Are The Skin Cells Of Christ To Be Adored

[Resurrexi]

ty

[Birgitta Noel]

Unless I'm getting the two types of worship confused here it seems clear that the answer is yes to all of the above.

Christ was fully divine and fully human. Thus, it would seem correct to worship his divinity in his human form. We don't separate our souls from our bodies, why would we do this of Christ?

Further, if we don't adore the true physical body of Christ then ought we also not adore him in the Eucharist?

Edited January 7, 2007 by The Little Way

[Lounge Daddy]

I'm not familiar enough with all this - I can't "vote" or make opinion on any of this...

but I will check back with interest

[Paddington]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1157916' date='Jan 7 2007, 04:20 AM']
ty
[/quote]

StThomasMore,

Since you seem to be into that sort of thing......did the resurrected Christ have mucous? No pressure if you don't want to answer. I don't really want to research it, but it would be a fun little piece of trivia to know.

Peace,
Paddington

[Thy Geekdom Come]

My understanding is that, due to the Hypostatic Union, Christ's whole person and both natures subsists in all Eucharistic miracles and such things...I see no reason why we would not worship Him, assuming that these cells were verified to be His.

Perhaps someone can verify this theology for me.

We must be clear to state the above, though, lest we confuse those who don't know better and they think we're worshipping merely a human entity.

[Resurrexi]

For anyone who was wondering there are two contradictory answers:

1. [quote name='Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by L. Ott']Just as Latria is due to the whole Human nature of Christ, so is it due to the individual parts of His nature. (Sent. Certa.)[/quote]

2. [quote name='Summa Theologica of St. Aquinas']Article 2. Whether Christ's humanity should be adored with the adoration of "latria"?

Objection 1. It would seem that Christ's soul should not be adored with the adoration of "latria." For on the words of Ps. 98:5, "Adore His foot-stool for it is holy," a gloss says: "The flesh assumed by the Word of God is rightly adored by us: for no one partakes spiritually of His flesh unless he first adore it; but not indeed with the adoration called 'latria,' which is due to the Creator alone." Now the flesh is part of the humanity. Therefore Christ's humanity is not to be adored with the adoration of "latria."

Objection 2. Further, the worship of "latria" is not to be given to any creature: since for this reason were the Gentiles reproved, that they "worshiped and served the creature," as it is written (Romans 1:25). But Christ's humanity is a creature. Therefore it should not be adored with the adoration of "latria."

Objection 3. Further, the adoration of "latria" is due to God in recognition of His supreme dominion, according to Dt. 6:13: "Thou shalt adore [Vulg.: 'fear'; cf. Mt. 4:10] the Lord thy God, and shalt serve Him only." But Christ as man is less than the Father. Therefore His humanity is not to be adored with the adoration of "latria."

On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 3): "On account of the incarnation of the Divine Word, we adore the flesh of Christ not for its own sake, but because the Word of God is united thereto in person." And on Ps. 98:5, "Adore His foot-stool," a gloss says: "He who adores the body of Christ, regards not the earth, but rather Him whose foot-stool it is, in Whose honor he adores the foot-stool." But the incarnate Word is adored with the adoration of "latria." Therefore also His body or His humanity.

I answer that, As stated above (1) adoration is due to the subsisting hypostasis: yet the reason for honoring may be something non-subsistent, on account of which the person, in whom it is, is honored. And so the adoration of Christ's humanity may be understood in two ways. First, so that the humanity is the thing adored: and thus to adore the flesh of Christ is nothing else than to adore the incarnate Word of God: just as to adore a King's robe is nothing else than to adore a robed King. And in this sense the adoration of Christ's humanity is the adoration of "latria." Secondly, the adoration of Christ's humanity may be taken as given by reason of its being perfected with every gift of grace. And so in this sense the adoration of Christ's humanity is the adoration not of "latria" but of "dulia." So that one and the same Person of Christ is adored with "latria" on account of His Divinity, and with "dulia" on account of His perfect humanity.

Nor is this unfitting. For the honor of "latria" is due to God the Father Himself on account of His Godhead; and the honor of "dulia" on account of the dominion by which He rules over creatures. Wherefore on Ps. 7:1, "O Lord my God, in Thee have I hoped," a gloss says: "Lord of all by power, to Whom 'dulia' is due: God of all by creation, to Whom 'latria' is due."

