Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book I: That Indulgences Exist, and What They Are
Chapter 14: On indulgences which are received for the dead
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).
On indulgences by which the souls of the dead are helped there are six questions. First, whether they profit them. Second, whether they can be given by way of absolution. Third, what it is to give indulgences to the dead by way of suffrage. Fourth, whether the souls to whom indulgences are applied are freed from justice or from mercy. Fifth, what is required in order that indulgences profit the dead. Sixth, whether indulgences profit certain souls in particular, or only all in common.
As to the first question, all the heretics, both the more recent and the more ancient, who denied purgatory, consequently denied also that suffrages and indulgences profit the dead. Of Catholics, Hostiensis in the Summa, book 5, title on remissions, number 9, and Gabriel, lecture 57 on the Canon of the Mass, taught that indulgences do not profit the dead; but Gabriel quickly corrected the error, as is clear from the addition to the same lecture. But the matter is most certain, and undoubted among Catholics, that the souls which pay their penalties in purgatory can be helped by indulgences. This can be proved first by a reason drawn from the Scriptures, the Councils and the Fathers. For it is agreed that the souls of the dead can be helped by the suffrages of the living, that is, by alms, prayers, fastings, sacrifices of Masses and other pious works, as has been abundantly shown by us in nearly the whole of the first book on purgatory, and in the second book, chapter 15, which things are not to be repeated here. And although suffrages profit the dead by way of impetration, and especially prayers and the offering of the sacrifice, yet no reason can be given why they should not profit also by way of satisfaction, and above all fastings and alms. For that these works are satisfactory has been sufficiently proved by us in the fourth book on penance and in the books on good works in particular; and that the dead, to whom these suffrages are applied by the living, stand in need of satisfaction, is not doubtful. It is agreed besides that this is the reason why the suffrages of the living can profit the dead: because the faithful departed are so joined with the faithful living by the bond of the same faith and charity that they make one Church and one body. For neither (says Saint Augustine, book 20 of the City of God, chapter 9) are the souls of the pious dead separated from the Church, which is the kingdom of Christ. From these two foundations it is plainly gathered that even private men can offer to God for the dead, as members of the same body, their satisfactions, fastings, alms, pilgrimages and similar laborious works. But if private men can apply their satisfactions to the dead as members of the same body, why cannot the Supreme Pontiff apply to the same the satisfactions of Christ and of the saints, which are in the spiritual treasury, of which he himself is the dispenser? Besides, the same is proved from the use of the Church; for it is agreed that Paschal the Supreme Pontiff, seven hundred years ago, granted an indulgence for the dead, which is kept in the church of Saint Praxedes at the entrance of the chapel of Saint Zeno, of which indulgence Gabriel also makes mention in the place noted, but he does not rightly call him Paschasius V, since he is in truth Paschal the First. Many other Pontiffs also, as Gabriel relates in the same place, granted indulgences for the dead. Finally the theologians agree, as Saint Thomas on the fourth book, distinction 45, question 2, article 3, little question 2; Saint Bonaventure on the fourth book, distinction 20, part 2, question 5; Richard, distinction 20, article 3, question 3; and others; and likewise the canonists, as Innocent on the chapter Quod autem, on penances and remissions; Felinus in the sermon on indulgences; and others. Nor is it against these that John Major on the fourth book, distinction 20, question 2, says that many theologians think the contrary. For he speaks of indulgence by way of judicial absolution, not of indulgence absolutely.
The second question is more difficult, on the manner in which indulgences can profit the dead: namely, whether the Supreme Pontiff can judicially absolve the souls of the dead which are in purgatory, as he does with living men when he grants them indulgences. For Michael Medina, disputation 7, chapter 34, and disputation 8, chapter 41, on indulgences, contends that the souls of the dead which are in purgatory belong to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Pontiff, and can receive indulgences from him by way of absolution. But nearly all other writers think the contrary, as Saint Bonaventure, Richard, Gabriel and John Major in the places cited; and this last author witnesses that in his time the contrary opinion was condemned by the School of Paris. Likewise Cajetan, tract 15, chapter 5; Dominic Soto on the fourth book, distinction 21, question 2, article 1, conclusion 3; Peter Soto, lecture 3 on indulgences; Navarrus on the Jubilee, notable 22, number 6; Antonio of Cordoba, question 15 on indulgences; and others. And this latter opinion is proved, first, because Saint Leo, in the epistle to Rusticus bishop of Narbonne, which is found in Gratian, cause 24, question 2, canon 1, says thus: As to those deprived of communion, and so dying, their cause is to be reserved to the judgment of God; and Pope Gelasius, in the epistle to Faustus and in another to the bishops of Dardania, as found in the same Gratian, cause 24, question 2, canon Legatur and canon Nec quisquam, teaches in express words that dead men, who are set in the divine judgment, cannot be judged by the Church. Second, because the Church cannot summon the souls of the dead, cannot examine their cause, cannot compel them to obedience; therefore she cannot absolve or bind them. Third, the Pontiff has no authority except over the sheep which he has undertaken to feed, according to that of John 21, “Feed my sheep.” But the souls of the dead cannot be fed by the Pontiff, since they cannot receive from him doctrine, or sacraments, or laws and rights; therefore they are not subject to him, and accordingly cannot be bound or loosed by him. Fourth, because the Pontiffs ordinarily, when they extend indulgences to the dead, add the phrase, by way of suffrage, as is clear from the Constitutions of Alexander VI and Clement VII for the proclamation of the jubilee. Gabriel also relates, in the addition to lecture 57 on the Canon, that he saw a declaration of Sixtus IV that indulgences profit the dead by way of suffrage; which (as we shall shortly say) is opposed to that which is by way of absolution. But some object the words of the Lord in Matthew 16, “Whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven,” and they argue that the words, upon earth, refer not to those who are loosed but to him who looses, so that the sense is: Whatsoever thou, living upon