Mary, is empty." It is true, indeed, that this verbal distinction is not found in Scripture; but the reality itself is found there — namely, that worship is to be rendered both to God and to the Saints. What, then, does it matter to wrangle over words, so long as we hold fast to the realities themselves? Scripture and the ancient Fathers approve the worship shown to God, and to the holy Angels and men. The distinction — which teaching usage introduced for the sake of greater clarity — is therefore not to be condemned, but praised. Nor is it true, as the Lutherans and Calvinists allege, that this distinction was recently invented by the Popes. Augustine mentions it in Book X of the City of God, chapter 1, and in Book XX Against Faustus, chapter 21, where he says:

VII. Augustine repels a second calumny in the same Book XX Against Faustus, chapter 21 — namely, that Faustus also slanders us on this point, saying that we have turned the memorials of the Martyrs into idols: "This does not so much move me to answer the calumny," [Augustine says] "as it moves me to show that Faustus, out of his zeal for slander, was willing to depart even from the follies of Manichaeus himself... The Christian people, however, celebrate the memorials of the Martyrs with religious solemnity, both to arouse imitation, and that they may be joined to their merits and aided by their prayers; yet in such a way that we set up altars to none of the Martyrs, but to God alone — even though it be at the memorials of the Martyrs. For which of the bishops, standing at the places of the holy bodies, ever said: 'We offer to you, Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian'? Rather, what is offered is offered to God, who crowned the Martyrs, at the memorials of those whom he crowned — so that, from the reminder of those very places, a greater affection may be kindled to sharpen our love, both toward those whom we can imitate, and toward him by whose help we can do so. We honor the Martyrs, therefore, with that worship of love and fellowship with which holy men of God are honored even in this life... I could transcribe a great deal more to this effect from the other Fathers."

VIII. It remains now to explain to which Saints the worship of dulia is to be rendered. To this question we answer briefly: first, that the worship of dulia is owed to Saints canonized by the Church. For canonization is the Church's public testimony to the true sanctity of some person already deceased. As soon as certain Saints have been entered in the catalogue of the Saints, they are invoked in the public prayers of the Church; churches and altars are dedicated to God in their memory; prayers or offices are recited for them; their images and relics are exposed to public worship — all of which may be done, not because a precept requires it, but because the law permits and approves it.

IX. That the Church's judgment, or that of the Supreme Pontiff, in the canonization of Saints is subject to no error, all Catholics teach, against the more recent heretics who are the bitterest enemies of papal infallibility. Setting aside the many arguments theologians heap up on this point, I will cite the most prudent judgment of St. Thomas: "The canonization of Saints is a mean between the Pope's judgment defining matters of faith and his judgment on particular facts... Yet because the honor we show the Saints is a kind of profession of faith, whereby we believe in the glory of the Saints, it is to be piously believed that the Church's judgment cannot err even in these matters" (Quodlibet IX, art. 16). The opposite is claimed by the heterodox on the authority of Augustine, who says: "The bodies of many are venerated on earth, whose souls are tormented in hell" — a text which, even if it were found in Augustine, would not at all tell against our position, but would rather fit the Lutherans and Calvinists, whose bodies are honored on earth with great sculpted stones and proud tombs, while their souls, having died in the Lutheran faith, are tormented in hell. Augustine is not speaking of souls who, by the judgment of the Catholic Church, reign in heaven, but of others who are worshipped merely in popular opinion. Theologians dispute many further points about the canonization of Saints, which, as foreign to our present purpose, I pass over. They likewise dispute at length about the beatification of Saints, its distinction from canonization, and the worship to be shown a beatified Saint. I will set all this out briefly.

X. Beatification is commonly held to be distinguished from canonization only accidentally, as an imperfect thing from a perfect one — for beatification is the proximate road to canonization. It is not the Church's final judgment, by which she definitively settles the worship of the Blessed; she only approves it provisionally. The Church, and the Pope, are illumined by the same heavenly light in beatification as in the canonization of Saints. Nothing prevents one declared "Blessed" by the Church from also being called "Saint," as common usage allows. The worship to be shown the Blessed is expressed in the Bull of beatification, and no other is to be rendered. Just as sacrifice is offered to God under the name of the Blessed, so churches and altars may likewise be erected in their memory. Whether it is lawful, in processions in honor of the Blessed, to carry their relics, or to invoke them in the public litanies, one must consult the custom of the Roman Church, and whatever common usage permits in these and similar matters.

XI. Theologians also carry on a lengthy dispute about the worship that may be offered to men or women who have died with a reputation for sanctity. On this point, while it is certain that no public worship can be offered to anyone not yet entered by the Church into the roll of Saints or Blessed, it is equally certain that private worship may lawfully be offered to them; and this is established by the universal and most ancient custom of the Christian people. Indeed, the very first door, so to speak, opening the way to beatification and canonization is the devotion of the people, their resort to the tombs of such deceased persons, and their invocation of them in sickness. And if, while such persons were still living, it was lawful to ask them privately to intercede for us, why should it not be lawful to do the same after their death for one who has been so declared by decree of the Church? Only public worship cannot be rendered to those who have not been designated Saints or Blessed by any authority of the Church. Hence, for such persons, the divine offices may not be recited, nor altars erected, nor sacrifices offered under their name, nor may their images be painted with rays and haloes of glory — because such worship requires the Church's authority, by which persons are designated Saints or Blessed. To such persons, then, neither publicly nor privately can the aforesaid worship be offered, for all of it is forbidden. Neither in churches nor in private oratories, therefore, may such images, painted with rays and haloes, be kept; nor may lamps or candles be lit at their tombs — as is laid down in the Decree of Urban VIII, which forbids these and many other things. As for practice, however, in the matter of hanging up votive tablets depicting favors and wonders obtained through some deceased person's intercession, the local Ordinaries are to be consulted, to whose care is committed the duty of watching against abuses that may creep in. It is likewise forbidden to call "Saints" or "Blessed" those not yet entered on the roll of Saints or Blessed. It is not forbidden, however, to say, with due qualification, that such a one "was a holy man" — a phrase indicating nothing more than that his life was upright and unblemished. To call someone "Saint" or "Blessed" absolutely, without qualification, is forbidden. It is, however, lawful to keep the garments, hair, and other similar relics of deceased persons of piety, to venerate them privately, and to kiss their feet and hands. The Church's custom confirms this: for when the Saints and Martyrs were put to death, even in the earliest ages of the Church their relics were seized upon by the faithful and honored, although the Martyrs had not yet been granted public worship by the bishops, as was then the custom. It is lawful, therefore, to venerate them, even in the sight of others, so long as scandal is avoided. It is likewise lawful to lay the bodies of those who have died with a reputation for public sanctity in a more honorable place, even raised above the ground; but it is forbidden to place those same bodies beneath an altar, or on its steps. The Church's practice also shows it lawful to keep the bodies of such deceased persons unburied for some days, so that the devotion of the faithful may be satisfied; and history records that many miracles have been worked by God to manifest the sanctity of some deceased person. Likewise, the faithful may lawfully fast, or offer private vows to God, in memory of such deceased persons, because these are private acts of worship, as Bellarmine teaches (De Reliquiis, Bk. I, ch. 10), along with other theologians.

This scattered material, however, has been ordered, illustrated, and every difficulty in it thoroughly resolved, in a manner surpassing all others, by the most learned Cardinal Lambertini, in his immortal work — comprised in four volumes of vast bulk, and first published while he held the office of Archbishop of Bologna — who now, under the name of Benedict XIV, most wisely governs the universal Church. Consult that work, worthy of cedar and gold, for anything that gives you difficulty.

