Indulgences — The Power of the Church to Grant Indulgences

Article 2: The Power of the Church to Grant Indulgences

1. Heretical Errors vs. the Teaching of the Church. The Catholic doctrine of indulgences was attacked by the Waldenses and the followers of Wiclif and Hus, but principally by the so-called Protestant Reformers.

Pope Martin V (1418) condemned Wiclif’s assertion that “it is foolish to believe in the indulgences granted by the pope and the bishops.”¹ Leo X proscribed Luther’s proposition that “indulgences do not benefit those who truly gain them for the remission of punishment due to actual sins in the eyes of a just God.”²

The dogmatic teaching of the Church was defined by the Council of Trent as follows: “Since the power of conferring indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church, and she has, even in the most ancient times, used this power, delivered unto her of God; the holy Synod teaches and enjoins that the use of indulgences for the Christian people, most salutary and approved by the authority of sacred councils, is to be retained in the Church; and it condemns with anathema those who either assert that they [namely, indulgences] are useless, or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them.”³

The assertion of the Council of Pistoia that an indulgence is nothing more than a remission of part of the canonical penance enjoined by the ancient discipline⁴ was censured as “false, temerarious, and derogatory to the merits of Christ” by Pope Pius VI (1794).⁵

That the granting of indulgences is a salutary practice appears clearly from the teaching and conduct of the Church. But we must prove that she has the power to grant indulgences.

2. Proof from Sacred Scripture and Tradition. That the Church has the power to grant indulgences from the treasury of the superabundant merits of Christ and His saints can be proved from Scripture as well as Tradition. The Scriptural argument is based on the universal character of the power of the keys.

a) The power of the keys includes the faculty of loosing (facultas solvendi) as well as that of binding.⁶ Christ said to St. Peter, and in his person to his successors, the popes: “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”⁷ To all the Apostles together, and to their successors, the bishops of the Catholic Church, He said: “Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.”⁸ In these texts our Divine Lord conferred upon St. Peter and the college of the Apostles, that is to say upon the pope and the bishops, formally and without limit, the power of loosing as well as the power of binding. In other words, all the moral ties which bind men in the eyes of God and debar them from Heaven may be loosed by the Church, and whatever she looses shall be so accounted before God. To the category of these moral bonds belong, without doubt, the temporal punishments which remain after the sins to which they are due are forgiven.⁹ Consequently these punishments are subject to the power of the keys, and the Church can remit them.

To this consideration may be added another. The remission of the eternal punishment of sin through the Sacrament of Penance is proof of a far greater power than the remission of merely temporal punishments effected by indulgences. The Church unquestionably has the larger power; there is no reason to deny her the smaller. Let it not be objected that her power to remit temporal punishments is limited to the total or partial remission of the penitential works imposed in confession. Christ has not attached the facultas solvendi to any particular rite, nor to a limited class or group of punishments. He gave this power to His Church unconditionally and without limitation, and hence she can employ it outside of, as well as in, the Sacrament of Penance, especially since the faithful themselves are able to redeem the temporal punishments due to their sins by personal works of satisfaction.¹⁰ This truth is illustrated by St. Paul’s attitude towards the incestuous man at Corinth. Though he had delivered this sinner “up to Satan,” i.e., excommunicated him,¹¹ he received him back and remitted his punishment when he showed sorrow. The Apostle justifies this step as follows: “And to whom you have pardoned anything, I also; for, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ,”¹² i.e., either with the authority of Christ, as Estius and other exegetes hold, or before the face of Christ, in His presence, i.e., Christ looking on and approving, as is maintained by Cornely and others. Here we have all the requisites of a true indulgence: due regard for the contrite heart of the sinner; the intercession of the faithful; the exercise of Apostolic power in persona Christi without the intermediary of a Sacrament, and the partial remission of ecclesiastical and divine penalties granted on the assumption that the sin itself together with its eternal punishment had already been remitted.¹³

b) The argument from Tradition is based on the history of indulgences. This may be conveniently divided into five periods.

α) The first period extends from the Apostolic age to the Nicene Council (325). During this period the bishops, for weighty reasons, especially out of regard for the intercession of the martyrs, as embodied in the so-called libelli pacis, sometimes shortened or partially remitted the punishments for grievous sin, which were quite often extremely severe.

