Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 43 (1/2)

Reply Obj. 3: The cross, considered in itself, is not an object of veneration, as stated above (AA. 4, 5). But the Blessed Virgin is in herself an object of veneration. Hence there is no comparison.

_______________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 25, Art. 6]

Whether Any Kind of Wors.h.i.+p Is Due to the Relics of the Saints?

Objection 1: It would seem that the relics of the saints are not to be wors.h.i.+ped at all. For we should avoid doing what may be the occasion of error. But to wors.h.i.+p the relics of the dead seems to savor of the error of the Gentiles, who gave honor to dead men.

Therefore the relics of the saints are not to be honored.

Obj. 2: Further, it seems absurd to venerate what is insensible. But the relics of the saints are insensible. Therefore it is absurd to venerate them.

Obj. 3: Further, a dead body is not of the same species as a living body: consequently it does not seem to be identical with it.

Therefore, after a saint's death, it seems that his body should not be wors.h.i.+ped.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (De Eccles. Dogm. xl): ”We believe that the bodies of the saints, above all the relics of the blessed martyrs, as being the members of Christ, should be wors.h.i.+ped in all sincerity”: and further on: ”If anyone holds a contrary opinion, he is not accounted a Christian, but a follower of Eunomius and Vigilantius.”

_I answer that,_ As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 13): ”If a father's coat or ring, or anything else of that kind, is so much more cherished by his children, as love for one's parents is greater, in no way are the bodies themselves to be despised, which are much more intimately and closely united to us than any garment; for they belong to man's very nature.” It is clear from this that he who has a certain affection for anyone, venerates whatever of his is left after his death, not only his body and the parts thereof, but even external things, such as his clothes, and such like. Now it is manifest that we should show honor to the saints of G.o.d, as being members of Christ, the children and friends of G.o.d, and our intercessors.

Wherefore in memory of them we ought to honor any relics of theirs in a fitting manner: princ.i.p.ally their bodies, which were temples, and organs of the Holy Ghost dwelling and operating in them, and are destined to be likened to the body of Christ by the glory of the Resurrection. Hence G.o.d Himself fittingly honors such relics by working miracles at their presence.

Reply Obj. 1: This was the argument of Vigilantius, whose words are quoted by Jerome in the book he wrote against him (ch. ii) as follows: ”We see something like a pagan rite introduced under pretext of religion; they wors.h.i.+p with kisses I know not what tiny heap of dust in a mean vase surrounded with precious linen.” To him Jerome replies (Ep. ad Ripar. cix): ”We do not adore, I will not say the relics of the martyrs, but either the sun or the moon or even the angels”--that is to say, with the wors.h.i.+p of _latria._ ”But we honor the martyrs' relics, so that thereby we give honor to Him Whose martyrs [*The original meaning of the word 'martyr,' i.e. the Greek _martys_ is 'a witness'] they are: we honor the servants, that the honor shown to them may reflect on their Master.” Consequently, by honoring the martyrs' relics we do not fall into the error of the Gentiles, who gave the wors.h.i.+p of _latria_ to dead men.

Reply Obj. 2: We wors.h.i.+p that insensible body, not for its own sake, but for the sake of the soul, which was once united thereto, and now enjoys G.o.d; and for G.o.d's sake, whose ministers the saints were.

Reply Obj. 3: The dead body of a saint is not identical with that which the saint had during life, on account of the difference of form, viz. the soul: but it is the same by ident.i.ty of matter, which is destined to be reunited to its form.

_______________________

QUESTION 26

OF CHRIST AS CALLED THE MEDIATOR OF G.o.d AND MAN (In Two Articles)

We have now to consider how Christ is called the Mediator of G.o.d and man, and under this head there are two points of inquiry:

(1) Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Mediator of G.o.d and man?

(2) Whether this belongs to Him by reason of His human nature?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 26, Art. 1]

Whether It Is Proper to Christ to Be the Mediator of G.o.d and Man?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is not proper to Christ to be the Mediator of G.o.d and man. For a priest and a prophet seem to be mediators between G.o.d and man, according to Deut. 5:5: ”I was the mediator and stood between G.o.d [Vulg.: 'the Lord'] and you at that time.” But it is not proper to Christ to be a priest and a prophet.

Neither, therefore, is it proper to Him to be Mediator.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is fitting to angels, both good and bad, cannot be said to be proper to Christ. But to be between G.o.d and man is fitting to the good angels, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). It is also fitting to the bad angels--that is, the demons: for they have something in common with G.o.d--namely, _immortality;_ and something they have in common with men--namely, _pa.s.sibility of soul_ and consequently unhappiness; as appears from what Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 13, 15). Therefore it is not proper to Christ to be a Mediator of G.o.d and man.

Obj. 3: Further, it belongs to the office of Mediator to beseech one of those, between whom he mediates, for the other. But the Holy Ghost, as it is written (Rom. 8:26), ”asketh” G.o.d ”for us with unspeakable groanings.” Therefore the Holy Ghost is a Mediator between G.o.d and man. Therefore this is not proper to Christ.