[A few short phrases above are flagged as uncertain readings owing to the degraded scan/OCR — chiefly the opening clause of §II and one or two single words elsewhere. These are worth checking against the original when you have it to hand; everything else has been read directly off the page images.]

I. That the use of sacred images is lawful and pious is defined by the Council of Trent, session 25, decree on the invocation of the Saints, in these words: "That the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other Saints are to be had and retained, especially in churches, and that due honor and veneration is to be paid them — not because it is believed that any divinity or power resides in them for which they are to be worshipped, or that anything is to be sought from them, or that trust is to be placed in images as was once done by the pagans, who set their hope in idols; but because the honor shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that through the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our heads and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ, and venerate the Saints whose likeness they bear." At the sight of this decree, all the impostures of the heretics vanish. The honor shown to images we refer to their prototypes. All our adoration of images is relative: it looks, that is, to the prototypes they represent. There is, then, no taint of idolatry in this.

Moreover, very many good things flow from this practice. First, these icons recall above all, for the unlearned, the deeds of our forefathers and their triumphs over the enemy. "I know indeed," says Calvin (Institutes, Bk. I, ch. 11, §7), "that it is more than commonly said, that images are the books of the unlearned." Gregory said this. But the Spirit of God pronounces quite otherwise. Calvin admits — and after him Daillé, and the other innovators — that the use of sacred images prevailed by the fourth and fifth centuries. Yet they do not blush to blurt out that all the Fathers of the Church were stained with the taint of idolatry. The reckless audacity of the Protestants, who set themselves above the whole of sacred antiquity, is no small proof of the fabricated character of their religion. Will they, after twelve centuries, understand the customs and practices of the first Christians better than those Fathers — Gregory and the others — who lived nearest to those times, and of whom the Spirit of God pronounces otherwise? Did not God himself command Moses to make golden Cherubim, with faces extended from either side of the mercy-seat (Exod. 25)? Did he not also order a bronze serpent to be made (Num. 21)? Did not Solomon fashion Cherubim, oxen, and lions (3 Kings 6)? But why heap up more texts to refute an empty fabrication so often demolished?

II. It is lawful, then, to fashion an image of God the Father himself, and of any Person of the Most Holy Trinity. Wherefore Pope Alexander VIII rightly proscribed the following proposition: "It is unlawful for a Christian to set up in a church an image of God the Father seated."

The reason such an image is permitted is that no Catholic intends, in images of this kind, to depict the nature of God. For who is so besotted as to persuade himself that the Person of the Trinity can be painted by human skill? We fashion such pictures only so that, making use of them as a kind of sacred symbol, the mind may be roused to worship God. Are not the invisible things of God perceived through the things that are made? We depict the eternal Father under the likeness of an old man, to show that he is the first Person of the Trinity. On the Father's breast is painted the Word, to signify that he is begotten of the Father. Under the form of a dove the image of the Holy Spirit is fashioned, because it was under this symbol that he deigned to appear. We likewise depict Angels as winged, in the guise of most beautiful youths, because it is often under this form that they have appeared. We testify that no power resides in these images, and that we place no trust in them. All our hope is in God, through the merits of Christ. We implore the intercession of the Saints, that we may the more easily obtain from God what we ask through such powerful intercessors. What, then, is the sense of Calvin's mad and reckless snarling, that we imagine some power of the Godhead to dwell within such icons — when this has always been openly denied by Catholics? What does he gain by objecting that the pagans too did not regard their idols as gods in themselves, but worshipped gods in their idols, adoring their statues? Well enough — but the gods those wretched pagans represented were false. When the Jews built idols, it was not the true God they venerated in them, but the false divinities of the nations. It is, then, an open falsehood of Calvin's to assert that the Jews, in fashioning such images, believed they were worshipping the one true God, Lord of heaven and earth. The Hebrews, rather, in constructing idols, were turning aside to worship the gods of the nations — a thing the Prophets reproach them for again and again: "They went after strange gods"; "he followed strange gods"; "they served strange gods"; "put away the strange gods." Reproaches of this kind, made to the Jews by holy men, occur everywhere in Scripture. They were not, then, held guilty of idolatry for worshipping the true and eternal God in images, as Calvin falsely imagines, but for venerating the gods of the nations in idols. As for Calvin's further reproach — that many images are patterns of obscenity, and that such images show harlots dressed more modestly and decently than the images in our churches meant to represent virgins — this is a deceitful and malicious slander, flung at the Roman Church out of Calvin's hatred for her. If any abuse occurs here, it arises from the fault of the painters. But so that no such corruption should be found in our churches, the Council of Trent itself, and many other Councils, charge the bishops to keep watch against such sacrilegious monstrosities of profanation. But why should I labor further to blunt Calvin's audacity, who pleads a desperate case with nothing but abuse and slander?

III. Let us, then, settle the matter briefly. God forbade the Israelites: "Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth" (Exod. 20). Likewise St. Paul (Acts 17): "...that the Divinity is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, the graving of art and device of man... Being therefore the offspring of God, we must not suppose the divinity to be like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and the device of man." The sense of this and similar texts is made clear by what has already been said. Such images were forbidden to the Israelites as representations of the false gods of the pagans — a point so evident that only the shameless Calvin dares deny it. The same passage makes this plain: "Thou shalt not have gods of gold or silver... nor strange gods with thee" — for when the people fell into idolatry in the desert, it was gods, and not mere images, that they demanded of Aaron: "Make us gods to go before us" (Exod. 32). But all this is already sufficiently established and well known.

IV. Question I. Are such images to be adored? Response: That the use of sacred images is lawful has been briefly shown. It remains now to establish that their veneration is likewise lawful and useful. St. Thomas gives a splendid and cogent account of this matter, III Part, q. 25, art. 3: "There is a twofold movement of adoration: one toward the image itself, considered as a certain thing; another toward the image, insofar as it is the image of another. And between these two movements there is a difference: for the first movement, by which one is moved toward the image as it is a certain thing, is distinct from the movement toward the thing itself; but the second movement, which is toward the image insofar as it is an image, is one and the same as that toward the thing. It must therefore be said that no reverence is shown to the image of Christ insofar as it is a certain thing (say, a carved or painted piece of wood); for reverence is owed only to a rational nature. It remains, then, that reverence is shown it only insofar as it is an image; and thus it follows that the same reverence is shown to the image of Christ as to Christ himself. Since, therefore, Christ is adored with the adoration of latria, it follows that his image is to be adored with the adoration of latria." From this it follows that we cannot approve the opinion of Bellarmine and others, who attribute to images some worship distinct from that shown to the prototype. For St. Thomas expressly teaches that the image is to be adored only as an image, precisely because it represents the prototype; and so the worship of the image is wholly relative, and is referred entirely to the prototype.

V. The Calvinists and Lutherans raise their customary sophistries: that Scripture — Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 4, Romans 1, and six hundred other places — forbids the worship of images and idols. Yet neither the Jews nor the pagans were so dull and stupid as to believe that stones, wood, and the works of men's hands were gods. Though this fabrication has already been demolished, it is still worth transcribing the solution given by St. Thomas. That commandment forbids not the making of any carved image or likeness, but making it for the purpose of adoration — hence it adds: "Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them." And since, as has been said, the movement toward the image and toward the thing itself is the same, the adoration of the image is forbidden in the same way that adoration of the thing of which it is an image is forbidden. It is to be understood, then, that what is forbidden there is the adoration of the images which the pagans made in veneration of their gods — that is, of demons; and hence it is prefaced: "Thou shalt not have strange gods before me." To the true God himself, since he is incorporeal, no bodily image could be assigned; for, as Damascene says, it is the height of folly and impiety to depict what is divine. But because in the New Testament God was made man, he can be adored in his bodily image (III Part, q. 25, art. 3, ad 1). Let the whole article be read, whose teaching overthrows all the trifles and sophistical quibbles of the heretics. Indeed, everything that Catholic theologians have heaped up and learnedly discussed, the Angelic Doctor had already grasped beforehand, in a few and most significant words, and explained with wondrous clarity.

