Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book I: That Indulgences Exist, and What They Are
Chapter 5: What an indulgence properly is: a payment, or an absolution
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. VII, De Indulgentiis et Jubilaeo, Book I, a treatise of the Controversies. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
It has been demonstrated so far that indulgences exist; now what they are, that is, in what thing chiefly the nature and essence of an indulgence is placed, will have to be explained. The discussion will be in two parts; for first we shall ask whether an indulgence is properly an absolution, or a payment; then of what debt it is the payment, or from what debt the absolution. For when these two have been explained, the true and proper definition of an indulgence will be ready to hand. As to the first, there were not lacking those who held that indulgences are nothing else than a payment, that is, a compensation of punishments drawn from the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints and applied by the authority of the Pontiff. So Durandus seems to have thought, on the fourth book, distinction 20, question 3; Paludanus in the same place, question 4; Saint Antoninus in the first part of the Summa Theologica, title 10, chapter 3; Pope Adrian VI on the fourth book of the Sentences, question 9, on indulgences; Sylvester in the Summa, under the word Indulgentia, number 3; and Saint Thomas seems to have been of the same opinion on the fourth book, distinction 20, question 4, article 3, replies to the second and third. But on the contrary Francis of Mayrone, in the place cited above, contends that indulgences are nothing but a judicial absolution. Whom at first sight the examples of the most ancient councils seem to favour, in which we see penitents absolved by bishops from some part of the penalty imposed, no mention being made of a spiritual treasury from which those debts of punishment are compensated.
For the rest, the whole matter being more diligently considered, the later theologians have determined that both are found together in indulgences, absolution and payment; and that neither did the old scholastic theologians deny judicial absolution, although they made mention almost only of payment, nor did the most ancient Fathers deny payment from the treasury, although they seem to have made mention of absolution only. So teaches Cardinal Cajetan in the tract to Julius de' Medici, chapter 6; Dominic Soto on the fourth book, distinction 24, question 4, article 2; Peter Soto, lecture 2 on indulgences, in the Institution of Priests; Martin Ledesma in the second part on the fourth book of the Sentences, question 38, article 4; and others everywhere; and among the ancients Saint Bonaventure taught the same expressly, on the fourth book, distinction 20, part 2, question 5, and others. Let it be, then,
First proposition. “An indulgence is properly a judicial absolution, having annexed to it a payment from the treasury.” The first part of the proposition is proved, first, from the testimonies of Scripture on which we said indulgences are founded. For that of Matthew 16, I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven, and that of Matthew 18, Whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven, are without doubt understood of a judicial power of absolving. Second, it is proved from the testimonies of the sacred canons. For Pope Alexander III, in the letter to the Bishop of Canterbury, as we have in the chapter Quod autem consuluisti, on penances and remissions, teaches that no one can grant indulgences except to his own subjects, and gives the reason: because none but one's own judge can absolve or bind. By which words Alexander plainly enough taught that an indulgence is a judicial absolution. So also Pope Martin V, at the end of the Council of Constance, granting a plenary indulgence, says that he grants a plenary absolution. Gregory VII, granting an indulgence in many letters, for the most part uses the word absolution. Third, it is proved by reason. For why, I ask, are indulgences not granted for the dead except by way of suffrage? Certainly there is no reason, as we shall show in its place, except that the dead cannot properly be judicially absolved. Therefore an indulgence, which is given simply to the living, is a judicial absolution. Finally, if jurisdiction were not necessary for granting indulgences, whoever wished to apply his own satisfaction to another could be said to give an indulgence, which nevertheless is altogether unheard of.
Now the second part of our proposition, namely that indulgences besides absolution contain the application of the treasury, can be proved first by the authority of Clement VI, who in the Extravagant Unigenitus manifestly teaches this. Then by reason, since the prelates of the Church, and even the Supreme Pontiffs themselves, are not absolute lords, so as to be able at their pleasure, without any compensation, to forgive men the faults or punishments of which they are guilty in the court of God. But they are judges appointed by God, who can indeed, by the power granted them by God, remit faults and punishments in the name of God, yet so that satisfaction be made to justice; and it is confirmed by a likeness. For when priests in the sacrament of Penance absolve guilty penitents from faults and from some part of temporal punishment, they do not do this without compensation, but they apply the price of the Lord's blood that satisfaction may be made to divine justice. Therefore in the same way, when through indulgences the prelates of the Church absolve their subjects from the guilt of temporal punishment, they do it by applying the satisfactions of Christ and of the saints. For the sentence of the Apostle to the Hebrews, chapter 9, is general: Without shedding of blood there is no remission. Wherefore Peter Paludanus spoke with too little consideration, on the fourth book, distinction 20, question 4, when he says that this is the difference between the remission which is given through the sacraments and that which is given through indulgences, that the former is altogether free, but the latter requires some compensation.
