Summa Theologica Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 147

We must now consider the species of superst.i.tion. We shall treat (1) Of the superst.i.tion which consists in giving undue wors.h.i.+p to the true G.o.d; (2) Of the superst.i.tion of idolatry; (3) of divinatory superst.i.tion; (4) of the superst.i.tion of observances.

Under the first head there are two points of inquiry:

(1) Whether there can be anything pernicious in the wors.h.i.+p of the true G.o.d?

(2) Whether there can be anything superfluous therein?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 93, Art. 1]

Whether There Can Be Anything Pernicious in the Wors.h.i.+p of the True G.o.d?

Objection 1: It would seem that there cannot be anything pernicious in the wors.h.i.+p of the true G.o.d. It is written (Joel 2:32): "Everyone that shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Now whoever wors.h.i.+ps G.o.d calls upon His name. Therefore all wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d is conducive to salvation, and consequently none is pernicious.

Obj. 2: Further, it is the same G.o.d that is wors.h.i.+ped by the just in any age of the world. Now before the giving of the Law the just wors.h.i.+ped G.o.d in whatever manner they pleased, without committing mortal sin: wherefore Jacob bound himself by his own vow to a special kind of wors.h.i.+p, as related in Genesis 28. Therefore now also no wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d is pernicious.

Obj. 3: Further, nothing pernicious is tolerated in the Church. Yet the Church tolerates various rites of divine wors.h.i.+p: wherefore Gregory, replying to Augustine, bishop of the English (Regist. xi, ep. 64), who stated that there existed in the churches various customs in the celebration of Ma.s.s, wrote: "I wish you to choose carefully whatever you find likely to be most pleasing to G.o.d, whether in the Roman territory, or in the land of the Gauls, or in any part of the Church." Therefore no way of wors.h.i.+ping G.o.d is pernicious.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine [*Jerome (Ep. lxxv, ad Aug.) See Opp.

August. Ep. lx.x.xii] in a letter to Jerome (and the words are quoted in a gloss on Gal. 2:14) says that "after the Gospel truth had been preached the legal observances became deadly," and yet these observances belonged to the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d. Therefore there can be something deadly in the divine wors.h.i.+p.

_I answer that,_ As Augustine states (Cont. Mendac. xiv), "a most pernicious lie is that which is uttered in matters pertaining to Christian religion." Now it is a lie if one signify outwardly that which is contrary to the truth. But just as a thing is signified by word, so it is by deed: and it is in this signification by deed that the outward wors.h.i.+p of religion consists, as shown above (Q. 81, A.

7). Consequently, if anything false is signified by outward wors.h.i.+p, this wors.h.i.+p will be pernicious.

Now this happens in two ways. In the first place, it happens on the part of the thing signified, through the wors.h.i.+p signifying something discordant therefrom: and in this way, at the time of the New Law, the mysteries of Christ being already accomplished, it is pernicious to make use of the ceremonies of the Old Law whereby the mysteries of Christ were foreshadowed as things to come: just as it would be pernicious for anyone to declare that Christ has yet to suffer. In the second place, falsehood in outward wors.h.i.+p occurs on the part of the wors.h.i.+per, and especially in common wors.h.i.+p which is offered by ministers impersonating the whole Church. For even as he would be guilty of falsehood who would, in the name of another person, proffer things that are not committed to him, so too does a man incur the guilt of falsehood who, on the part of the Church, gives wors.h.i.+p to G.o.d contrary to the manner established by the Church or divine authority, and according to ecclesiastical custom. Hence Ambrose [*Comment. in 1 ad1 Cor. 11:27, quoted in the gloss of Peter Lombard]

says: "He is unworthy who celebrates the mystery otherwise than Christ delivered it." For this reason, too, a gloss on Col. 2:23 says that superst.i.tion is "the use of human observances under the name of religion."

Reply Obj. 1: Since G.o.d is truth, to invoke G.o.d is to wors.h.i.+p Him in spirit and truth, according to John 4:23. Hence a wors.h.i.+p that contains falsehood, is inconsistent with a salutary calling upon G.o.d.

Reply Obj. 2: Before the time of the Law the just were instructed by an inward instinct as to the way of wors.h.i.+ping G.o.d, and others followed them. But afterwards men were instructed by outward precepts about this matter, and it is wicked to disobey them.