VI. The Angelic Doctor's teaching rests on the perpetual tradition of the Church, and on the authority of the Second Council of Nicaea, of Florence, and of Trent. It is therefore a matter of faith that sacred images are worthy of adoration. Many other proofs, which I might adduce both from the aforesaid Councils and from the Fathers, I pass over, since they are readily available in the authors; and because, from what has already been said, this truth remains sufficiently established.

VII. Let us hear one more of Calvin's fabrications. "Why," he says, "such a difference between images of the very same God, that one is neglected, or honored only in a popular way, while Catholics pursue another with the whole honor of their devotion? Why do they wear themselves out with votive pilgrimages to visit images like those they could have at home? Why do they fight to the point of bloodshed and slaughter over them today, as though for their altars and hearths?" These and similar objections Calvin raises (Institutes, Bk. I, ch. 11, §10) — a piece of raving that collapses of itself the moment one looks at the Angelic Doctor's teaching. For if we show images no worship other than that with which we worship the God they represent, it is evident that all images representing God are adored by us with the very worship we show to God. That some images are frequented by a greater concourse of worshippers does not arise because some peculiar power is believed to reside in them, or because they merit greater worship in themselves; but because God, for his own hidden and wondrous reasons, chooses to work miracles and confer benefits through the use of this image rather than that one. Some images, too, are said to have been painted by holy men — by St. Luke, by Nicodemus, or by Angels. Hence, in memory of such painters, whose intercession with God the faithful also trust in, people venerate one image above another with special devotion, and it is said to aid them in a singular way. Yet no Catholic believes any image to be endowed with some special excellence, or to surpass another; but since all equally represent the prototype, all are adored with the same relative worship.

VIII. The arguments of Bellarmine (On Images, Bk. I, ch. 24), Suárez (disp. 54, sect. 5), and others who contend that images of God, of Christ the Lord, and of the Saints are not to be adored with the very same adoration as their prototypes, but with a lesser worship, since as images they are inferior to what they represent — these arguments, if we wish to speak exactly, carry no weight at all. For their point would only stand if we worshipped images with some special worship considered as things in themselves, rather than as images. Images are signs and symbols that rouse our minds to worship their prototypes; it is not the images but the prototypes represented in them that we worship. In the Cross we kiss Christ; in the Book of the Gospels, eternal truth; in images of the Martyrs and the Saints, we worship the Saints themselves. So teaches the Council of Trent, the Roman Pontifical, and — as the celebrated Bossuet rightly notes in his exposition of Catholic doctrine, ch. 1 — as St. Thomas had already taught with great clarity. When the Councils of Mainz and Sens, and other writers, assert that images of Christ are not to be adored with the worship of latria, they are speaking of the absolute worship shown to the images considered in themselves.

IX. Question II. Is there any precept commanding the use of sacred images? Response: It is certain that no natural or divine precept exists to this effect, since no trace of such a precept is found anywhere in Sacred Scripture, nor does any reason suggest that this use is commanded. As for an ecclesiastical precept, Fr. Paolo Nazario (III Part, q. 25, art. 3, controv. 2) affirms that one exists. This view would be entirely true if understood of the common practice with respect to all the faithful generally. For although this command has not been laid down in express words, it has become established by a custom holding the force of law, that churches and altars are to be adorned with sacred images. It is forbidden to offer sacrifice on an altar on which there is no image of the Crucified. The faithful would suffer grave scandal if churches and altars were stripped of every image. There is no doubt, then, that such a precept binds with respect to the community of the faithful as a whole. This precept does not, however, seem to bind each individual member of the faithful, such that each one is bound by the precept to make use of images. Yet a Catholic who abstained altogether from any use of images could scarcely be excused from fault: for if he neglected them as superfluous and useless, he would fall into heresy; if he thought it advisable not to use them, he would not be free of a kind of superstition, would give scandal, and would not be free of the suspicion of error. If, however, out of a certain carelessness, negligence, or even avarice, he simply did not employ images privately, he would not, in my present opinion, be a transgressor of any precept. The precept to make use of these images can, nevertheless, bind particular individuals accidentally — as when the necessity of professing the Catholic faith requires it. This view is shared by Suárez (Vol. I, on III Part, disp. 54, sect. 3), Leander (disp. 5, q. 3), and the theologians of Salamanca (tract. 21, ch. 10, punct. 8, n. 91).

X. Question III. Is there a precept commanding that these images be adored? Response: The common opinion affirms that a twofold command exists. One is negative, forbidding at all times and in all places that any injury or irreverence be done them. The other is affirmative, obliging one at certain times to pay them worship — as when an occasion arises for professing the faith, or an occasion to join with other of the faithful in venerating an image publicly exposed for adoration, or when some action must be performed toward sacred images that would require veneration. It seldom happens, I think, that a Catholic could violate this affirmative precept without at the same time violating the negative one, by holding those same images in contempt. For in practice one either adores or holds in contempt. I do not deny that both extremes can be avoided absolutely; but in practice this scarcely happens.

I. Just as sacred images, so also the relics of the Saints have been defined as worthy of adoration, in several Councils: the Second of Nicaea, act. 3; the Fifth of Carthage, canon 5; the Second Lateran, ch. 62; and Trent, session 25, decree 2, among many others. This worship is clearly gathered from Scripture also. By contact with the bones of Elisha, a man was restored to life (4 Kings 13). Who would say that the bones of a Prophet, by which God worked so great a miracle, are not worthy of veneration? Isaiah proclaims that his own sepulcher shall be glorious (ch. 11). Who but a heretic would call the perpetual custom of venerating the sacred sepulcher of Christ, running from the very beginnings of the Church, a monument to superstition? Did not the woman with the issue of blood obtain her health merely by touching the hem of Christ's garment — a faith and an act of reverence that Christ himself commended? Did not the faithful apply St. Paul's handkerchiefs and aprons to the sick, to heal them (Acts 19)? Were these handkerchiefs of Paul's not held in greater price and veneration than the ordinary belongings of other men?

II. When Christ (Matt. 23) reproaches the Pharisees and Scribes for adorning the tombs of the just, he condemns the hypocrisy involved, not the practice of honoring them — and condemns them for doing a good thing with a wicked and deceitful mind, as Ambrose and Jerome explain in commenting on this passage of Matthew. God likewise hid the tomb of Moses from the Jews, because they were too much inclined to idolatry and superstition — a danger far removed from Christians.