Reply to Objection 1. That gloss is not to be understood as though the flesh of Christ were adored separately from its Godhead: for this could happen only, if there were one hypostasis of God, and another of man. But since, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 3): "If by a subtle distinction you divide what is seen from what is understood, it cannot be adored because it is a creature"--that is, with adoration of "latria." And then thus understood as distinct from the Word of God, it should be adored with the adoration of "dulia"; not any kind of "dulia," such as is given to other creatures, but with a certain higher adoration, which is called "hyperdulia."

Hence appear the answers to the second and third objections. Because the adoration of "latria" is not given to Christ's humanity in respect of itself; but in respect of the Godhead to which it is united, by reason of which Christ is not less than the Father.[/quote]

I'd probably go with the Ott myself, seeing as more Dogmata had been defined by his time than by Aquinas' time.

[N/A Gone]

can someone give us some background..what is this about?

[Hirsap]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1158277' date='Jan 8 2007, 10:36 AM']
can someone give us some background..what is this about?
[/quote]

The question posed in the poll is whether Christ's Skin Cells are to be adored in the same worship that is only permitted to be given to Almighty God (latria). (Other forms of honour are due to the Saints (dulia), with a higher level to our Blessed Mother (hyperdulia), but only Almighty God receives the highest level of honour (latria). )

Since Christ is fully human and fully divine, and that this union between his human and divine nature (hypostatical union), while remain distinct from each other, are never apart from each other. Therefore, Christ's Skin Cells would be part of his humanity, but since his humanity is never 'seperated' from his divinity (the hypostatical union will never end), it stands that the worship of latria can be given to His Humanity.

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong on any points.

[N/A Gone]

ok,

To be human, is more than just dead skin cells. Do we even have his skin cells? I would doubt this first. The ressurected body wouldnt have dead skin cells, since it would be beyond death. Not to be graphic, but what about his mushy mud pie. know what I mean? this seems to be kind of a weird discussion.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

STM, I don't think Ott and St. Thomas Aquinas are disagreeing with each other.

[Guest JeffCR07]

STM, Raph is correct, Ott and Saint Thomas are not contradicting one another.

As can be seen in Saint Thomas' reply to objection 1, the flesh of Christ is not a seperate hypostases from the Godhead of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. Thus, wherever one sees the flesh of Christ, there one sees God, and as such [i]latria[/i] is due. Ott, in a less clear manner, makes precisely the same point. Christ's humanity is due [i]latria[/i] in accordance with its unity to his Divinity and, as such, that same divinity is wholly present in the "parts" of his humanity. Thus, Ott and St. Thomas are making fundamentally the same point.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Hirsap]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1158290' date='Jan 8 2007, 10:53 AM']
ok,

To be human, is more than just dead skin cells. Do we even have his skin cells? I would doubt this first. The ressurected body wouldnt have dead skin cells, since it would be beyond death. Not to be graphic, but what about his mushy mud pie. know what I mean? this seems to be kind of a weird discussion.
[/quote]

I agree. The poll is a rather trick question in some aspect/s maybe, but still, I think we're working with the assumption that Christ's Skin Cells are a part of his human nature, and thus, is hypostatically united to His divine nature. What's this about dead skin cells? Is that on the poll? But still, I know what you're getting at. That is, where does one draw the line about what is actually a part of his human nature?

[Norseman82]

I think the first question is "Who has Christ's skin cells?" There is a saying that there are so many people who claim to have relics of the Cross that you could build a number of houses with them.

[N/A Gone]

calvin said that

[Resurrexi]

[quote]I think the first question is "Who has Christ's skin cells?" There is a saying that there are so many people who claim to have relics of the Cross that you could build a number of houses with them.[/quote]

Actually, where the relics of Christ's Skin Cells are does not concern me. When I made this poll I was just trying to come up with some obscure human cell, but skin cells were especially appealing since they are shed very frequently.

By adore, I didn't mean "find the skin cells of Christ and adore Them as you would the Holy Eucharist" I meant more "Pray to the Most Sacred Skin Cells of Christ as you would to His Most Sacred Heart".

Oh, and also, they only have about enough relics of the True Cross to make up about 1/3 of It...

[quote name='Catechism of the Council of Trent']First Part of this Article: "He Descended into Hell"
In the first part of this Article, then, we profess that immediately after the death of Christ His soul descended into hell, and dwelt there as long as His body remained in the tomb; and also that the one Person of Christ was at the same time in hell and in the sepulchre. Nor should this excite surprise; for, as we have already frequently said, although His soul was separated from His body, His Divinity was never parted from either His soul or His body. [/quote]

It would seem to me, that if His Divinity wasn't separated from His Body when He died, It wouldn't be separated from His Skin Cells either when they were separated from His Body.

Edited January 8, 2007 by StThomasMore