This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Catholicism / Eastern O. Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (assessed as Low-importance).

This article presupposes the Roman and Eastern Catholic view. It should be changed to say that Protestants have rejected the sacrifice of the Mass as a later innovation unknown to the Primitive Church, not that they left behind a dimension of Christianity (as if their view of the Primitive Church was incorrect).

Think I will change it myself.

Hello. You have written/edited: "[This distinction can be seen in St. Thomas, Summa, II II, 84, 1], citing adoration of angels by Abraham in Gn XVIII:2 and of King David by the prophet Nathan in I Kg I:23. Thomas de Aquina is not considered an authority by Protestants and others, and his reasoning in this instance is countered in that one of this angels is clearly a theophany, presumably the Son itself, and that Nathan bowed to David as one does courtesy to an European king, not as adoration."

You don't seem to have understood the St. Thomas passage. The purpose of the quote is simply to show a history of distinction among the three, latria, hyperdulia, and dulia. Tangentially, in refuting the notion that adoration is not an act of religion (note, then, that St. Thomas is proving here that adoration is an act of religion, which is not the point here, but rather to show simply there is a long-running distinction among latria, hyperdulia, and dulia), St. Thomas notes that "it was with the reverence due to an excellent creature that Nathan adored David" -- precisely the point you made, thinking you were refuting St. Thomas. Also, St. Thomas himself, again in II II 84 1, agrees with your dispute: "though we may understand them to have adored, with the adoration of latria, God Who appeared and spoke to them in the guise of an angel." In other words, St. Thomas is perfectly content with the facts that you put forward to "refute" St. Thomas. You have not understood.

The purpose of these quotes, again, and I have expanded them, is to show that there is a long history of a clear distinction among latria, hyperdulia, and dulia. I have removed, therefore, your attempted refutation of St. Thomas, but I have kept the spirit of your contribution, to say that Protestants do not accept St. Thomas. I have also kept your various comments on the Mass, as they help to explain the point that the distinction among latria, hyperdulia, and dulia is not something Protestants consider true or important. It is almost the case that discussion of the Mass is not proper for this page, but the Mass is so wrapped up in latria that the Mass should be mentioned; since Protestants dispute latria their dispute with the Mass becomes relevant.

I also took out the bit about Catholics etc. believing that they hold final authority because that gets away from whether latria is a clear term in theology, and who accepts it as a term, and begins to get too much into the Mass, and what it should be or is. The subject here is, what does latria mean, and why do Catholics feel it and why do Protestants reject it as a distinct term. Less is more in some sense.

Please note that I am not at all reluctant to have a Protestant viewpoint presented on the Latria or on any other Wiki page. Indeed, I consider it essential. There is no sense in which I am eager to suppress the Protestant theology. I am only concerned that an argument made be a cogent and meaningful one: your argument against (II II 84 1) simply failed to connect with what St. Thomas was saying, and with what I was doing with the quote. But as you can see I am not trying to keep out the Protestant dispute with the Mass nor the rejection of St. Thomas as an authoritative theologian. If you want to refute this page, perhaps the best way is to explain from Protestant theology why latria, hyperdulia, and dulia are not meaningfully distinguished. That would be a refutation, and a very important point of view to establish.

207.192.130.197 05:09, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

this has been placed:

and rebut that they do not "repeat" the sacrifice of the Cross but merely re-present it to God and the people.^[1]

Well, what the phrase implies is exactly wrong. The mass for Catholics is not a "Theater" about past events so as to, by means of some sort of oral tradition, pass on the new generations the information of what happened. What It is, indeed, is the Transubstantiation of bread and wine into Real Flesh and Real Blood of Jesus physically in the Altar in that moment, and then offered thereafter in Sacrifice to God; The Offering is indeed united to the One performed by Jesus in the Cross that's why the Priest of the offering is in reality Jesus Himself. This is The Highest and most infallible Dogma of them All. 190.251.134.213 (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a criticism, so I guess I will leave it here. This page should be about the religious concept of latria (and possibly dulia), from a scholastic point of view. Of course, it should examine both the catholic and protestant views, but it should source scholars, not the different denominations. It should source linguists and bible scholars, not theologians. Or rather, there should be different articles separating the two.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Latria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040603130204/http://www.newadvent.org/summa/310303.htm to http://www.newadvent.org/summa/310303.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]