III. That the worship of sacred relics prevailed from the earliest ages of the Church is proved by clear and celebrated testimonies which Catholic theologians adduce. In the second century of the Church, as Eusebius records (Ecclesiastical History, Bk. IV, ch. 15), the Church of Smyrna venerated the relics of St. Polycarp the Martyr, who suffered around the year of Christ 167. Christians also venerated the chair once occupied at Jerusalem by James the Apostle, as the same Eusebius relates (Bk. VII, ch. 19). By the fourth century, this worship flourished throughout the whole Church — a fact the Lutherans and Calvinists themselves are forced to admit. Yet how astonishing, how altogether beyond measure, is the mad audacity of these heretics, who prate that the Bishops and Fathers of the third century had already fallen away from the faith of their forebears and lapsed into idolatry! If you ask them for proof of so great a change, they can produce nothing but the fact that they themselves have not read that the worship of relics was already in use in the first three centuries. Calvin, then, and the Lutherans and their followers, are pretending to understand better, after thirteen and more centuries, the discipline of that earliest age than did the holy bishops, and the whole Church of Christians who lived nearest to it! Who but a madman would say such a thing? These matters have been treated with the richest erudition by Natalis Alexander, Bellarmine, and countless others, whose findings are foreign to our present purpose.

IV. Sacred relics are to be honored with the same worship as the persons whose relics they are, since these relics represent the persons whose bodily parts they are. Just as we adore images on account of their prototypes, so too we venerate relics on account of the persons they belonged to. Let us hear the Angelic Doctor, who writes thus (III Part, q. 25, art. 6): "It must be said that, as Augustine says in Book I of the City of God, ch. 13: if a father's garment, or ring, or anything of this kind, is dearer to his children the greater their affection for their parents, then in no way are their bodies to be despised, which are certainly nearer and more closely joined to us than any garment. It is manifest, moreover, that we ought to hold the Saints of God in veneration as members of Christ, sons of God, and our friends and intercessors. And therefore we ought to venerate their relics, of whatever kind, in their memory — and especially their bodies, which were the temples and instruments of the Holy Spirit dwelling and working within them, and which are destined to be conformed to Christ's own body through the glorious resurrection. Wherefore God himself fittingly honors such relics, by working miracles in their presence."

V. Question I. What is meant by the term "relics"? Response: Sacred relics are portions of the bodies of Saints, such as hair, bones, flesh, nails, blood, teeth, ashes; and also garments, veils, cloths, and other things that touched their bodies or which the Saints used.

VI. Question II. Is it lawful to adore the worms into which the bodies of the Saints decompose? Response: Vázquez (On Adoration, Bk. III, disp. 3, ch. 8, n. 114), Sánchez (Bk. II, ch. 43, n. 1), and Castropalao (disp. 1, punct. 1, n. 1) affirm this, provided the intention is upright; for since the ashes and dust into which the bodies of the Saints dissolve may be honored, why not, they say, the worms as well?

VII. This opinion is commonly rejected. And provided the same reasoning applies to dust and ashes as to public worship — the very authors cited concede that this too is not at all permitted. No adoration, public or private, of such worms is lawful. For although such worms are generated from the bodies of the Saints, they nonetheless carry an indecency that prevents their being worshipped. It is indecent to honor the Saints in something so repellent. Those worms are, moreover, foul creatures; and being alive, they would seem to be adored for their own sake. The adoration of these worms, whether public or private, must therefore be rejected as an imprudent superstition. And indeed, if private adoration were permitted, why not public as well? And if public adoration is judged unworthy, why not private too?

VIII. In order for sacred relics to be adored with public worship, they must belong to someone canonized or beatified by the Church. For since no one can be publicly worshipped as a Saint unless he has first been solemnly entered by the Church into the roll of the Saints, still less can his relics be worshipped, since relics are honored on account of the Saints to whom they belong.

IX. Question III. What certainty is required in order that relics be venerated as belonging to some particular Saint? Response: In order to venerate relics prudently, we must know that they are in fact relics — that is, portions or things belonging to some Saint or Blessed. Our worship must be prudent, lest we worship profane things as sacred. This certainty, however, need only be moral certainty. In moral matters, only moral certainty is to be required; and this suffices for a prudent act, as all theologians agree. What testimonies are required to obtain this moral certainty cannot easily be defined in general. A distinction must first be drawn between public and private worship. For public worship to be paid to relics, the souls of the deceased must have been entered into the roll of the Saints or Blessed by the Roman Pontiff. Furthermore, the sacred relics must have been officially recognized by the bishop before being exposed to public worship. For your own private certainty, however, that a relic belongs to a Saint canonized by the Church, it suffices that it has been so declared by the bishop. For private devotion, it is enough that a trustworthy and serious man attest that this relic belongs to some Saint — provided, however, that no arguments to the contrary arise. In this matter two extremes must be avoided: an overly easy credulity, and an excessively severe scrutiny. Since instances of fraud and imposture do not occur so rarely, greater care in giving credence is called for. But if no prudent suspicion of trickery or fraud arises, there is no reason to withhold belief. Why should you reject the testimony of a serious and trustworthy man, unless you have an equal or comparable ground for doubt? "Many," you say, "frauds and deceptions are perpetrated by impostors out of greed and gain." True enough — but from this it only follows that you must exercise caution and prudence before giving your assent. In every kind of commerce, frauds and deceptions occur through the wickedness of dishonest men; must we therefore abstain from all society and dealings? Bring, then, to the veneration of relics the same prudence you exercise in other serious affairs.

X. Question IV. Which relics may a bishop approve, so that they may be publicly exposed to worship? Response: As already indicated, only the bishop can officially recognize relics and approve them for public worship — namely, those belonging to some Saint or Blessed canonized by the Roman Pontiff, as is held from the chapter Fin. on relics and the veneration of Saints. This holds true of recently discovered relics. As for the relics of ancient Saints, which have always been adored by the universal custom of the Christian people, there is no reason why bishops should not approve them, even though those Saints were not entered into the roll of the Saints by the usual solemn rite of canonization by the Roman Pontiff — since this perennial and universal tradition is regarded as equivalent to a solemn canonization. The Council of Trent decrees this. If some grave doubt or difficulty should arise concerning the abuse of relics, the bishop, before he settles the controversy, is to await the judgment of the Metropolitan and the neighboring bishops in a provincial Council — yet in such a way that nothing new, or hitherto unusual in the Church, is decreed without consulting the Most Holy Roman Pontiff (session 25, on the invocation of the Saints).

XI. Question V. Is it lawful to wear authentic relics suspended from the neck? Response: All agree that this practice is lawful, since it redounds to the honor and veneration of the Saints whose relics they are. But for this practice to be lawful, there must be no danger of indecency or pollution — and such danger is, as a rule, absent. For however much the wearer himself may sin, the relics themselves are not thereby polluted, nor do they suffer indecency; rather, indecency or pollution of relics occurs only when irreverence, mockery, or contempt is exercised directly against the worship of the relics themselves. Hence one who commits fornication, theft, or some other crime while wearing them is not to be called sacrilegious with regard to the relics he carries with him for devotion's sake, since these sins are not opposed to that worship; nothing prevents a thief, an adulterer, or other wicked Catholics from venerating their relics, however many crimes they may commit besides. That some measure of irreverence attaches to a Christian adorned with these sacred symbols offending God in this way, no one can deny; but there is no solid ground for calling it a grave sacrilege.

