Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book I: That Indulgences Exist, and What They Are
Chapter 8: The contrary arguments are solved
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).
Against the doctrine of the preceding chapter there are not lacking objections, or calumnies, of the Lutherans, but we have preferred to defer them to the following book. In this place we shall only dissolve the arguments which are usually made against the last proposition of the preceding chapter.
First objection. In canon law the clause of enjoined penances is added when the granting of indulgences is treated; therefore that clause ought to be understood even when it is not expressed. For the granting of indulgences ought always to be explained according to the form of the law. Which the form of indulgences expressly attests that are promulgated in the papal chapel; for indulgences are said to be given according to the accustomed form of the Church. Answer. That clause, of enjoined penances, is indeed sometimes added in canon law; but often also it is not added; accordingly this argument accomplishes nothing. And that it is often not added can easily be demonstrated. For in the Extravagant Antiquorum, in the Extravagant Unigenitus, in the Extravagant Quemadmodum, on penances and remissions, no mention is ever made of that clause. Innocent III, in the Bull of the expedition for the recovery of the Holy Land, which is found in the volumes of the Councils after the Lateran Council, grants a plenary indulgence without any mention of enjoined penance. Pope Gregory VII, in the letter to the monks of Marseilles, and in others everywhere, grants indulgences absolutely. Finally Sergius the younger, nearly eight hundred years ago, as we noted above, gave an indulgence of three years and three lents without any addition of penances enjoined or not enjoined. From which we understand that by the accustomed form of the Church is signified not an indulgence of enjoined penances, but other things which are always observed in receiving indulgences: namely, that he who receives them, if he has consciousness of mortal sins, bear a contrite heart, with the purpose of confessing those same sins to a priest in due time; moreover that he pour out prayers for the Church, for the Supreme Pontiff, for the other things expressed in the form of the indulgences; finally that he perform all those things which are prescribed for obtaining the indulgence.
Second objection. Nothing is properly said to be remitted except debts; but no one is a debtor of penance to be done for three, or seven, or more years of a fixed number, unless that penance has been enjoined on him by a priest; therefore when indulgences remit three, or seven, or more years of penance, they are to be understood of enjoined penances, even if perhaps the word enjoined has been left unspoken. Answer. I confess indeed that the form of remitting a certain number of years, or days, or lents of penance has been left over from ancient usage. For a certain number of years or days was expressed in indulgences precisely because a certain number of years or days was also enjoined on penitents, that during that time they might exercise themselves in laborious and penal good works. But at this time, although so severe a penance is not enjoined, yet those who have committed grave sins are truly debtors of penance to be done for many years or days, and therefore through indulgences at this time penances of certain years or days are remitted, that is, the debt of punishment is remitted for which they would have made satisfaction if they had done penance for so many years or days.
Third objection. Innocent III in the Lateran Council, as we have in the chapter Cum ex eo, on penances and remissions, restricts the power of bishops in conferring indulgences to the remission of one year of enjoined penances. But if indulgences could according to the laws be given as much of penances not enjoined as of those enjoined, the Pontiff, restricting only indulgences of enjoined penances, would have made an empty decree; for he wished to cut off superfluous and indiscreet indulgences, through which penitential satisfaction, as he himself speaks, is weakened. But he would not have cut them off if indulgences could be given of penances not enjoined, about which he decreed nothing. And if you answer that the Pontiff, when he cut off superfluous indulgences of enjoined penances, is judged with greater reason to have cut off indulgences of those not enjoined, it will be objected on the contrary that enjoined penances are graver than those not enjoined, since the former bind before God and the Church, the latter before God only; and when the graver are taken away, the lighter are not judged to be taken away also. Answer. First, it could be said that enjoined penances are graver sometimes and in a certain respect, but those not enjoined for the most part and simply; for it can happen that a penance is enjoined on someone, not indeed complete and equal, yet of such a kind that more punishment is expiated through it than is left to be expiated; yet for the most part far more remains to be expiated through penances not enjoined than is expiated through those enjoined. In the same way it is so much less to be bound before God and before the Church to do a very light enjoined penance, perhaps of one hour, than to be bound before God alone to bear the sharpest torment of many years; so that the former can be called graver in a certain respect, the latter graver simply. Wherefore he who restricts indulgences of enjoined penances is rightly judged to restrict also indulgences of those not enjoined, if he really wished to set a limit to indulgences. Then it can be answered more briefly and easily: that in the decree of Innocent two restrictions are contained, one as to time, that it be not lawful for bishops to exceed one year in remitting by indulgences; the other as to kind or quality, that it be not lawful for the same to grant indulgences absolutely, but only of enjoined penances; for by this all the arguments that can be made cease. And it must be observed in this place that although he who receives indulgences is not bound to fulfil the enjoined penance, unless perhaps the indulgence is less than his debt, or the fulfilment of the enjoined penance is one of the conditions expressed in the papal letters for obtaining the indulgence, yet penitents are to be exhorted and warned to complete the enjoined penance diligently and devoutly, both because that penance is medicinal, and because it will be meritorious, and because it can happen that the indulgence which he hopes to receive he does not truly receive on account of some impediment; on which matter see Saint Thomas on the fourth book, distinction 20, question 1, article 3, little question 1, reply to the fourth; Panormitanus on the chapter Quod autem, on penances and remissions; Gabriel in the Supplement on the fourth book, distinction 45, question 3, article 2, proposition 11; Angelus in the Summa, under the word Indulgentia, number 1; Sylvester under the same word, question 9, number 23; and Antonio of Cordoba, question 10 on indulgences, corollary 4.
