Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book I: That Indulgences Exist, and What They Are
Chapter 11: Who can grant indulgences
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 follows now that we explain what is required in order that an indulgence be valid, both on the part of the one granting and on the part of the one receiving. And indeed on the part of the one granting two things seem to be required, lawful authority and a just cause; on the part of the one receiving two others, the state of grace and the performance of the work enjoined. Of which we shall have to speak in order. In the first place, then, that authority is required is beyond controversy; for none can absolve or bind but he who has jurisdiction; and to give indulgences is to absolve, as we demonstrated above from the chapter Quod autem, on penances and remissions. Moreover, none can distribute common goods but the magistrate or prince to whom the administration and dispensation of common goods has been entrusted; and indulgences, besides absolution, contain also the application of the spiritual treasury, as we showed in the place noted. Further, this authority resides chiefly in the Supreme Pontiff, and therefore he can bestow indulgences, even plenary ones, on all the faithful. On this matter there is no dissent. For it is agreed that it was said properly to the Apostle Peter, to whom the Supreme Pontiff succeeds, by the Lord in Matthew 16, Whatsoever thou shalt loose, and so on. Then it is agreed from canon law, the chapter Cum ex eo, on penances and remissions, that in the Supreme Pontiff there is the fullness of power for granting indulgences. Finally it is agreed that in fact the Supreme Pontiffs have most frequently granted plenary indulgences.
Concerning bishops and metropolitans the matter is also beyond controversy, that the former in their diocese and the latter in their province can grant indulgences, yet so that they do not exceed an indulgence of one year on the day of the dedication of a church, or of forty days at other times, of enjoined penances. For so we have in the chapter Cum ex eo, and the chapter Nostro, on penances and remissions, and the chapter Indulgentiae, under the same title in the Sext. Nor is it less certain that the power of order is not required, but only the power of jurisdiction, for granting indulgences. Accordingly the Supreme Pontiff or a bishop will be able to grant indulgences even if he is not yet marked with holy Orders, as Saint Thomas teaches on the fourth book, distinction 20, question 1, article 4, little question 2. Nor is this power lost through mortal sin, as the same Saint Thomas teaches in the same article 4, little question 4.
Concerning apostolic legates, no one doubts that they can grant indulgences by special or general commission of the Supreme Pontiff in every place to which their legations extend. That the chief penitentiary can grant a hundred days of indulgence Peter Paludanus attests on the fourth book, distinction 20, question 4, article 2; which Navarrus attests likewise of the other cardinals in the tract on the Jubilee, notable 31, number 17, although this rests more on custom than on law. And these things indeed seem to be certain and settled. Now we shall briefly discuss the things which are doubtful. First, then, it can be asked concerning a general council whether it can give plenary indulgences. For this is affirmed by Felinus in the sermon on indulgences, number 28; Dominic Soto on the fourth book, distinction 21, question 1, article 4; Navarrus on the Jubilee, notable 31, number 2; and Cordoba, question 12 on indulgences, proposition 8. But although I have read no one who expressly teaches that a general council cannot do this, yet all the other authors seem to think so who write that the power of granting plenary indulgences belongs to the Supreme Pontiff alone, and say nothing of a general council. And indeed this latter opinion seems to me most true. For we have no example of this thing except the Council of Basel, session 24, which council was at that time schismatic, and neither its decrees, and much less its examples, make certain faith. And the Council of Constance, session 17, near the end, grants indulgences not plenary but only of a hundred or forty days; which it could rightly do, since in that council there were many not only bishops and archbishops but also cardinals. Moreover, the first who taught that plenary indulgences can be granted by a general council, and whom Felinus and others followed, was Panormitanus, in a sermon delivered in the Synod of Basel, as Felinus reports. And what wonder if Panormitanus taught this in that place, where all were shouting that the council is above the Pope? Lastly, a general council, the Pope excluded, does not have papal authority, neither formally, nor eminently, nor in any other way, as Cajetan most rightly teaches and proves in the first tract on the authority of the Pope and of a council, chapters 11 and 12, and the second tract, chapter 6; and we too have taught and proved it in the second book on Councils, chapter 16. Therefore a council, the Pope excluded, cannot do those things which properly belong to the Supreme Pontiff, but only those to which episcopal authority extends. But it is agreed that bishops, even many joined together, cannot give an indulgence except of one year or forty days, as is expressly found in the chapter Cum ex eo, on penances and remissions, and the chapter Indulgentiae, under the same title in the Sext.