XII. Question VI. Does one who steals sacred relics out of devotion sin? Response: The common opinion is that a Christian who steals sacred relics from an infidel commits no sin at all — because he removes them from an irreverent and unjust possessor, and unjust exposure to pollution, and vindicates them from one who unjustly holds them, since it is unbelievers who hold these sacred pledges. But one who steals relics from another Catholic undoubtedly commits a sacrilegious theft. For although relics are not subject to a temporal price, they are nevertheless held in such great esteem by the faithful that it constitutes a grave loss to the possessor who unwillingly suffers deprivation, however small the relic, since he is stripped of so great a treasure. What, then, of the malice of such theft — is it not also a grave sacrilege in itself? The gravity of relic-theft is measured not by size or bulk, but by rarity and the esteem in which the relic is held. The smallest particle of the Holy Cross, or of the Crown of Thorns, or of some other rare relic, is held in the highest price; and one deprived of it against his will is afflicted with great sorrow and grave harm. The theft of such relics, therefore, even in the smallest quantity, is a grave sacrilege. Nor should this give occasion to quibble that not all relics of the Saints are of the same value — since we measure the gravity of the theft not by the absolute worth of sacred relics considered in themselves, but by the injury done to the possessor by such theft: for all sacred relics of any kind whatsoever transcend the bounds of any temporal price. But because one relic may be harder or easier to obtain than another, the one deprived of it suffers greater or lesser distress and injury accordingly.

XIII. Question VII. Is it lawful for a prince waging war to carry off relics, and transfer them elsewhere? Response: Fr. Juan Fernández (On Relics, Bk. II, ch. 8, art. 3) affirms this, on the grounds that goods lawfully taken in a just war belong to the victors, even as between Christian states. But this opinion is rightly rejected by theologians. For relics are goods of the Church, which cannot be seized on account of a crime; they are exempt from lay jurisdiction, being annexed to the Church and destined for the worship of God. Custom too confirms this: for princes themselves refrain from despoiling such sacred repositories even in cities lawfully taken by right of war. A just war concerns temporal rights, not spiritual ones.

I. Question I. Is worship owed to the Blessed Virgin, the Angels, and the Saints? Answer. Although God alone must be adored with the worship of latria, this by no means prevents us from venerating other persons with an inferior worship, on account of their peculiar conjunction with God. The Blessed Virgin stands eminent above all creatures, next after God; therefore she is worshipped with a peculiar worship, which we call hyperdulia. The Angels and the other holy men of God are adored with the worship of dulia. It is, then, of faith that the Blessed Virgin and the Saints reigning with God are to be worshipped with some adoration; and this was defined in the second Council of Nicaea, actions 2 and 3, and in the Tridentine. Innumerable testimonies of the Scriptures and of the Fathers the catholic Theologians adduce in confirmation of this truth against the most recent Heretics. Natalis Alexander, dissertation 25 of the fifth-century history, brings forward documents of every age.

II. The Angel, Apocalypse 22, forbade himself to be adored, as also did SS. Peter and Paul, as is had in the Acts of the Apostles. St. Thomas answers, II-II, q. 84, art. 5, ad 1: With one veneration we venerate God, which pertains to latria; and with another veneration we venerate certain excellent creatures, which pertains to dulia ... Therefore, according to the reverence which is owed to an excellent creature, David adored Nathan; but according to the reverence which is owed to God, Mardochai refused to adore Aman, fearing lest he should transfer the honor of God to a man, as is said in Esther chapter 13. And similarly, according to the reverence owed to an excellent creature, Abraham adored Angels, and so did Joshua, as is read in Joshua chapter 5 — although it can be understood that they adored, with the adoration of latria, God who was appearing and speaking in the person of the Angel. But according to the reverence which is owed to God, John was forbidden to adore the Angel, in the last chapter of the Apocalypse: both to show the dignity of man, which he has attained through Christ, so as to be made equal to the Angels — whence it is added there: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren; and also to exclude an occasion of idolatry — whence it is added: Adore God.

III. By this angelic doctrine all the sophisms of the Heretics are routed. What they obtrude — that this distinction of the worship of latria and dulia is nowhere indicated in the holy Scriptures, and was unknown in the first centuries of the Church — is of no weight. Doubtless the verbal distinction is not found in the holy Scriptures, but it is taught in very deed. St. Augustine mentions our distinction, book 10 of the City of God, chapter 1, and book 20 Against Faustus, chapter 21, where he has many things against the Heretics who calumniate us for erecting temples and altars to the Saints. For we erect temples and altars to God alone, and to him alone we offer sacrifices, although we do this under the invocation and name of the Saints.

IV. Question II. Is the use of sacred images licit and pious? Answer. All Catholics affirm it, and the Tridentine Synod defined this, session 24, decree 2. All adoration of sacred images is respective. It is licit to form an image of God the Father, and of each Person of the Trinity. Wherefore Alexander VIII deservedly condemned this thesis: It is a nefarious thing for a Christian to place a simulacrum of God the Father seated in a Temple. These sacred symbols are painted, that our mind be excited by these sensible signs to the worship of God. For the invisible things of God, understood, are seen through the things that are made.

V. Question III. Can sacred images be adored? Answer. Not only is the use of sacred images pious, but their worship too is pious and useful, as the sacred Councils have defined — especially the second of Nicaea, of Florence, and of Trent. Yet no other worship, as Bellarmine contends with others, is shown to sacred images than that which is attributed to the prototype.

VI. Question IV. Is there a precept of having and adoring sacred images? Answer. Of the use of sacred images there is no precept, whether natural or divine. But that an ecclesiastical precept has been introduced by custom with respect to the community of the Faithful is certain. We are commanded to adorn temples and altars with sacred images, and it is forbidden that a sacrifice be celebrated without an image of the Crucified. This precept, however, does not seem to bind individual Faithful, although a Catholic who should abstain from all use of sacred images could scarcely be excused from fault. The precept also presses that forbids their contempt. Now in practice a Catholic either adores or scorns them: for in practice one can scarcely prescind from either extreme.

VII. Question V. Are sacred relics to be adored? Answer. All Catholics affirm that sacred relics are worthy of adoration, as has been defined in several Councils: the second of Nicaea, action 3; the fifth of Carthage, chapter 5; the second Lateran, chapter 42; the Tridentine, session 24. And sacred relics must be worshipped with that adoration with which the persons whose parts they are, are worshipped. For relics are particles of the bodies of Saints — such as hairs, bones, nails, blood, teeth, ashes, garments, veils, cloths, and other things which touched their bodies, or which the Saints used. It is not licit to worship the worms of Saints' bodies, either privately or publicly, whatever Vasquez, Sanchez, and Castropalao say to the contrary. That sacred relics may be licitly and publicly worshipped, they must be of some Saint or Blessed by the public judgment of the Church; and, that the certainty necessary for showing worship may be had, the testimony of a Bishop asserting that this relic belongs to this or that Saint is required. The stealing of sacred relics is sacrilegious theft; and the selling of them is not free of simony. Similarly, sacred lambs, blessed with solemn rite by the supreme Pontiffs and destined for sacred use, are worthy of veneration. It is forbidden to paint them with colors and vermilion, and by a stronger right to sell them. A price can be exacted only for the material of which they are made. Care must nevertheless be taken lest, under the pretext either of the material or of the case in which they are enclosed, the price be increased, and simony lie hidden.

VIII. Priestly vestments, sacred vessels, and temples are worthy of veneration, since they are destined for the worship of God. Chalices and Corporals cannot be touched by Laymen, except by force of a privilege granted to lay Regulars, while they serve in the sacristy.

IX. Confessors and Preachers must instruct the Faithful...

diligently in the worship of the Saints, and warn them that all worship must ultimately be referred to God, whom they must worship in his Saints. The Blessed Virgin, the Angels, and the Saints are all creatures, who are worshipped only for God's sake, or on account of their intimate conjunction with God. The people are prone to superstition; therefore they must be diligently instructed.

I assert that Latria is distinct from Dulia.

