(1.) From Thomas Aquinas, who was not only a mighty Schoolman but also a canonised Saint of the Roman Church, we may clearly hope to derive the very best and most accurate instruction as to the real tenets of his Communion. Now this writer, through the medium of a syllogism professedly framed upon an authorised Prayer in the Breviary, establishes the DUTY of worshipping the cross with the self-same adoration as that which is paid to the Deity.
We offer the supreme adoration of Latria to that Being, in whom we place our hope of salvation. But we place our hope of salvation in the cross of Christ: for the Church sings; Hail, O cross, our only hope in this time of passion, increase righteousness to the pious, and grant pardon to the guilty. Therefore the cross of Christ is to be adored with the supreme adoration of Latria. [46a]
(2.) Much wholesome instruction, in regard to the legitimate use of Images, may also be derived from the expositorial comment of James Naclantus Bishop of Clugium.
We must not only confess, that the faithful in the Church worship before an Image; as some over-squeamish souls might peradventure express themselves: but we must furthermore confess, without the slightest scruple of conscience, that THEY ADORE THE VERY IMAGE ITSELF; for, in sooth, they venerate it with the identical worship wherewith they venerate its prototype. Hence, IF THEY ADORE THE PROTOTYPE WITH THAT DIVINE WORSHIP WHICH IS RENDERED TO GOD AND WHICH TECHNICALLY BEARS THE NAME OF LATRIA, THEY ADORE ALSO THE IMAGE WITH THE SAME LATRIA OR SUPREME DIVINE WORSHIP: and, if they adore the prototype with Dulia or Hyperdulia, they are bound also to adore the Image with the self-same species of inferior worship. [46b]
(3.) In exactly the same expository strain proceeds Gabriel Biel, in his Lectures upon the Canon of the Mass.
If there shall be Images of Christ, THEY ARE ADORED WITH THE SAME SPECIES OF ADORATION AS CHRIST HIMSELF, THAT IS, WITH THE SUPREME ADORATION CALLED LATRIA: if, of the most blessed Virgin; with the worship of Hyperdulia. [47a]
(4.) The commentary of Peter de Medrano will throw yet additional light on the subject.
We must say: that, to our Lady the Mother of God, there has been granted the remarkable privilege of being physically and really present in some of her statues or images.—Hence we must piously believe: that, in some celebrated statues or images of herself, she is inherent and present, personally, physically, and really;—in order that, in them, she may receive, from faithful worshippers, her due adoration. [47b]
(5.) Yet still further light breaks in upon us from the statements of Aringhi, penned and published at Rome under the very nose of the sovereign Pontiff.
This Image, translated from the city of Edessa, is at once preserved as a bulwark against mad Image-breakers, and is set forth to be taken up and ADORED by the faithful. [47c]