The other doubt is concerning the right by which bishops can bestow indulgences. For some think that bishops can do this by divine right, others deny it. But this question depends on another, whether bishops receive their jurisdiction from God immediately, or rather through the Supreme Pontiff. Which question we have explained in the fourth book on the Supreme Pontiff, chapter 23 and the two following, nor is there reason to repeat the same in this place. Therefore, according to what we said in the place noted, we think that bishops receive all their jurisdiction, and thereby the power of conferring indulgences, from the Supreme Pontiff. Of which thing this too is an argument, that we see this power was restricted and limited to bishops by the Supreme Pontiff; nor is there any doubt that it can by the same be altogether taken away, or even increased and extended. But if they had it so immediately, the Supreme Pontiff could indeed forbid them the use of that power, yet if they obstinately wished to use it, the Supreme Pontiff could not prevent what they had done from being valid. Just as when the Pontiff forbids some bishop to use the faculty which he has from God of conferring the sacrament of Confirmation or of Order, the bishop indeed sins in not obeying the Supreme Pontiff, yet that conferring of the sacrament of Confirmation or of Order is valid; nor does it seem that any reason can be given why the Supreme Pontiff can bring it about that an indulgence granted by a bishop is not valid, and cannot bring about the same concerning the conferring of the sacrament of Confirmation or of Order, except that bishops have the former power from the Pontiff, the latter from God.
The third question is concerning abbots, parish priests and other priests, whether they can grant indulgences. For abbots have jurisdiction over their monks, no otherwise than bishops over the people. Both abbots and other superiors of religious orders are also accustomed to share with others the merits and satisfactions of their orders, which seems to be nothing else than to grant certain indulgences. Finally Angelus in the Summa, under the word Indulgentia, number 5, and Bartholomew Fumus in the Summa, under the word Indulgentia, number 2, teach that all parish priests and other priests who have the right of hearing confessions can grant indulgences in the very sacrament of Confession, by remitting what remains to be expiated when a lesser penance is enjoined than suffices to exhaust the whole punishment owed for sins; and they adduce for this opinion Innocent in the commentary on the chapter Cum ex eo, on penances and remissions, Panormitanus on the chapter Sicut dignum, on wilful homicide, and other interpreters of canon law. But the common opinion teaches the contrary: that no priests at all inferior to bishops can grant indulgences by common law, but only by commission of the Supreme Pontiff or of the bishops. For there is extant an express text of the law, the chapter Accedentibus, on the excesses of prelates, where it is found that it is not lawful for abbots, nor for any others whatever of an order inferior to the episcopal, to grant indulgences.
Moreover Saint Thomas, on the fourth book, distinction 20, question 1, article 4, little question 1, beautifully teaches that none are absolutely prelates except bishops, for they are the rulers of a whole people, and as it were kings in a small kingdom, and so preside over men of all orders, ages, sexes and conditions; but abbots are as it were fathers of one family and house, and preside over monks alone. Parish priests too preside only over one parish, as over one family; but the power of dispensing the treasury of the Church belongs only to true prelates, who are the princes of the people of God. Wherefore both abbots themselves and parish priests and all others, whether clerics or laymen, whether regulars or seculars, are in some way subject to the bishop, and therefore can become partakers of an indulgence proposed in common by the bishop, as Paludanus teaches on the fourth book, distinction 20, question 4, article 3, conclusion 1; just as they are also bound, although regulars are otherwise