It is proven by D. Bonaventure, from the Gloss on Psalm 98, at the words Adorate scabellum pedum eius (Adore his footstool), where he says: Latria is the adoration that is owed to God alone. Dulia is the adoration that is shown even to a creature.

Hence he argues secondly. Habits are differentiated by acts; and acts by objects: Therefore, if Latria is the worship owed to God, and Dulia the worship owed to a creature as creature, it seems that Latria is a worship distinct from Dulia.

Thirdly, because, just as the gifts that regard the Creator and the creature are differentiated, as wisdom and science, so too must the virtues and their acts be differentiated: But Latria regards the worship owed to the Creator, and Dulia the worship owed to the creature: Therefore.

Fourthly it is proven by the Holy Doctor: If the same honor were shown to the creature that is shown to the Creator, it would no longer be an act of virtue but of vice: For if anyone were to sacrifice to a man, he would commit the crime of Idolatry. Hence Exodus 22: Qui immolat Diis, occidetur, praeterquam Domino soli (He that sacrificeth to gods shall be put to death, save only to the Lord alone), and D. Augustine, book 10 of de civitate, chapter 4: Many things are assumed in Divine worship that are paid to human honors: whether out of excessive humility, or pestilent flattery: yet so that those to whom they are paid are held to be men, who are said to be to be honored and venerated: but if much is added to them, then to be adored. Who indeed judged that sacrifice should be offered, save to him whom he knew, or thought, or feigned to be God?

You will object first with the Gloss on that Psalm 7, Domine Deus meus in te speravi (Lord my God, in thee have I hoped), which says: Lord of all by power, to whom Dulia is owed; God of all by creation, to whom Latria is owed: Therefore both are owed to God.

The Holy Doctor answers that Dulia is there taken broadly, according to the common analogy of Latria and the species of Dulia. Moreover, Dulia is said more of the Lord than of God, because Lord is communicated to the creature, and is said analogically of the Creator and the creature; but God is not so communicated; and if it is said of the Creator and the creature, it is said equivocally. Yet Dulia is not properly to be shown to God, but Latria.

You will object secondly. Just as there is one faith by which everything to be believed is believed, so there ought to be one virtue by which everything to be worshiped is worshiped.

The Holy Doctor answers that there is one Faith by which the same object is believed under the same formal aspect. Such is theological faith, which believes all things true on the divine truth revealed; but faith that has different objects is different, as the faith by which I believe something asserted by a creature, and this faith looks to the Cardinal virtue, and is rather to be called fidelity: But the worship of God regards different objects, namely the uncreated Excellence and the created excellence, and therefore must be constituted as different.

You will object thirdly. Just as God and neighbor are loved by one charity, though they are different objects, so God and the creature ought to be honored by one worship.

The Holy Doctor answers that the account is different, for in Charity there is one principal object, namely the goodness of God, which is lovable in itself, and the neighbor is loved for God himself: But Latria and Dulia regard an altogether and ultimately different worship, the one and the other.

You will object fourthly: More and less does not differentiate the species: but Latria and Dulia differ as greater honor and lesser: Therefore they are not different species.

The Holy Doctor answers first that the major is false in the moral genus: the minor is also false; because Latria and Dulia have different (as I said) formal objects.

Therefore some conditions of each adoration are common, some proper. The common ones are, that due worship be shown both to God and to the saints devoutly and piously, as the Holy Doctor shows on chapter 6 of Luke at these words: exiit in montem orare (he went out into the mountain to pray). And so the same conditions press, as were said of prayer in disp. 3, question 5 and 10. And so he brings the example of Abraham, Genesis 22, who, wishing to go to adore and sacrifice, compelled his servants to wait on the slope: Expectate hic cum asino: Ego autem, et puer illuc properantes, postquam adoraverimus, revertemur ad vos (Wait here with the ass: but I and the boy, hastening thither, after we have adored, will return to you). This the Holy Doctor explains most beautifully at those words, John 4: Veri adoratores adorabunt Patrem in spiritu, et veritate. Nam Deus tales quaerit adoratores (True adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and truth. For God seeks such adorers).

HENCE also the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 14: Orabo spiritu, orabo et mente: psallam spiritu, psallam et mente (I will pray with the spirit, I will pray also with the mind: I will sing with the spirit, I will sing also with the mind). The reason is the one Christ gives there, John 4: Spiritus est Deus: et eos, qui adorant, in spiritu, et veritate oportet adorare (God is a spirit: and they who adore him must adore him in spirit and truth). In the same way, proportionally, the Angels and the blessed souls of the saints are to be adored in spirit and truth, as Chrysostom observes on this passage, homily 32 on John, Augustine tractate 15 on John.

HENCE the Holy Doctor infers that God is to be adored especially in purity and sanctity, as I said of the one praying in disp. 3, questions 4, 5, and 10. Whence Chrysostom compares sinners who adore while offering supplication to those who offer dung. He infers that God is to be adored with humble subjection together with the protestation of the Divine majesty. Whence also to adore is to prostrate the body at the feet, and to incline our summit to his depths, as D. Augustine explains. Isaiah 60: Adorabunt vestigia pedum tuorum (They shall adore the footsteps of thy feet). Therefore he says God is to be adored with due honorification: Venite adoremus, et procidamus ante Deum (Come let us adore, and fall down before God), Psalm 99: Praeoccupemus faciem eius in confessione (Let us come before his face with confession), and Matthew 2: Procidentes adoraverunt Deum (Prostrating, they adored God). Thus adoration is a suppliant inclination, even for making petition.

LIKEWISE God is to be adored with due solemnity according to place and time, as is said, Psalm 5: Introibo in domum tuam, adorabo ad templum sanctum tuum in timore (I will enter into thy house; I will adore toward thy holy temple in fear). And Isaiah 66: Veniet omnis caro, ut adoret coram facie mea (All flesh shall come to adore before my face).

BUT presently the Holy Doctor, in conference 22 on chapter 4 of John, again expounding those words: Veri adoratores adorabunt Patrem in spiritu, et veritate (True adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and truth): first, he says, they ought to be true adorers, or supplicants; for to adore and to supplicate are the same thing, as Papias and Valla say, book 5 of elegances, chapter 11. But truth is that which shows what is, as D. Augustine says, de vera religione, chapter 36. Therefore the true adorer is he who, conscious of his own unworthiness and vileness, has acknowledged it, and at the same time confesses that God is the forgiver of sins, Christ the Savior, and the saints, especially the Blessed Virgin, are intercessors. Whence St. Gregory, book 5 of the Morals, chapter 27, says: He offers prayer who humbly sees that he himself is dust, who attributes nothing of virtue to himself, who acknowledges that the good things he does are from the mercy of the Creator. Such was Abraham, who said, Genesis 18: Loquar ad Dominum, cum sim pulvis, et cinis (I will speak to the Lord, since I am dust and ashes). The Publican, Luke 18. Such adore in spirit and truth in the temple of the heart, as D. Augustine says in the cited Tractate on John; thus the Apostle said, 1 Cor. 14: Orabo spiritu: Psallam spiritu, etc. (I will pray with the spirit: I will sing with the spirit, etc.).

MOREOVER, they adore (the Holy Doctor says) in spirit and truth who adore in simplicity and sincere truth. And so the Holy Doctor does not confound, in distinction 3, question 9, question 4 and the cited place, adoration and prayer, as Tanner thinks, disp. 5, question 2, dubium 1.