This practice may be studied in the writings of Tertullian and St. Cyprian. Tertullian addresses the martyrs as follows: “Some in the Church, not having this peace, were wont to implore the martyrs in prison. And therefore, you must have and foster and preserve the same [peace] in yourselves for this reason, among others, that you may be in a position to bestow it upon others.”¹⁴ In later life, after he had joined the Montanists, Tertullian contradicted his previous teaching; but in complaining that Catholics regarded the intercession and the merits of the martyrs as efficacious before God, he unwittingly testified to the fact that this species of indulgences was considered valid both in foro divino and in the external court of the Church.¹⁵

St. Cyprian, while inveighing against the frequent misuse of the libelli martyrum, admits their efficacy within proper bounds. “Those who have received a libellus [letter of intercession] from the martyrs,” he says, “and can be assisted by their help before God in their transgressions, if they begin to suffer from some infirmity and danger, should, after having made their confession and received the imposition of the hand in Penance, be committed to God with the peace promised them by the martyrs.”¹⁶ It should be noted, however, that the martyrs acted only as mandatories, not as dispensers, of these (improperly so-called) indulgences. “The martyrs,” says St. Cyprian, “recommend that something be done; but it must be done by the priest of God [only] if it be just, licit, and not against the Lord’s command.”¹⁷

After the edict of Milan, A.D. 313, martyrdom became a comparatively rare occurrence, and what we now call indulgences took the form of an episcopal remission of canonical punishments. The bishops were moved to grant such a remission by the zeal of some penitents. The Council of Ancyra (314) expressly vindicates this power to the bishops.¹⁸ The Nicene Council advises them to use it in certain cases.¹⁹ These episcopal acts not merely had reference to the external forum of the Church; they were true indulgences because the performance of the canonical penance was regarded as possessing a satisfactory value in the eyes of God.²⁰

β) The practice of granting indulgences continued in essentially the same form throughout the second period, from the First Nicene Council to the Second (325–787).

It is asserted by some that in this second period, and during part of the first, the solemn reconciliation of public penitents on Holy Thursday closed with the granting of a plenary indulgence, and that this ceremony, consisting of the imposition of hands and solemn absolution, was performed by the bishop, who, not having himself heard the confessions of the individual penitents,²¹ could not give the sacramental absolution. In support of this interpretation, first suggested by Eusebius Amort, may be cited the fact that the forgiveness of sins was usually referred to by one Greek expression and the reconciliation on Holy Thursday by another, whereas admission to public penance was designated by yet a third term. Moreover, the ceremony of solemn reconciliation had for its object to restore the sinner to baptismal innocence (as appears from the phrase baptismus laboriosus and as is expressly taught in the Apostolic Constitutions),²² and it is perfectly plain that the canonical absolution pronounced by the bishop on Holy Thursday can have had no other object than to remit such temporal punishments as still remained for the sinner to discharge and thereby to restore him to the state of baptismal innocence.²³

γ) The third period in the history of indulgences reaches from the Second Council of Nicaea to the Council of Clermont (1095) and is marked by a gradual decline of the ancient rigor and the introduction of the so-called penitential redemptions, i.e., the substitution of easier or shorter exercises (especially almsdeeds) for works of penance imposed by the early canons.

These substitutes took numerous and different forms. A favorite one, beginning with the latter part of the seventh century, was a pilgrimage to Rome. According to St. Bede (674–735) the visitatio liminum, as it was called, or visit to the tombs of the Apostles, was regarded as a good work of great efficacy.²⁴ Other forms of commutation were fasting, flagellations, and pilgrimages to well-known shrines, as St. Alban’s in England or San Juan de Compostela in Spain.²⁵ The practice of substituting pecuniary alms for a portion of the fast and other severe penitential exercises originated in Ireland and soon made its way to the continent, where it gave rise to serious abuses.

Aside from the practice of penitential redemptions, this period is marked by three facts: the introduction of indulgences for the dead (Paschalis I, John VIII, John XI), the granting of general indulgences by papal Bulls, and a greater emphasis placed upon the power of the popes in the matter of granting indulgences. It goes without saying, however, that penitential redemptions, commutations, and compensations can be regarded as true indulgences only when granted by the Church in lieu of other penances prescribed by the canons.²⁶

δ) The fourth period in the history of indulgences, from the Council of Clermont (1095) to the Second Council of Lyons (1274), coincides with the crusades, during which the practice assumed a new form. At Clermont, for the first time, participation in a crusade was suggested as a ransom from all penance.