for the most part exempt, to observe the feast days appointed by the bishop for the whole city. It is nevertheless true that if the work enjoined by the bishop for obtaining the indulgence cannot be fulfilled by regulars without the faculty of their superior, they are bound to ask that faculty from the superior if they wish to become partakers of the indulgence; for regular observance ought not to be violated or relaxed for the sake of obtaining indulgences, as Saint Thomas warns on the fourth book, distinction 20, question 1, article 5, little question 2. Nor is that sharing of merits or satisfactions contrary to these things, which the superiors of religious orders are accustomed to grant to those who deserve well of the order itself. For that sharing is not an indulgence, as is plain, both because it does not absolve from the penance enjoined by the priest in the sacrament of Penance, and because it does not share merits or satisfactions already past, since those, if they were superfluous, are laid up in the treasury, but only future ones after that sharing; and because that sharing profits in great part by way of impetration, which does not belong to indulgences. For religious pray assiduously for their congregation, for friends and benefactors, and for other persons or needs according to the intention of their superiors. Nor do Innocent or Panormitanus, alleged by Angelus and Bartholomew, speak of indulgences, but only say that a parish priest and other confessors can enjoin a lesser penance than the canons prescribe, if it seems to them that this ought to be done for just causes. But this is not to give an indulgence, because what they enjoin less will have to be expiated, either in this life by penal works voluntarily undertaken, or in Purgatory. See Sylvester under the word Indulgentia, number 12; Cordoba on indulgences, question 12; and Navarrus on the Jubilee, notable 31, number 9.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XI. Quis possit indulgentias concedere. % Sequitur nunc, ut explicemus, quid re¬ quiratur ad hoc ut indulgentia rata sit, tum ex parte concedentis, tum ex parte sus¬ cipientis. Et quidem ex parte concedentis duo requiri videntur, auctoritas legitima, et causa justa : ex parte suscipientis alia duo, status gratiae, et executio operis injuncti. De quibus ordine dicendum erit. Principio igi¬ tur auctoritatem requiri extra controversiam est, nam absolvere, vel ligare non potest, nisi is, qui jurisdictionem babet ; indulgen¬ tias autem dare, absolvere est, ut supra de¬ monstravimus ex cap. Quod autem, de poe- nit. et rerniss. Pimterea, distribuere bona communia non potest nisi magistratus, vel princeps, cui bonorum communium admi¬ nistratio, et dispensatio credita est : Indul¬ gentiae vero praeter absolutionem, continent etiam applicationem thesauri spiritualis, ut ostendimus loco notato. Porro haec auctori¬ tas potissimum residet in Summo Pontifice, ac propterea potest ipse indulgentias etiam plenarias omnibus fidelibus elargiri. De qua re nulla dissentio est. Nam constat Apostolo Petro, cui Summus Pontifex succedit, pro¬ prie dictum esse a Domino Matth. xvi. Quod- curnque solueris etc. (1). Deinde constat ex jure Canonico, cap. Cum ex eo, de poenit. et rerniss., in Summo Pontifice ad indulgentias concedendas esse plenitudinem potestatis. Denique constat, re ipsa frequentissime Sum¬ mos Pontifices indulgentias plenarias con¬ cessisse. De episcopis, ac metropolitanis res est etiam extra controversiam, posse illos in sua dioecesi, istos in sua provincia, indulgentias tribuere, sic tamen, ut indulgentiam unius anni in die Dedicationis Ecclesiae vel quadra¬ ginta dierum aliis temporibus, de injunctis poenitentiis non excedant. Ita enim habemus cap. Cum ex eo, et cap. Nostro, de poenit. et rerniss. et cap. Indulgentiae, eodem in 6. Nec minus certum est, non requiri potesta¬ tem ordinis, sed solam potestatem jurisdic¬ tionis ad indulgentias concedendas. Proinde poterit Pontifex Maximus, vel episcopus in¬ dulgentias concedere, etiam si nondum sit sacris Ordinibus insignitus, ut docet S.Thom. in 4. dist. 20, quiest. 1. art. 4. quaestiun¬ cula 2. Neque amittitur haec potestas per peccatum lethale, ut idem S. Thomas docet in eodem art. 4. quaestiunc. 