Reply Obj. 3: The various customs of the Church in the divine wors.h.i.+p are in no way contrary to the truth: wherefore we must observe them, and to disregard them is unlawful.

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 93, Art. 2]

Whether There Can Be Any Excess in the Wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d?

Objection 1: It would seem that there cannot be excess in the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d. It is written (Ecclus. 43:32): "Glorify the Lord as much as ever you can, for He will yet far exceed." Now the divine wors.h.i.+p is directed to the glorification of G.o.d. Therefore there can be no excess in it.

Obj. 2: Further, outward wors.h.i.+p is a profession of inward wors.h.i.+p, "whereby G.o.d is wors.h.i.+ped with faith, hope, and charity," as Augustine says (Enchiridion iii). Now there can be no excess in faith, hope, and charity. Neither, therefore, can there be in the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d.

Obj. 3: Further, to wors.h.i.+p G.o.d consists in offering to Him what we have received from Him. But we have received all our goods from G.o.d.

Therefore if we do all that we possibly can for G.o.d's honor, there will be no excess in the divine wors.h.i.+p.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii, 18) "that the good and true Christian rejects also superst.i.tious fancies from Holy Writ." But Holy Writ teaches us to wors.h.i.+p G.o.d. Therefore there can be superst.i.tion by reason of excess even in the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d.

_I answer that,_ A thing is said to be in excess in two ways. First, with regard to absolute quant.i.ty, and in this way there cannot be excess in the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d, because whatever man does is less than he owes G.o.d. Secondly, a thing is in excess with regard to quant.i.ty of proportion, through not being proportionate to its end. Now the end of divine wors.h.i.+p is that man may give glory to G.o.d, and submit to Him in mind and body. Consequently, whatever a man may do conducing to G.o.d's glory, and subjecting his mind to G.o.d, and his body, too, by a moderate curbing of the concupiscences, is not excessive in the divine wors.h.i.+p, provided it be in accordance with the commandments of G.o.d and of the Church, and in keeping with the customs of those among whom he lives.

On the other hand if that which is done be, in itself, not conducive to G.o.d's glory, nor raise man's mind to G.o.d, nor curb inordinate concupiscence, or again if it be not in accordance with the commandments of G.o.d and of the Church, or if it be contrary to the general custom--which, according to Augustine [*Ad Casulan. Ep.

x.x.xvi], "has the force of law"--all this must be reckoned excessive and superst.i.tious, because consisting, as it does, of mere externals, it has no connection with the internal wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d. Hence Augustine (De Vera Relig. iii) quotes the words of Luke 17:21, "The kingdom of G.o.d is within you," against the "superst.i.tious," those, to wit, who pay more attention to externals.

Reply Obj. 1: The glorification of G.o.d implies that what is done is done for G.o.d's glory: and this excludes the excess denoted by superst.i.tion.

Reply Obj. 2: Faith, hope and charity subject the mind to G.o.d, so that there can be nothing excessive in them. It is different with external acts, which sometimes have no connection with these virtues.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument considers excess by way of absolute quant.i.ty.

_______________________

QUESTION 94

OF IDOLATRY (In Four Articles)

We must now consider idolatry: under which head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether idolatry is a species of superst.i.tion?

(2) Whether it is a sin?

(3) Whether it is the gravest sin?

(4) Of the cause of this sin.

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 94, Art. 1]

Whether Idolatry Is Rightly Reckoned a Species of Superst.i.tion?

Objection 1: It would seem that idolatry is not rightly reckoned a species of superst.i.tion. Just as heretics are unbelievers, so are idolaters. But heresy is a species of unbelief, as stated above (Q.

11, A. 1). Therefore idolatry is also a species of unbelief and not of superst.i.tion.

Obj. 2: Further, latria pertains to the virtue of religion to which superst.i.tion is opposed. But latria, apparently, is univocally applied to idolatry and to that which belongs to the true religion.

For just as we speak univocally of the desire of false happiness, and of the desire of true happiness, so too, seemingly, we speak univocally of the wors.h.i.+p of false G.o.ds, which is called idolatry, and of the wors.h.i.+p of the true G.o.d, which is the latria of true religion. Therefore idolatry is not a species of superst.i.tion.