The Council decreed as follows: “Whoever, out of pure devotion, and not for the purpose of gaining honor or money, shall go to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God, let that journey be counted in lieu of all penance.”²⁷ Pope Urban II, who personally attended this council, said in a sermon: “But we, trusting in the mercy of God and the authority of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, remit to the faithful who take up arms against the Saracens and assume the burden of this pilgrimage [to Jerusalem], the unmeasured penalties of their sins. Those who shall die there with a truly contrite heart may rest assured that they will obtain forgiveness of their sins and the fruit of eternal reward.”²⁸ Urban’s example was followed by Callistus II (1123), Eugene III (1146), Alexander III (1179), and other popes.

At about the same time the Schoolmen, notably St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), turned their attention to the scientific development of the doctrine of indulgences.²⁹ St. Thomas knows but one plenary indulgence, i.e., that granted for the liberation of the Holy City from the yoke of the Saracens.³⁰ Among partial indulgences he mentions as the greatest one of seven years.³¹

Within the Greek schismatic Church indulgences did not gain nearly as wide a vogue as among the Latins, though we have knowledge of occasional commutations of severe penances into lighter ones, which latter mostly took the shape of pecuniary alms for the redemption of prisoners held in captivity by the Turks.³²

ε) In the course of the fifth and last period (1274–1916) the practice of indulgences developed into the precise form in which we have it to-day.

An important event marking the early part of this period was the proclamation of a jubilee by Boniface VIII. In a Bull beginning with the words “Antiquorum habet fida relatio,” this Pope authorized and confirmed the institution of the jubilee.³³ Enormous crowds from all nations flocked to St. Peter’s during the year 1300, among them many aged and sick carried in litters.³⁴

Boniface had decreed that the jubilee indulgence should be renewed every one-hundred years. But Clement VI, on his accession to the chair of St. Peter (1342), being urged by the people to reduce the term to fifty years, complied with the request in his famous Bull “Unigenitus.” Urban VI, in 1389, reduced the interval between one jubilee and the next to thirty-three years. Paul II, by a Bull of April 19, 1470, brought it down to twenty-five. His successor, Sixtus IV, confirmed this decision and furthermore decreed that the special indulgences granted to churches all over the world should be suspended during the jubilee.

The Scholastic teaching with regard to the thesaurus Ecclesiae³⁵ from which indulgences are granted is for the first time officially mentioned by Clement VI in the Bull “Unigenitus” (1349).

Besides the jubilee there were granted, in process of time, many other plenary and partial indulgences which could be gained much more easily.

Abuses have unfortunately fastened themselves upon this practice almost from the beginning. They were promptly met by repressive measures on the part of the Church.³⁶ Tetzel’s quarrel with Luther, which occasioned the great revolt of the sixteenth century,³⁷ bore directly on the subject of indulgences. The ensuing controversy caused the Council of Trent to take a decided stand against the many abuses that had crept in. These abuses by no means affected the teaching of the Church.³⁸ There has been no change in her official attitude towards indulgences from the Apostolic age down to the present day.

The résumé we have given of the history of indulgences from St. Paul to Benedict XV furnishes convincing evidence that the power of granting indulgences has always existed in the Church and was constantly exercised by her representatives, though not always in exactly the same way.

3. The Thesaurus of the Church as the Source of Indulgences. By the “thesaurus Ecclesiae” we understand the sum-total of the superabundant merits of Jesus Christ and His saints, which are stored up in the Church for the purpose of being applied to the faithful by means of indulgences.

Though the phrase “the treasury of the Church” occurs in the writings of St. Chrysostom,³⁹ the fully developed concept, as defined above, seems to have originated with Alexander of Hales⁴⁰ or Albert the Great.⁴¹ The underlying idea can be traced to St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, where the redemptive grace of Christ is described as “abounding unto many.”⁴² The thesaurus from which the Church dispenses indulgences consists primarily of the infinite merits of our Lord Himself, and secondarily and per accidens of the finite merits of the saints, in so far as their satisfactory (not meritorious) value admits of being added to the common treasury.⁴³

a) That there exists a treasury of the merits of Christ, over which the Church has control, may be regarded at the very least as a propositio fidei proxima and, with two exceptions,⁴⁴ has never been denied by any Catholic theologian. The proof for this proposition rests on the fact that the redemptive merits of Christ are infinite and therefore inexhaustible.