Second proposition. “Although in indulgences absolution is ordinarily joined with payment, yet the Supreme Pontiff could grant an indulgence by payment alone, but not by absolution alone.” That he could by payment alone is certain from the indulgences which are given for the dead. For just as indulgences are granted to the dead by this alone, that the Supreme Pontiff applies from the treasury as much as is enough to compensate the punishment which they were going to pay in Purgatory, so also he could apply to some living person a satisfaction from the treasury of the Church, and in that way free him from the debt of punishment, even if he did not properly absolve him. But that would not be an indulgence of the same nature as that which is ordinarily given to the living. And that an indulgence cannot be granted by absolution alone without the application of the treasury is plain from what we said above.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT Y. Quid proprie sit indulgentia, solutione an absolutio. Demonstratum est hactenus, indulgentias esse : nunc quid sint, id est, in qua re potis¬ simum indulgentiae ratio, et natura posita sit, explicandum erit. Disputatio bipartita erit; primum enim quaeremus, an indulgen¬ tia proprie sit absolutio, vel solutio : deinde cujus debiti sit solutio, vel a quo debito ab¬ solutio. His enim duobus explicatis, iu promptu erit vera ac propria indulgentiae definitio. Quod ad primum attinet, non de¬ fuere, qui indulgentias nihil esse aliud vo¬ luerunt, nisi solutionem, id est, compensa¬ tionem poenarum ex thesauro meritorum (l ) Rom. V, 5. - (2) I Cor. T, 3 ; I Cor. VI, 20. - (3) Dan. IV, 24 ; 1 Cor. IX. 22. 30 UBER I. Christi, ac Sanctorum depromptam et app i- catam auctoritate Pontificis. Ita sensisse vi¬ dentur Durandus in 4. dist. 20. q laest. 3. Paludanus ibidem quaest. 4. S. Antoninus in p. parte Summae Theologicae tit. 10. cap. 3. Adrianus VI Pontifex in 4. sent. 9. de Indulgentiis. Silvester in Summa, vejbo Indulgentia num. 3. et videtur in eadem fuisse sententia sanctus Thomas in 4. dist. 20. quaest. 4. art. 3. ad 2. et 3. Contra vero Franciscus Mayronis loco supra citato, con¬ tendit indulgentias nihil esse, nisi judicia¬ riam absolutionem. Cui prima fronte favere videntur exempla vetustissimorum Concilio¬ rum, in quibus videmus ab Episcopis absolvi poenitentes ab aliqua parte mulctae imposi¬ tae, nulla facta mentione thesauri spiritua¬ lis, unde compensentur debita illa pcena- rum. Cseterum re tota diligentius considerata, posteriores Theologi definierunt utrumque simul in indulgentiis reperiri, absolutionem, et solutionem ; neque veteres Theologos scholasticos negasse judiciariam absolutio¬ nem, quamvis solutionis tantum fere memi¬ nerint, neque vetustissimos Patres negasse solutionem ex thesauro, licet solius absolu¬ tionis meminisse videantur. Ita docet Card. Cajetanus tractat. Io. «ad Julium Medicem cap. 6. Dominicus a Soto in 4. dist. 24. quaest. 4. art. 2. Petrus a Soto lect. 2. de Indulgentiis , in institutione sacerdotum. Martinus Ledesmius in 2. par. 4. sententia¬ rum quaest. 38. art. 4. et alii passim : et ex¬ presse idem docuerunt ex antiquis S. Bona- ventura in 4. dist. 20. par. 2. quaest. 