Obj. 3: Further, that which is nothing cannot be the species of any genus. But idolatry, apparently, is nothing: for the Apostle says (1 Cor. 8:4): "We know that an idol is nothing in the world," and further on (1 Cor. 10:19): "What then? Do I say that what is offered in sacrifice to idols is anything? Or that the idol is anything?"

implying an answer in the negative. Now offering things to idols belongs properly to idolatry. Therefore since idolatry is like to nothing, it cannot be a species of superst.i.tion.

Obj. 4: Further, it belongs to superst.i.tion to give divine honor to whom that honor is not due. Now divine honor is undue to idols, just as it is undue to other creatures, wherefore certain people are reproached (Rom. 1:25) for that they "wors.h.i.+pped and served the creature rather than the Creator." Therefore this species of superst.i.tion is unfittingly called idolatry, and should rather be named "wors.h.i.+p of creatures."

_On the contrary,_ It is related (Acts 17:16) that when Paul awaited Silas and Timothy at Athens, "his spirit was stirred within him seeing the whole city given to idolatry," and further on (Acts 17:22) he says: "Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are too superst.i.tious." Therefore idolatry belongs to superst.i.tion.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 92, A. 2), it belongs to superst.i.tion to exceed the due mode of divine wors.h.i.+p, and this is done chiefly when divine wors.h.i.+p is given to whom it should not be given. Now it should be given to the most high uncreated G.o.d alone, as stated above (Q. 81, A. 1) when we were treating of religion.

Therefore it is superst.i.tion to give wors.h.i.+p to any creature whatsoever.

Now just as this divine wors.h.i.+p was given to sensible creatures by means of sensible signs, such as sacrifices, games, and the like, so too was it given to a creature represented by some sensible form or shape, which is called an "idol." Yet divine wors.h.i.+p was given to idols in various ways. For some, by means of a nefarious art, constructed images which produced certain effects by the power of the demons: wherefore they deemed that the images themselves contained something G.o.d-like, and consequently that divine wors.h.i.+p was due to them. This was the opinion of Hermes Trismegistus [*De Natura Deorum, ad Asclep.], as Augustine states (De Civ. Dei viii, 23): while others gave divine wors.h.i.+p not to the images, but to the creatures represented thereby. The Apostle alludes to both of these (Rom. 1:23, 25). For, as regards the former, he says: "They changed the glory of the incorruptible G.o.d into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of creeping things," and of the latter he says: "Who wors.h.i.+pped and served the creature rather than the Creator."

These latter were of three ways of thinking. For some deemed certain men to have been G.o.ds, whom they wors.h.i.+pped in the images of those men: for instance, Jupiter, Mercury, and so forth. Others again deemed the whole world to be one G.o.d, not by reason of its material substance, but by reason of its soul, which they believed to be G.o.d, for they held G.o.d to be nothing else than a soul governing the world by movement and reason: even as a man is said to be wise in respect not of his body but of his soul. Hence they thought that divine wors.h.i.+p ought to be given to the whole world and to all its parts, heaven, air, water, and to all such things: and to these they referred the names of their G.o.ds, as Varro a.s.serted, and Augustine relates (De Civ. Dei vii, 5). Lastly, others, namely, the Platonists, said that there is one supreme G.o.d, the cause of all things. After him they placed certain spiritual substances created by the supreme G.o.d. These they called "G.o.ds," on account of their having a share of the G.o.dhead; but we call them "angels." After these they placed the souls of the heavenly bodies, and beneath these the demons which they stated to be certain animal denizens of the air, and beneath these again they placed human souls, which they believed to be taken up into the fellows.h.i.+p of the G.o.ds or of the demons by reason of the merit of their virtue. To all these they gave divine wors.h.i.+p, as Augustine relates (De Civ . . Dei xviii, 14).

The last two opinions were held to belong to "natural theology" which the philosophers gathered from their study of the world and taught in the schools: while the other, relating to the wors.h.i.+p of men, was said to belong to "mythical theology" which was wont to be represented on the stage according to the fancies of poets. The remaining opinion relating to images was held to belong to "civil theology," which was celebrated by the pontiffs in the temples [*De Civ. Dei vi, 5].