It is from this thesaurus meritorum Christi that the Church draws in the administration of the Sacraments, in the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and also in granting indulgences. This truth is clearly defined and at the same time lucidly explained by Pope Clement VI in his Bull “Unigenitus” (1349). According to this definition an indulgence is neither a donation nor a simple remission of temporal punishments, but both an absolution and a payment, the latter being drawn from the treasury of the merits of Christ.⁴⁵

b) That the superabundant merits of the saints, too, flow into the treasury of the Church is the common and certain teaching of Catholic theologians.⁴⁶

α) Clement VI clearly inculcates this truth in the Bull from which we have just quoted.⁴⁷ Leo X condemned Luther’s proposition that “the treasuries of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and the saints.”⁴⁸ Pius V, in 1567, censured the teaching of Baius that “our sins are not properly redeemed [with regard to their temporal punishments] by the sufferings of the saints, communicated through indulgences.”⁴⁹ Finally, Pius VI (1794) solemnly rejected the assertion of the Jansenistic Council of Pistoia, that the treasury of the Church owes its existence to the “subtlety of the Scholastics.” He declared this statement to be “false, temerarious, and derogatory to the merits of Christ and the saints.”⁵⁰

β) The presence of satisfactory merits of the saints in the treasury of the Church is explained by the dogma of the Communion of Saints. All the members of Christ’s mystic body are organically connected with one another and enjoy spiritual benefits in common.⁵¹

A natural consequence of this communion is the applicability to others of the satisfactory merits which the saints in Heaven and the righteous still living on earth have gained by their penitential works, but do not need for themselves. There must be a wealth of such accumulated merits. Think of the overflowing satisfactions of our Blessed Lady, who is justly called the Mother of Sorrows, of St. John the Baptist, and many others who practiced austere penance.⁵² Though all these satisfactions are as nothing compared with the infinite merits of Christ, they nevertheless constitute a fund having its existence in the knowledge and free acceptation of God. This fund must have a purpose, though it is of a purely finite nature and, apart from the merits of Christ, might conceivably in course of time be exhausted.⁵³

4. In Whom the Power to Grant Indulgences Is Vested. As the granting of indulgences to the living takes place per absolutionem, it is not an act of the potestas ordinis, but of the potestas iurisdictionis. Hence the Pope can, of his own power, grant indulgences to all the faithful on earth, whereas a bishop, being the head of but a limited portion of the flock, can grant indulgences only to his immediate subjects and in so far as his power has not been expressly circumscribed by conciliary or papal decrees.

a) To grant plenary indulgences is the exclusive prerogative of the Supreme Pontiff. Bishops can grant partial indulgences only, and their original power in this regard has been further curtailed by synodal decrees. Thus the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) ordained that an archbishop within his province, and a bishop within his diocese, can, upon the occasion of the dedication of a church, grant an indulgence of not more than one year, and on other occasions, one not exceeding forty days. Since granting indulgences is an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and has nothing to do with Holy Orders, a pope-elect or bishop-elect may exercise it validly before his ordination or consecration. Abbots, the generals of religious orders, and parish priests cannot grant indulgences,⁵⁴ unless specially empowered to do so by the Holy See. This power may be conferred on any cleric. The Grand Penitentiary at Rome and a cardinal deacon may grant indulgences of one hundred days each in their respective titular churches, and an Apostolic delegate, even if he is not a priest, may grant indulgences up to seven years and seven quarantines⁵⁵ to the faithful residing within the limits of his jurisdiction.

For the rest, even the papal power in regard to indulgences is not unlimited and arbitrary, but under pain of invalidity must be exercised for some just cause (causa iusta = pia, rationabilis), of which, however, the grantor is the sole judge. The reason is evident. The Church of Christ is not the mistress, but merely the dispenser of the treasures entrusted to her by her Divine Founder. A just cause for the granting of an indulgence would be the honor of God or the welfare of the Church. Some theologians, e.g., Suarez⁵⁶ and De Lugo,⁵⁷ say that an indulgence, to be valid, must be granted for a reason that is not merely just (causa iusta) but in due proportion to the size of the indulgence granted (causa proportionata).

b) Those who are empowered to grant indulgences must, moreover, insist on certain conditions.