5. et alii. Sit igitur Prima propositio. « Indulgentia proprie est absolutio judiciaria, annexam habens solutionem ex thesauro ». Probatur pars prior propositionis primo ex testimoniis Scri¬ pturae, in quibus fundari diximus indulgen¬ tias. Nam illud Matth. xvi. Tibi dabo claves regni coelorum , et quodeumque solveris super terram , erit solutum et in coelis. Et illud Matth. xviii. Quaecumque solveritis super terram , erunt soluta et in coelo (4), intelliguntur sine dubio de potestate judiciaria absolvendi. Secundo probatur ex testimoniis sacrorum Canonum. Siquidem Alexander 111 Pontifex in epist. ad Episcopum Cantuariensem, ut habemus cap. Quod autem consuluisti, de pmnit. et remiss., docet, neminem posse con¬ cedere indulgentias nisi propriis subditis, et rationem reddit : quia non potest nisi proprius judex absolvere, vel ligare. Quibus verbis Alexander satis aperte indulgentiam absolulionem judiciariam esse docuit. Sic etiam Mui tinus V Pontifex in fine Concilii Constantiensis concedens indulgentiam ple¬ nariam, dicit se absolutionem plenariam concedere. Gregorius VII, in multis epistolis indulgentiam tribuens, ut plurimum utitur verbo absolutionis. Tertio probatur ratione. Nam cur quaeso pro defunctis non concedun¬ tur indulgentiae nisi per modum suffragii, certe nulla est ratio, ut suo loco demonstra¬ bimus, nisi quia defuncti non possunt pro¬ prie judicialiter absolvi. Ergo indulgentia, quae viventibus simpliciter datur, absolutio judiciaria est. Denique si non esset necessa¬ ria jurisdictio ad' indulgentias concedendas, quicumque applicare vellet alteri satisfactio¬ nem suam, is dici posset indulgentiam dare, quod tamen est omnino inauditum. Jam vero posterior propositionis nostrae pars, quod videlicet indulgentiae praeter ab¬ solutionem contineant applicationem thesau¬ ri, probari potest primum auctoritate Cle¬ mentis VI, qui in extravaganti, Unigenitus, manifeste hoc docet. Deinde ratione, quo¬ niam Praelati Ecclesiae, et ipsi etiam Summi Pontifices non sunt absoluti domini ut pos¬ sint pro arbitrio, sine ulla compensatione condonare hominibus culpas, vel poenas, quarum rei sunt in foro Dei. Sed sunt judi¬ ces a Deo constituti, qui possunt quidem pro potestate sibi a Deo concessa remittere cul¬ pas et poenas nomine Dei, sic tamen, ut justitiae satisfiat, et confirmatur a simili. Nam cum sacerdotes in sacramento Poeni¬ tentiae absolvunt reos poenitentes a culpis et ab aliqua parte poenae temporalis, non id faciunt sine compensatione, sed applicant pretium sanguinis Domini ut divinae justitiae satisfiat. Igitur eodem modo cum per in¬ dulgentias Pra-lati Ecclesiae subditos suos absolvunt a poenae temporalis reatu, id fa¬ ciunt applicando satisfactiones Christi, et Sanctorum. Generalis enim est Apostoli sen¬ tentia ad Hebr. ix. Sine sanguinis effusione non (it remissio (2). Quare minus considerate locutus est Petrus Paludanus in 4. dist. 20. q. 4. cum ait, hoc interesse inter remissio¬ nem, quae datur per sacramenta, et eam quae datur per indulgentias, quod prior sit (4) Mat, XVI, 19; Mat. XVII), 18. —(2, Heb. IX, VI. CAPUT VI. 'omnino lberalis, posterior vero compensa¬ tionem aliquam requirat. Secunda propositio. « Quamvis in indul¬ gentiis absolutio cum solutione ordinarie conjungatur, posset tamen Summus Pontifex indulgentiam concedere per solam solutio¬ nem, non tamen persolam absolutionem». Quod per solam solutionem, certum est ex indulgentiis quae dantur pro defunctis. Nam quemadmodum defunctis indulgenti® con¬ ceduntur per hoc solum, quod Summus Pontifex applicat ex thesauro quantum satis est ad compensandam poenam, quam illi in Purgatorio luituri erant : sic etiam posset viventi alicui applicare satisfactionem cx thesauro Ecclesia, et eo modo eum liberare a debito poenae, etiamsi non proprie illum absolveret. Ceeterum ista non esset indul¬ gentia ejusdem rationis cum ea, quae ordi¬ narie viventibus tribuitur. Quod autem non possit concedi indulgentia per solam abso¬ lutionem sine applicatione thesauri, perspi¬ cuum est ex iis, quae supra diximus.