HENCE Hugh of St. Victor says, de sacramentis, book 1, part 12, chapter 6: To adore God is to subject to him the whole mind in humility unto devotion, and to believe him the beginning and end of all good: Thus Deuteronomy 6: Dominum Deum tuum timebis, seu adorabis (Thou shalt fear, or adore, the Lord thy God), as the Holy Doctor reads according to another version, with Hugh: On the contrary the Pharisee, not adoring but standing, prayed thus within himself, Luke 18, as D. Gregory notes, book 19 of the Morals, chapter 12.

THESE, according to the analogy, are the things Latria and Dulia have in common; but yet some objects belong to God altogether properly, as objects of Divine worship.

MOREOVER the proper matter of Divine worship is discerned first from the quality of the office and rite, of which kind are the sacrifices, which are offered to God alone, especially the most holy sacrifice of the Mass, and the internal sacrifice of the mind, whereby we vow to God.

SECONDLY from the intention, by which we worship the excellence, as Divine, which is an object of prayer other than the creature, which is the object of Dulia.

THEREFORE the adoration of Latria is due to God alone; as the Holy Doctor notes everywhere, and D. Thomas, article 3, and as I said above.

THEREFORE the Platonists erred, wishing to show Latria even to the Angels, as D. Augustine relates, books 8 and 10 of de civitate; and this error is refuted by the Apostle, to the Colossians 2: Nemo vos seducat, volens in humilitate, et religione Angelorum (Let no man seduce you, willing in humility and religion of Angels, etc.), expounding which passage Chrysostom, homily 7, there mentions their errors. I shall treat of these more gladly in part 3, Tomus 1, disp. 27.

DULIA is defined by St. Bonaventure 3. part. Centil. sect. 44. It is the servitude, or cult, owed to a rational creature ruling over one. So also St. Thomas art. 3. from St. Augustine lib. 10. de Civitate, cap. 1. ¶ Of this I shall treat more fully in part 3, Tract. 1. d. 17.

DULIA in Greek is called servitude, and differs from Latria, which is the servitude owed to God, as the Seraphic Doctor teaches loc. cit. and in the opusc. declaratio terminorum Theol. and in 6 other places cited in sect. 1. question 1. Hence Hyperdulia signifies the servitude owed to the preeminent creature, having a special affinity with God, as St. Bonaventure teaches in the places cited.

Titius, a priest and moderately learned, was scandalized and perplexed when he read in the newspapers that several Catholic historical writers now hold that the House of Loreto is not the very house of Nazareth in which the Holy Family dwelt. But since the Roman Breviary (December 10) declares: “That it is the selfsame one in which the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us is proved both by pontifical documents and by the most celebrated veneration of the whole world, and by the continual power of miracles and the grace of heavenly benefits,” and the Church still appears to approve the worship of that house, Titius did not know how these things are to be reconciled. Hence he asks:

1. What kind of worship is shown by the Church to sacred relics?

2. In order that religious worship may be shown to relics, is certainty concerning the genuineness of the relics required?

3. Does the approval of the Church, or even miracles, bring it about that complete certainty concerning the genuineness of relics is had?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What sort of worship is paid by the Church to sacred relics?

The worship which the Church pays to sacred relics is relative, not absolute; that is, relics are honored not on account of any intrinsic holiness of their own, but because of their connection with a person who is worthy of honor. Special honor is paid to portions of the true Cross because Our Lord died on it for our salvation; relative honor, called dulia, is paid to relics of the saints.

2. Is certainty about the authenticity of relics required in order that worship may be paid them?

Yes, moral certainty is required; for religious worship may not be paid to an object which is probably not worthy of such honor. Private certainty of the authenticity of a relic and of the sanctity of the person with whom it is connected is sufficient to justify private worship; for public worship the approbation of the Church is required. A bishop may approve relics of those saints who are canonized or beatified ; the Pope alone can approve relics of those who are not canonized nor beatified. The honor which has hitherto been shown to ancient relics from time immemorial should continue to be paid to them even though there be no authentication, unless it becomes certain that they are false.

3. Does the Church’s approbation or even miracles make the authenticity of a relic absolutely and irrefragably certain?

No. The Church’s approbation is a sufficient guarantee that the authenticity of a relic is morally certain indeed, but it is a question of fact, and new reasons may be discovered which show that what was believed to be true is false. God, too, may work miracles in reward of the dispositions of those who honor a relic which they suppose to be a true one, although it is in reality false. The miracle is a reward of good dispositions, not a divine guarantee of the authenticity of a relic.

4. The case. By what has been said we can soothe the perplexity of Titius without entering on the question whether the Holy House at Loreto is really that in which Our Lord lived. Possession is in its favor, and it has not yet been shown not to be the Holy House. The Breviary and the Papal briefs rest on what was deemed satisfactory evidence of the truth of their assertions at the time when they were written. They may stand until they are shown to be mistaken. If that ever comes about, the Church will doubtless recall her sanction, and meanwhile we may go on as before. For the principles involved in this solution see Benedict XIV, De Canon. Sanctorum, lib. iv, pt. ii, c. 13 and c. 24.

Bertha has a great veneration for the relics of saints, and possesses a number of them, having inherited some and having received others as gifts. She has papers of authentication for all except one, but she venerates that one as well as the rest. A friend pointed out that if the relic were not genuine she was guilty of superstition. Alarmed at this suggestion, she went to a priest and asked if she had really committed a sin, or if she might venerate this relic.

The questions are: (1) Has Bertha committed a sin? (2) May she continue to venerate this relic?

Answer to (1).—Before we can say whether she has sinned or not, we must consider the state of her conscience. If she has acted bona fide, believing it to be undoubtedly right and proper to venerate the relic, she has not sinned; she has acted according to her conscience, which must direct our behavior, even when it is in unconscious error. If, however, she felt any doubt as to whether she ought to venerate this relic, and whether it was sinful to do so, she has committed a sin, because it is not permissible to act in a state of doubt. If the further question be asked, whether the sin committed ratione dubii is mortal or venial, we answer with St. Alphonsus that it is venial if the person is otherwise conscientious and has not perceived the danger of sinning grievously, nor the obligation of examining the matter carefully. St. Alphonsus writes as follows (Theol. mor., I. 23): "What if someone knows that something is evil but doubts whether it is mortal or venial and acts with such a doubt? Some judge that he sins gravely or lightly according as the object of the sin in its kind is grave or light. Finally, others hold with sufficient probability that he sins only venially if the man gives no attention at all, even confusedly, to the danger of sinning gravely or to the obligation of examining the matter, provided also that he is a man of timorous conscience." Under other circumstances, the sin would be grievous. Tantum malum, quantum crediderit—says St. Bernard.

Answer to (2).—We have to distinguish public and private veneration of relics. As a general rule, when there is not moral certainty regarding the identity and authenticity of relics, they cannot be publicly venerated, nor carried processionaliter. This is plain from a decree of the S. Congreg. Rit. 2j September, 1817. Moral certainty regarding the genuineness of relics is present when the ecclesiastical authorities have approved them as relics of saints.

How do matters stand when in some isolated case, in spite of the care displayed by the Church in safeguarding the relics of the saints, some serious error as to their authenticity has crept in? Even in such a case the veneration would not be vain, as a relic is not honored absolutely, but relatively, for the sake of the person to whom it belonged. Relative veneration of the saints extends to their relics, pictures, and statues, which are objects of religious honor, not for their own sake, but on account of their connection with certain saints.

From what has been said, it appears that, in spite of the doubt as to the authenticity of this relic, Bertha may venerate it, especially as the veneration to be given it is private.—Dr. Franz Janis.