(1) The first of these conditions is that the recipient be in the state of grace at least at the time when he performs the last of the prescribed exercises. This is the general teaching of theologians, which has been embodied in the new code of Canon Law (C.I.C., can. 925, sect. 1). It stands to reason that no temporal punishments can be remitted while the sin itself remains unforgiven. Hence the strong emphasis laid upon the formula “vere contritis et (vel) confessis” in most pontifical Bulls.

(2) The second condition necessary for the gaining of an indulgence is the conscientious performance of the prescribed good works (fasting, prayer, almsdeeds, confession, communion). These are required not, of course, as a cause, but merely as a condition for the gaining of the indulgence.⁵⁸ Only in exceptional cases can an indulgence be gained without the performance of good works. Such a case would be, for instance, if a dying man, who had done much for the Church, were to receive from the Pope a personal indulgence in articulo mortis.

(3) A third requisite is the intention of really gaining the indulgence. Supernatural favors are never forced upon any adult person, but must be voluntarily accepted. Such voluntary acceptance need not, however, be made in the form of an actual intention. A virtual, nay a habitual, intention is quite sufficient.

Besides these three conditions, generally demanded by theologians, Cajetan and Tournely insist on a fourth, namely, true penitential zeal. One who neglects to do penance himself, but relies on the good works of others, cannot, they claim, obtain the benefit of an indulgence. This demand may exercise a salutary influence on some lukewarm Catholics, but as its necessity cannot be proved, it is rejected by the majority of theologians. The common teaching is that indulgences have precisely the influence that is given them by their grantor, and require no other conditions than the necessary jurisdiction on the part of the grantor, charity on the part of the beneficiary, and a just and pious cause. The lukewarmness and indolence of which Cajetan and Tournely complain must be combatted by other means.⁵⁹

Footnotes

1. “Fatuum est credere indulgentiis Papae et episcoporum.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 622). ↩

2. “Indulgentiae his, qui veraciter eas consequuntur, non valent ad remissionem poenae pro peccatis actualibus debitae apud divinam iustitiam.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 759). ↩

3. Sess. XXV: “Quum potestas conferendi indulgentias a Christo Ecclesiae concessa sit atque huiusmodi potestate divinitus sibi tradita antiquissimis etiam temporibus illa usa fuerit, s. Synodus indulgentiarum usum christiano populo maxime salutarem et sacrorum conciliorum auctoritate probatum in Ecclesia retinendum esse docet et praecipit eosque anathemate damnat, qui aut inutiles esse asserunt vel eas concedendi in Ecclesia potestatem esse negant.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 989). In the Tridentine profession of faith we read: “Indulgentiarum etiam potestatem a Christo in Ecclesia relictam fuisse … illarumque usum christiano populo maxime salutarem esse affirmo.” (Ibid., n. 998). ↩

4. “Indulgentiam secundum suam praecisam notionem aliud non esse quam remissionem partis eius poenitentiae, quae per canones statuta erat peccanti.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1540). ↩

5. Ibid.: ”… quasi indulgentia praeter nudam remissionem poenae canonicae non etiam valet ad remissionem poenae temporalis pro peccatis actualibus debitae apud divinam iustitiam: falsa, temeraria, Christi meritis iniuriosa, dudum in art. 19 Lutheri damnata.” ↩

6. See above, on the Church’s Power to Forgive Sins. ↩

7. Matt. XVI, 19. ↩

8. Matt. XVIII, 18. ↩

9. See above, on Sacramental Satisfaction, Theses I to III. ↩

10. See above, on Sacramental Satisfaction, Thesis II. ↩

11. Cfr. 2 Cor. V, 2 sqq. ↩

12. 2 Cor. II, 10: “Cui autem aliquid donastis, et ego; nam et ego quod donavi, si quid donavi, propter vos in persona Christi.” Cfr. Al. Schäfer, Erklärung der beiden Briefe an die Korinther, p. 392, Münster 1903; J. MacRory, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians, P. II, p. 26, Dublin 1915. ↩

13. Cfr. Estius, Comment. in Epist. S. Pauli, in h.l. ↩

14. Ad Martyr., c. 1: “Quam pacem quidam in Ecclesia non habentes, a martyribus in carcere exorare consueverunt. Et ideo eam etiam propterea in vobis habere et fovere et custodire debetis, ut si forte et aliis praestare possitis.” (Migne, P.L., I, 621). ↩