4. De legatis apostolicis, posse eos concedere ex commissione speciali, vel generali Summi Pontificis indulgentias in omni loco, ad quem suae legationes se extendunt, nemo dubitat. Summum poenitentiarium, posse concedere centum dies indulgentiae testatur Petrus Pa- ludanus in 4. dist. 20. queest. 4. art. 2. quod idem de aliis Cardinalibus testatur Navarrus in tract. de Jubilaeo, Notab. 31. num. 17. quamvis id magis consuetudine, quam lege nitatur. Atque haec quidem videntur esse certa et rata. Nunc de iis, quae dubia sunt breviter disseremus. Primum igitur de con¬ cilio generali quaeri potest, an possit plena¬ rias indulgentias dare. Id enim affirmant Felinus, in serm. de indulgent. num. 28. Dominicus a Soto in 4. dist. 21. quaest. 1. art. 4. Navarrus de Jubilaeo, Notab. 31. num. 2. et Cordubensis quaest. 12. dc indul¬ gent. proposit. 8. Quamvis autem neminem legerim, qui expresse doceat concilium ge¬ nerale non posse id facere : tamen videntur hoc sentire omnes alii auctores, qui scribunt ad solum Pontificem Summum spectare po¬ testatem concedendi plenarias indulgentias, et de concilio generali nihil dicunt. Et sane verissima mihi esse videtur posterior haec sententia; Nam nullum hujus rei exemplum habemus, nisi Concilii Basileensis sess. 24. quod Concilium eo tempore schismaticum erat, neque ejus decreta, et multo minus exempla certam fidem faciunt. Concilium autem Constantiense sess. 17. prope fin. in¬ dulgentias concedit non plenarias, sed so¬ lum centum, vel quadraginta dierum ; quod recte poterat facere, cum in eo concilio es¬ sent multi non solum Episcopi et Archiepi- scopi sed etiam Cardinales. Praeterea primus, qui docuit a concilio generali concedi posse plenarias indulgentias, et quem Felinus alii¬ que secuti sunt, Panormitanus fuit in serm. habito in Synodo Basileensi, ut Felinus refert. Quid autem mirum si Panormitanus hoc doc uit (1) Mat. XYI, 19. CAPUT XI. 43 in eo loco, ubi concilium supra Papam esse clamabant omnes? Postremo concilium ge¬ nerale, 'secluso Papa, non habet Papalem auctoritatem, nec formaliter, nec eminenter, nec ullo alio modo, ut rectissime Cajetanus docet et probat tract. 1. de auctoritate Papa), et Concilii cap. 11 et 12. et tract. 2. cap. 6. et nos etiam docuimus, et probavi¬ mus in lib. ii de Conciliis cap. 16. Non igi¬ tur potest Concilium, secluso Papa, ea facere, quae proprie ad Summum Pontificem perti¬ nent, sed ea solum, ad quae se extendit epi¬ scopalis auctoritas. Constat autem non posse Episcopos, etiam multos simul conjunctos indulgentiam dare, nisi unius anni, vel qua¬ draginta dierum, ut expresse habetur cap. Cum ex eo, de poenit. et remiss. et cap. 1i:k dulgentiae, eodem in 6. Altera dubitatio est de jure, quo Episcopi possunt indulgentias elargiri. Aliqui enim existimant, Episcopos jure divino id posse, alii negant. Sed haec quaestio ex alia pendet, utram jurisdictionem Episcopi accipiant a Deo immediate, an vero per Summum Pon¬ tificem. Quam quaestionem nos explicuimus in lib. iv de Summo Pontifice, cap. 23 et duobus sequentibus, neque est cur hoc loco eadem repetamus. Igitur juxta ea, quae loco notato diximus , existimamus Episcopos a Summo Pontifice jurisdictionem omnem, ac per hoc potestatem indulgentias conferendi accipere. Cujus rei argumentum est etiam, quod videamus a Summo Pontifice restric¬ tam et limitatam Episcopis hanc potestatem fuisse ; neque dubium est, quin ab eodem penitus tolli, vel etiam augeri et extendi possit. Quod si adeo immediate illam habe¬ rent, posset quidem Summus Pontifex inter¬ dicere illis usum ejus potestatis, tamen si obstinate ea uti vellent, non posset Summus Pontifex impedire, quominus ratum esset, quod illi fecissent. Quemadmodum cum Pon¬ tifex alicui Episcopo interdicit, ne utatur facultate, quam habet a Deo, conferendi sa¬ cramentum Confirmationis vel Ordinis, pec¬ cat quidem Episcopus non obtemperans Pon¬ tifici Maximo, tamen collatio ilia sacramenti Confirmationis vel Ordinis rata est : neque videtur posse reddi ulla ratio, cur possit Summus Pontifex efficere, ut indulgentia ab Episcopo concessa non sit rata, et non pos¬ sit idem efficere de collatione sacramenti