From the things said so far the complete definition of an indulgence can be gathered, which will be as follows: an indulgence is a judicial absolution from the guilt of punishment owed to God in the penitential court, given outside the sacrament through the application of the satisfactions which are contained in the treasury of the Church. And if anyone wishes to extend the definition to the indulgences which are received for the dead, which are indulgences by way of suffrage and not simply and absolutely, he can change that beginning, is a judicial absolution from the guilt, and so on, and say, is a remission of punishment, and so on. Further, Cajetan's definition, that an indulgence is an absolution from an enjoined punishment in the court of penance, which is found in tract 15, chapter 2, seems partly redundant, on account of the word enjoined, and partly deficient, on account of the omitted mention of the treasury. The definition of Dominic Soto on the fourth book, distinction 21, question 1, article 1, that an indulgence is a relaxation of the punishment owed for sin which is made outside the sacrament, is too much diminished, since it neither explains whether an indulgence is properly an absolution, nor teaches from what punishment it frees a man, nor makes mention of the treasury.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VIII. Solvuntur argumenta contraria. Adversus doctrinam capitis superioris non desunt objectiones, vel calumniae Luthera- norum, sed eas in librum sequentem differre maluimus. Hoc autem loco-solum diluemus argumenta, quae fieri solent adversus po¬ stremam propositionem capitis superioris. Prima objectio. In jure canonico additur particula de injunctis, cum de indulgentiis concedendis agitur; igitur ea particula sub- intelligi debet, etiam cum non exprimitur. Debet enim indulgentiarum concessio sem- per explicari ad formam juris. Id quod expresse testatur forma indulgentiarum, quae in sacello Pontificio promulgantur. Di¬ cuntur enim dari indulgentiee secundum for¬ mam Ecclesiae consuetam. Responsio. Ad¬ ditur quidem nonnumquam eaparticula, De injunctis, in jure canonico : sed ssepe etiam non additur : proinde nihil efficit hoc argu¬ mentum. Porro saepe non addi eam particu¬ lam facile demonstrari potest. Nam in ex- travaganti Antiquorum, in extravaganti Uni¬ genitus, in extravanganti Quemadmodum, de poenitent. etremiss. numquam illius particulae fit mentio. Innocentius III, in Bulla expedi¬ tionis pro terra sancta recuperanda, quae ha¬ betur in tomis Conciliorum post Concilium La¬ teranense, concedit plenariam indulgentiam sine ulla mentione pcenitentiaeinjunctae. Gre-- gorius VII Pontifex in epistola ad monachos Massilienses, et in aliis passim indulgentias absolute concedit. Denique Sergius junior ante annos ferme 800. ut supra notavimus, indulgentiam dedit trium annorum, ettrium quadragenarum, sine ulla adjunctione de injunctis, vel non injunctis poenitentiis. Ex quo, intelligimus per formam Ecclesiee con¬ suetam non significari indulgentiam de in¬ junctis, sed alia, quae in suscipiendis indul¬ gentiis semper observantur, ut videlicet qui eas suscipit, si peccatorum lethalium con¬ scientiam habeat, cor contritum gerat, cum proposito confitendi suo tempore eadem pec¬ cata sacerdoti; praeterea preces fundat pro Ecclesia, pro Summo Pontifice^pro aliis rebus in forma indulgentiarum expressis ; deni¬ que illa omnia perficiat quae proassequenda indulgentia praescribuntur. Secunda objectio. Non dicuntur proprie remitti, nisi debita: nemo autem debitor est poenitentiae agendae tribus, vel septem, vel pluribus certi numeri annis, nisi ea poeni¬ tentia a sacerdote sibi fuerit injuncta; igitur cum indulgentiae remittunt tres, vel septem, vel plures annos poenitentiae, de injunctis intelligendae sunt, etiam si forte nomen in¬ junctae, tacitum fuerit. Responsio. Fateor equidem, formam condonandi certum nu¬ merum annorum, vel dierum, vel quadrage¬ narum poenitentiae ex antiquo usu relictam esse. Nam ideo certus numerus annorum, vel dierum in indulgentiis exprimebatur, quia certus etiam numerus annorum, vel dierum poenitentibus injungebatur, ut eo tempore se in bonis operibus laboriosis, et poenalibus exercerent. Caeterum hoc tem¬ pore non injungitur quidem poenitentia tam severa, tamen vere debitores sunt, qui pec¬ cata gravia commiserunt, poenitentiae agen¬ dae multis vel annis, vel diebus, et ideo per indulgentias remittuntur hoc tempore poeni¬ tentiae certorum annorum, vel