15. De Pudic., c. 22: “Sufficiat martyri propria delicta purgasse. Ingrati vel superbi est, in alios quoque spargere quod pro magno fuerit consecutus. Quis alienam mortem sua solvit nisi solus Dei filius?” ↩

16. Ep., 13, n. 2: “Qui libellum a martyribus acceperunt, et auxilio eorum adiuvari apud Dominum in delictis suis possunt, si premi infirmitate aliqua et periculo coeperint, exomologesi facta et manu eis a vobis in poenitentiam imposita, cum pace a martyribus sibi promissa ad Dominum remittantur.” (Migne, P.L., IV, 260). ↩

17. Cfr. St. Cyprian, De Lapsis, c. 18: “Mandant martyres aliquid fieri; sed si iusta, si licita, si non contra ipsum Dominum a Dei sacerdote facienda.” ↩

18. Can. 2: “Nisi forte aliquid episcoporum conscii sint laboris eorum et humilitatis et mansuetudinis et voluerint eis aliquid amplius tribuere vel adimere, penes ipsos ergo erit de his potestas.” ↩

19. Can. 12, apud Hardouin, Conc., Vol. I, 327: “Quotquot metu et lacrimis atque poenitentia vel bonis operibus conversionem suam in re, non simulatione demonstrant, hi definitum tempus auditionis implentes tum demum fidelibus in oratione communicent; postmodum vero licebit episcopo de his aliquid humanius cogitare.” ↩

20. Cfr. St. Cyprian, De Lapsis, c. 17: “Dominus orandus est, Dominus nostra satisfactione placandus est.” ↩

21. Cfr. Martène, De Antiquis Eccles. Ritibus, Ordo 19. ↩

22. Constit. Apostol., II, c. 41: “O Episcope, quemadmodum ethnicum sacro lavacro tinctum in Ecclesiam inducis post institutionem, sic et hunc poenitentem per manuum impositionem, utpote poenitentia purgatum, cunctis pro eo deprecantibus, restitue in antiqua pascua eritque in loco baptismi impositio manuum.” (Migne, P.G., I, 695). ↩

23. Cfr. Palmieri, De Poenit., pp. 459 sqq. This view of reconciliation is, however, dubious. ↩

24. Hist. Eccl. Brit., IV, c. 23: “Magnae virtutis aestimabatur.” ↩

25. See W.H. Kent in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 786. ↩

26. Cfr. Binterim, Denkwürdigkeiten, Vol. V, 3, pp. 464 sqq.; H.J. Schmitz, “Kanonische Kirchenbusse und Ablasserteilung,” in the Mayence Katholik, 1885, I; A.M. Königer, Burchard I. von Worms und die deutsche Kirche seiner Zeit (1000–1025), pp. 143 sqq., Munich 1905. ↩

27. Can. 2: “Quicumque pro sola devotione, non pro honoris vel pecuniae adeptione ad liberandam Ecclesiam Dei Ierusalem profectus fuerit, iter illud pro omni poenitentia ei reputetur.” (Hardouin, Conc., VI, 2, 1718). ↩

28. “Nos autem de misericordia Dei et B. Petri et Pauli Apostolorum auctoritate confisi fidelibus christianis, qui contra eos [Saracenos] arma susceperint, et onus sibi huius peregrinationis assumpserint, immensas pro suis delictis poenitentias relaxamus. Qui autem ibi in vera poenitentia decesserint, et peccatorum indulgentiam et fructum aeternae mercedis se non dubitent habituros.” (Ibid., p. 1724). ↩

29. S. Theol., Suppl., qu. 25–27. ↩

30. Quodlibet., II, art. 16. ↩

31. Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 20, qu. 1, art. 3, sol. 5: “Ecclesia dat indulgentiam, quod qui vadit ad unam ecclesiam, habeat septem annos de indulgentia, cuiusmodi etiam indulgentiae a Beato Gregorio [Magno] in stationibus Romae institutae sunt.” ↩

32. Cfr. Gass, Symbolik der griechischen Kirche, p. 287, Berlin 1872. On the so-called Portiuncula indulgence, reputed to have been granted by Pope Honorius III, see P.A. Kirsch, Der Portiunkula-Ablass, Tübingen 1907; M. Biehl, O.F.M., in the Cath. Encycl., Vol. XII, pp. 286 sq. ↩