Confirmationis, vel Ordinis, nisi quia prio¬ rem potestatem habent Episcopi a Pontifice, posteriorem a Deo, Tertia quaestio est de abbatibus, parochis, aliisque sacerdotibus, an possint indulgen¬ tias tribuere ; Nam abbates jurisdictionem habent in suos monachos, non secus ac Epi¬ scopi in populum. Solent etiam tum abbates, tum alii ordinum religiosorum praepositi communicare cum aliis merita, et satisfac¬ tiones suorum ordinum : quod nihil esse vi¬ detur aliud, nisi indulgentias quasdam 'tri¬ buere. Denique Angelus in Summa, verbo, Indulgentia, num. 5. et Bartholomeus Fumus in Summa, verbo, Indulgentia, num. 2. do¬ cent, omnes parochos, aliosque sacerdotes, qui jus habent confessiones audiendi, posse in ipso sacramento Confessionis indulgen¬ tias concedere, remittendo id quod superest expiandum, quando minor poenitentia injun¬ gitur, quam ut sufficiat ad totam poenam peccatis debitam exhauriendam, et adducunt pro hac sententia Innocentium in comment. cap. Cum exeo, de poenit. et remiss. Panor¬ mitanum in cap. Sicut dignum, de homic. volunt, et alios juris canonici interpretes. At sententia, communis contrarium docet; nul¬ los omnino sacerdotes Episcopis inferiores posse jure communi tribuere indulgentias, sed solum ex commissione Pontificis Maximi, vel Episcoporum. Nam exstat expressus tex¬ tus juris, cap. Accedentibus, de excess. praelatorum, ubi habetur, non licere abba¬ tibus, neque aliis quibuscumque inferioris ordinis, quam episcopalis, indulgentias con¬ cedere. Praeterea S. Thomas in 4. dist. 20. quaest. 1. art. 4. quaestiuncula 1. pulchre docet, nullos esse absolute praelatos, nisi Episcopos, ipsi enim sunt rectores integri populi, et quasi reges in parvo regno, atque itapraesunt hominibus omnium ordinum, aetatum, se¬ xuum , conditionum; abbates autem sunt quasi patres unius familiae, ac domus, et praesunt solis monachis. Parochi quoque non praesunt, nisi uni paroecia) quasi uni familiae: potestas autem dispensandi thesaurum Ec¬ clesia) non convenit nisi veris praelatis, qui sunt principes populi Dei. Quare tum ipsi abbates, tum parochi, aliique omnes sive clerici, sive laici, sive regulares, sive sa)cu- culares aliquo modo subjiciuntur Episcopo, et ideo participes fieri possunt indulgentiae ab Episcopo in commune propositae, ut docet Paludatius in 4. dist. 20. quaest. 4. art. 3. conci. 1. sicut etiam tenentur, licet alias re¬ gulares ut plurimum sint exempti, dies festos ab Episcopo toti civitati indictos observare. u LIBER I. Verum tamen est, quod si opus injunctum ab Episcopo pro indulgentia consequenda, non possit impleri a regularibus absque prae- positi facultate, tenentur eam facultatem a praeposito petere, si velint indulgentiae par¬ ticipes fieri; non enim debet regularis ob¬ servantia propter assequendas indulgentias violari, vel relaxari, ut monet S. Thomas in 4. dist. 20. quaest. 1. art. 5. quaestiuncula 2. Neque his repugnat communicatio illa me¬ ritorum, vel satisfactionum, quos praepositi ordinum religiosorum bene merentibus de ipso ordine concedere solent. Illa enim com¬ municatio non est indulgentia, ut perspi¬ cuum est, tum quia non absolvit a poeniten¬ tia injuncta a sacerdote in sacramento Poe¬ nitentiae, tum quia non communicat merita, vel satisfactiones jam praeteritas, cum illae si superfluae fuerunt, in thesauro reconditae sint, sed solum futuras post illam communicatio¬ nem : tum quia ista communicatio magna ex parte prodest per modum impetrationis , quod non convenit indulgentiis. Orant enim religiosi assidue pro sua congregatione, pro amicis et benefactoribus, et pro aliis, vel personis, vel necessitatibus ad intentionem praepositorum. Neque Innocentius, aut Pa¬ normitanus ab Angelo, et Bartholomeo alle¬ gati loquuntur de indulgentiis, sed solum dicunt, posse parochum, et alios confessarios injungere poenitentiam minorem, quam ca¬ nones praescribant, si eis videatur ita esse faciendum justis de causis. Sed hoc non est dare indulgentiam, quia quod minus illi in¬ jungunt, expiandum erit, vel in hac vita per opera poenalia sponte assumpta, vel in pur¬ gatorio. Vide Silvestrum verbo, Indulgentia n. 12. Gordubensem de Indulgent. quaest. 12. et Navarrum de Jubilaeo Notab. 31. num. 9.