dierum, id est, remittitur debitum poenae, cui satisfecissent, si tot annis, vel diebus poenitentiam egis¬ sent. Tertia objectio. Innocentius III in Concilio Lateranensi, ut habemus cap. Cum ex eo, de poenit. et remiss. restringit Episcoporum potestatem in indulgentiis conferendis ad condonationem unius anni de injunctis poeni¬ tentiis. At si indulgentiae secundum jura dari possent tam de injunctis, quam de non in¬ junctis, Pontifex restrigens solum indulgen¬ tias de injunctis, inane decretum fecisset; voluit enim resecare indulgentias superfluas, et indiscretas per quas satisfactio poeniten- tialis, ut ipse loquitur, enervatur. Non autem resecasset, si possent indulgentiae dari de non injunctis, de quibus ipse nihil decrevit. Quod si respondeas, Pontificem dum resecavit su¬ perfluas indulgentias de injunctis poeniten¬ tiis, censeri majore ratione resecasse indul¬ gentias de non injunctis : contra objicietur, quod graviores sint poenitentiae injunctae, quam non injunctae , quae illae obstringunt coram Deo et Ecclesia, istae autem coram Deo tantum : et cum tollantur graviora, non censentur sublata etiam leviora. Responsio. Primum dici posset, injunctas poenitentias esse graviores aliquando et secundum quid ; non injunctas autem ut plurimum et simpli¬ citer; potest enim accidere, ut alicui poe¬ nitentia injungatur non quidem integra et aequalis, sed tamen ejusmodi, ut plus poenae per eam expietur, quam expiandum relin- 38 LIBER I. quatur ; tamen ut plurimum longe plus est, quod expiandum restat per non injunctas poenitentias, quam quod expiatur per injun¬ ctas : pari ratione tanto minus est obstringi coram Deo, et coram Ecclesia ad agendam poenitentiam injunctam levissimam, et forte unius horae, quam obstringi coram solo Deo ad perferendum cruciatum acerrimum mul¬ torum annorum : ut illud dici possit gravius secundum quid, hoc autem gravius simpli¬ citer. Quare qui restringit indulgentias de poenitentiis injunctis, jure censetur restrin¬ gere etiam indulgentias de non injunctis, si revera modum ponere voluit indulgentiis. Deinde responderi potest brevius et facilius : in decreto Innocentii duas restrictiones con¬ tineri, unam quoad tempus , ut non liceat Episcopis excedere unum annum in indul¬ gentiis condonandis : alteram quoad genus, sive qualitatem, ut non liceat eisdem indul¬ gentias concedere absolute, sed solum de injunctis poenitentiis ; per hoc enim omnia quae possunt fieri, argumenta cessant. Est autem hoc loco observandum, quod quam¬ vis non teneatur qui indulgentias percipit, injunctam poenitentiam explere, nisi forte indulgentia minor sit quam debitum ipsius, aut impletio poenitentiae injunctae sit una ex conditionibus expressis in litteris Pontificiis pro indulgentia obtinenda : tamen hortandi, ac monendi sunt pcenitentes, ut injunctam poenitentiam diligenter devoteque perficiant, tum quia poenitentia illa medicinalis, tum quia meritoria erit, tum quia fieri potest, ut indulgentia, quam se percepturum sperat, ob aliquod impedimentum non vere perci¬ piat; de qua re vide S. Thomam in 4. dist. 20. quaest. 1. art. 3. quaest. 1. ad 4. Panor¬ mitanum in cap. Quod autem, de poenitent. et remiss. Gabrielem in supplemento 4. dist. 45. quaest. 3. art. 2. proposit. 11. Angelum in Summa, verbo Indulgentia, num. 1. Syl- vestrum, verbo eodem, quaest. 9. num. 23. et Anton. Gordub. quaest. 10. de iuduigent. coroll. 4. Ex bis quae hactenus dicta sunt colligi po¬ test integra indulgentiae definitio, quae talis erit : indulgentia est absolutio judicialis a reatu poenae Deo debitae in foro pceniten- tiario, extra sacramentum data per applica¬ tionem satisfactionum, quae thesauro Eccle¬ siae continentur. Quod si quis definitionem extendere velit ad indulgentias, quae pro de¬ functis accipiuntur, quae sunt indulgentiae per modum suffragii, non simpliciter, et ab¬ solute, mutare poterit illud initium, est abso¬ lutio judicialis a reatu etc., et dicere, est re¬ missio poenae etc. Porro Gajetani definitio : indulgentia est absolutio a poena injuncta in foro poenitentiae, quae habetur tract. 15. cap. 2. partim videtur redundans, propter ver¬ bum, injuncta, partim deficiens, propter omissam mentionem thesauri. Definitio Do¬ minici a Soto in 4. dist. 21. quaest. 1. art. 1. indulgentia est relaxatio poenae peccato de-i bitae, quae extra sacramentum fit, nimium est diminuta, cum neque explicet, an indul¬ gentia sit proprie absolutio, neque doceat a qua poena hominem liberet, neque thesauri mentionem faciat.