Case.—Claudia, a very sensible and staid woman, tells her confessor the following experience: “A few weeks ago my mother, a very conscientious and devout person, died suddenly. Night before last she appeared to me—I was wide awake—her expression was sad and troubled; after a short while she spoke to me, saying that she had to endure great suffering in purgatory, and she asked me to have a Mass said for her on a privileged altar, to offer up Communion five times, to make the Stations of the Cross once, and to say the rosary on three consecutive Saturdays. Then she vanished. This apparition: was quite unforeseen and made a profound and painful impression upon me, so that I feel impelled to comply with her request. To-day I wish to begin with offering up Holy Communion. But first I would ask you to tell me whether I am allowed to heed the apparition and the request.”

Solution.—The chief points which the confessor must here consider are the following:

1. The confessor is not at liberty to doubt the possibility of such apparitions (Deo sic volente), or abruptly to declare them a case of superstition. There are many, of course, who deny the possibility of such apparitions, and who speak of them in terms of derision and mockery; but if we inquire from what kind of people such denunciation emanates we find they are those who deny the existence of God, and the immortality of the soul, or purgatory, or at least doubt these fundamental truths; or those infected by the canker of rationalism, who therefore thrust from them everything belonging to the realm of the supernatural. The opinion of such persons is of no value in the present case.

That an intercourse may take place between the world of spirits and the world of men is plainly evident from the first to the last page of the Bible. It begins with the appearance of the devil in Paradise, and concludes with the apparition of the Angel to the seer of Patmos. Also there is evidence of apparitions of departed human souls. Judas Machabeus had in a dream a vision of two saints long departed, the high priest Onias and the prophet Jeremias, the latter handing him a golden sword for the holy combat, and the author of the book calls this dream worthy of belief (cf. II. Mach. 15, 11). At the transfiguration of Christ on Tabor there appeared Moses and Elias; the three disciples, Peter, James, and his brother John, beheld them and heard them converse with the Lord (cf. Matt. 17, 1). At the resurrection of the Redeemer many saints left their tombs and appeared to many persons in Jerusalem (cf. Matt. 17, 53). Why, then, might not the souls in purgatory by Divine permission or disposition, appear to the living, be it to invoke their assistance, or to bring them a Divine warning concerning their salvation?

But it is not Holy Writ alone that gives evidence of the possibility of a communication between the spirit world and that of men; we have from all centuries of the Church most credible witnesses to this fact, among them persons of high standing in the Church. Regarding the abundant and unimpeachable testimony of these credible persons, who either relate such appearances from irrefutable sources, as, for instance, Saint Peter Damian (Opusc: xxxiv.), or to whom such visions appeared, as Saint Theresa, the theologians say: “It is certain that the souls suffering in purgatory have appeared at times to the eyes of their friends and relations, with sad and troubled mien, in order to implore of them their prayers and their intercession.” (Scaramelli.) St. Thomas of Aquin thus declares himself on this subject: “We must distinguish regarding the departed souls as to what happens to them according to the laws of nature and according to the dispositions of Divine providence, because, as St. Augustine says, different are the limitations of things human, different the manifestations of Divine power, different what happens in the natural order, and different the miraculous. According to the natural order, the departed souls, after they have been placed by God in their abode, are barred from association with the living. Divine Providence, however, permits them at times to leave their abode to appear to the eyes of men, as is related by St. Augustine of the martyr Felix, who appeared visibly to the citizens of Nola, when they were beset by their enemies. We may further believe that the souls undergoing punishment are sometimes allowed to appear to the living, either for the instruction and warning of men, or, in the case of those in purgatory, to implore aid, as is proved by many incidents related by St. Gregory the Great (Suppl. qu. 69. a. 3). St. Augustine terms it a “great impertinence” to declare such apparitions impossible, since so many proofs and so many men inspired by the spirit of God can be quoted for their actual occurrence. (“It is a mark of great shamelessness to deny that souls are from time to time sent to us from their abodes, when so many wise men filled with God establish that very thing by their reason and their experience.” De cura pro mortuis.) Similarly writes Benedict XIV, in his work on the canonization and beatification of the servants of God. Hence Dr. Ernest Miiller teaches: “It is certain that apparitions of the dead are possible, both because angels appear although they are spirits, and because authentic history relates very many apparitions of the dead.”

2. In the case of an apparition of a suffering soul from purgatory, inquiry must be made whether there are circumstances that point to superstition, or otherwise render the matter suspicious.

Suspicious would be the desire for such an apparition; it would point to presumption, or to idle curiosity, even to conceit. Such coveting excites the imagination, so that one readily sees and hears the desired things, moreover God may permit in punishment of such sins a mockery by evil spirits. While evil spirits, as St. Augustine, St. Chrysostom, St. Thomas and other theologians teach, cannot cite the souls of the departed either from purgatory or from hell, they may assume their shapes, and thus deceive the curious. A second, even more important point, is, that the persons who claim that a soul from purgatory has appeared to them, have done nothing to bring it about, have not employed superstitious means, that the purpose of the vision is a good one, that the speech of the apparition contains nothing contrary to faith or good morals, nor is otherwise suspicious. The temperament of the persons who have had visions must also be taken into account; it makes a great difference whether they are inclined to superstition, or credulous and easily deceived, whether they deserve belief, or whether they have a well-deserved reputation for fibbing. It would be well for the confessor to ask this woman what impression the vision made upon her. If she feels confirmed in the faith, and induced to acts of piety and charity, this will speak in its favor. Finally, it is to be ascertained whether the woman was convinced from the beginning of the truth of the apparition. If God permits or wills a suffering soul in purgatory to appear to friend or relative, it may be assumed that God also grants to the person certainty about the truth of the apparition.

If all these points are ascertained to be favorable, the confessor may regard the apparition as probable and so inform his penitent, all the more as she obediently submits the matter for his decision.

3. To render a positive decision as to whether one of the poor souls had really appeared to a penitent will be very difficult for the confessor, even if the facts favor such a decision. Such decision, moreover, is not necessary; a well-grounded probability is sufficient warrant to tell the penitent that she will not be guilty of superstition if she accepts the truth of the apparition, and to admonish her to fulfill the request of the poor soul, all the more so when the things requested are most worthy, and certainly very beneficial to the souls in purgatory. After the penitent has performed the good works asked for, she should not fail to continue her prayers for this soul, even if the soul appears a second time and declares that she is released from purgatory. No matter how we might wish to believe the truth of such a message, there is not such certainty as to exclude all possibility of delusion. Hence in order to prevent a detriment to the departed, the penitent should offer her prayers and good works with the intention that if this particular soul no longer needs them, God may accept them for other souls. Caution should be exercised not to talk freely about the vision, as such things are not rightly comprehended by everybody.

4. If the confessor perceives that the apparition as related by the woman is connected with suspicious circumstances, he must give his penitent the necessary admonition; he must reprove the undue curiosity of which she probably has been guilty, also point out how dangerous such undue desire is, and forbid everything that savors of superstition or fortune-telling, etc., move her to contrition and good resolutions, and exhort her to confine herself to the prayers and good works practised and prescribed by the Church.

From the above follows the answer to the question asked about this case. There seems to be nothing here to arouse suspicion and circumstances seem to favor the conclusion that there was an apparition. The request made of Claudia corresponds perfectly to the practise of the Church.

A confessor will do well to be slow in giving belief to reports of apparitions, because while they may happen, they happen very rarely. On the other hand, deception and illusion are easily possible. It would be an error to deny the possibility of such apparitions, but it would also be a grave error to believe too readily the reports of such apparitions, as for one thing it would certainly promote superstition.