33. Extrav. Com., l. V, tit. 9, c. 1: “Antiquorum habet fida relatio quod accedentibus ad honorabilem basilicam principis Apostolorum de Urbe concessae sunt magnae remissiones et indulgentiae peccatorum. Nos igitur … huiusmodi remissiones et indulgentias omnes et singulas ratas et gratas habentes confirmamus.” Full text of the Bull in Amort, P. I, sect. 3. ↩

34. Cfr. A.M. Lépicier, Indulgences (English tr.), pp. 356 sqq. ↩

35. See below, no. 3. ↩

36. Cfr. W.H. Kent in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 786. ↩

37. Cfr. N. Paulus, Johann Tetzel, der Ablassprediger, Mayence 1899. ↩

38. Cfr. A. Kurz, Die kath. Lehre vom Ablass vor und nach dem Auftreten Luthers, Paderborn 1900. ↩

39. Migne, P.G., L, 517. ↩

40. Summa, P. IV, qu. 23, m. 3, n. 6. ↩

41. Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 20, art. 16. ↩

42. Cfr. Rom. V, 15 sqq. ↩

43. On the distinction between merit (meritum) and satisfaction (satisfactio) see Pohle-Preuss, Soteriology, 2nd ed., pp. 55 sq., St. Louis 1916. ↩

44. Mayron (d. 1327), Durandus (d. 1334). ↩

45. Extrav. Com., l. V, tit. 9, c. 2: “Christus in ara crucis innocens immolatus non guttam sanguinis modicam, quae tamen propter unionem ad Verbum pro redemptione totius humani generis suffecisset, sed copiose velut quoddam profluvium noscitur effudisse… . Quantum ergo exinde … thesaurum militanti Ecclesiae acquisivit, volens suis thesaurizare filiis pius pater, ut sic sit infinitus thesaurus hominibus, quo qui usi sunt, Dei amicitiae participes sunt effecti. Quem quidem thesaurum … per beatum Petrum coeli claviferum eiusque successores in terra vicarios commisit fidelibus salubriter dispensandum, et propriis et rationabilibus causis nunc pro totali nunc pro partiali remissione poenae temporalis pro peccatis debitae … vere poenitentibus et confessis misericorditer applicandum.” ↩

46. On the treasury of the merits of Christ existing in the Catholic Church see Pohle-Preuss, Soteriology, pp. 60 sqq. ↩

47. The only dissenting voice is that of Durandus (Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 20, qu. 3). ↩

48. Prop. Luth. Damnat., prop. 17: “Thesauri Ecclesiae, unde Papa dat indulgentias, non sunt merita Christi et sanctorum.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 757). ↩

49. “Per passionem sanctorum in indulgentiis communicatas non proprie redimuntur [quoad poenam temporalem] nostra delicta.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1060). ↩

50. Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1541. ↩

51. See Pohle-Preuss, Eschatology, Vol. XII of this series. ↩

52. Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Suppl., qu. 25, art. 1, ad 1: “Ratio autem, quare valere [indulgentiae] possint, est unitas corporis mystici, in qua multi in operibus poenitentiae supererogaverunt ad mensuram debitorum suorum, et multi etiam tribulationes iniustas sustinuerunt patienter, per quas multitudo poenarum poterat expiari, si eis deberetur; quorum meritorum tanta est copia quod omnem poenam debitam nunc viventibus excedunt.” ↩

53. On the thesaurus meritorum as the source of indulgences see Cardinal Bellarmine, De Indulgentiis, I, c. 2; Suarez, De Poenitentia, disp. 51; De Lugo, De Poenitentia, disp. 27, sect. 3 sqq. ↩

54. Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Suppl., qu. 26, art. 3. ↩

55. On the derivation and meaning of this term see Lépicier, Indulgences, their Origin, Nature, and Development, p. 283. ↩

56. De Poenit., disp. 54, sect. 3. ↩

57. De Poenit., disp. 27, art. 8. ↩

58. This is the teaching of the majority of theologians, including St. Thomas (Suppl., qu. 25, art. 2). ↩

59. Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., Suppl., qu. 25, art. 2: “Indulgentiae simpliciter tantum valent, quantum praedicantur, dummodo ex parte dantis sit auctoritas et ex parte suscipientis caritas et ex parte causae pietas.” Cfr. Suarez, De Poenit., disp. 52, sect. 9. ↩