earth, shalt loose, shall be loosed by me, who am in heaven. Besides, they say that the dead who are in purgatory are still wayfarers and in need of help, and accordingly seem to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Pontiff. Finally, they show from the canon Sane, cause 24, question 2, that the dead are often excommunicated by the Church, and again absolved from excommunication, from which it seems to follow that they are properly subject to the judgment of the Church. But the answer is easy. For to the first it could be said that Gelasius, whose authority in the Church is great, expounded that phrase, upon earth, so that it refers to those who are loosed, not to him who looses, as is plain from the canon Legatur already cited. But grant that it can be referred to him who looses; nothing follows from it, because it must be understood of loosing with respect to those who are subject to him. Otherwise the Supreme Pontiff could bind and loose even those who are in heaven or in hell, if the power of binding or loosing were taken so universally. To the second it can be answered that not all wayfarers are properly subject to the Pontiff, but only those who are visible sheep of this fold and members of this visible Church. But that the dead who dwell in purgatory are in some manner wayfarers, in need of the help of the Church, and invisibly joined with the visible Church itself by faith and charity, makes it that they can be helped by our Church and enjoy indulgences, not as subjects by way of absolution, but as absent friends by way of suffrage. To the third we answer that the dead can be excommunicated by the Church, and absolved from excommunication, only as regards those things which are to be done by the living. For when a dead man is excommunicated, it is done because after death his obstinacy in heresy, or something of that kind, is uncovered; and this alone follows from that excommunication, that suffrages are not made for him, that he is not buried in a sacred place, and the like. And on the contrary, if it is uncovered that someone was excommunicated by error, and therefore he is absolved, the effect of the absolution will be that prayer and sacrifice are made for him, and his body honourably buried. And so the excommunication or absolution of the dead is rather a declaration of the sentence which would have been passed if their desert had not lain hidden, than some new penalty which reaches the souls themselves. But what is read in the second book of the Dialogues of Saint Gregory, chapter 23, about the nuns excommunicated by blessed Benedict, who were seen to go out of their tombs and depart from the church when, during the solemnities of the Mass, the deacon cried, Let those who do not communicate depart, seems to be reckoned among miracles. For God willed by that sign to show how highly the admonitions of the saints are to be regarded. For otherwise Saint Benedict had not excommunicated them, but had only threatened excommunication, as Saint Gregory says in the same place. Besides, he did not excommunicate them after death but in life (if indeed that is to be called an excommunication). Nor did he afterwards properly absolve them by sentence, but by intercession, sending an oblation to be offered for them to the Lord. But (you will say) Saint Gregory in the same place, to show that it is not strange if Saint Benedict, dwelling in mortal flesh, could judge concerning the spirits of the dead, alleged that saying of the Gospel: Whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. I answer that Saint Gregory wished to draw an argument from a likeness. For as by the divine power conferred on them prelates, though they are men dwelling in mortal flesh, can judge of spiritual things, so Saint Benedict, still dwelling in mortal flesh, by an extraordinary privilege conferred on him by God, could hold bound or loose the souls of those whom, while they lived, he had threatened with the sentence of excommunication. Nor is it credible that Saint Gregory wished to contradict Saint Leo, who in the epistle to Rusticus already cited teaches in express words that those who depart this life deprived of communion cannot be loosed by the Church, since they are already set in the divine judgment.
The third question is what that phrase, by way of suffrage, means, when the Pontiffs say that indulgences avail the dead by way of suffrage. There are some who think that indulgences profit the dead by way of suffrage because the suffrages profit them, that is, the Masses, prayers and other pious works which the Pontiff enjoins when he grants indulgences. But this is not for the indulgences to profit; for even if the Pontiff did not enjoin those works, those suffrages would avail for the refreshment of the dead. And so indulgences would be given to the dead in vain, if they added nothing beyond the value of the suffrages. Nor would the Pontiffs say that indulgences profit by way of suffrage, but they would say with Hostiensis that indulgences do not profit the dead as indulgences, but only by the force of the suffrages joined to them. Others have thought that indulgences profit the dead by way of suffrage because, although the indulgences themselves truly profit, yet they profit through the suffrages commanded to the living. For the Pontiff applies the satisfactions of Christ and of the saints from the treasury both to the living and to the dead; but to the living he applies them through works enjoined on the living themselves, to the dead through works commanded to the same living, which works, since they are done in the name of the dead, can be called certain suffrages of the dead. But neither does this opinion give a fitting reason for those words; for this is not for indulgences to profit by way of suffrage, but to profit through the suffrages themselves. The true opinion, then, is that indulgences profit by way of suffrage because they do not profit by way of juridical absolution, but by way of payment, in the manner in which the suffrages profit which are accustomed to be made for the dead either publicly or privately. But since suffrages help the dead in three ways, by way of congruous merit, by way of impetration, and by way of satisfaction, and indulgences are only satisfactory, it must be understood that indulgences are given to the dead by way of satisfactory suffrage only. And so, as when someone gives alms, or fasts, or goes on pilgrimage to the Holy Places for the dead, he does not absolve the dead from the guilt of punishment, but offers to God that satisfaction for the dead, so that God, accepting it, may free the dead from the debt of punishment which they were going to pay; so the Pontiff does not absolve the souls of the dead, but offers to God from the treasury of satisfactions as much as is necessary to free them; and God, accepting another's satisfaction communicated to the souls of the dead, frees them from that guilt of punishment. But there is this difference between suffrages and indulgences, that for suffrages to be offered no jurisdiction is required, but for indulgences to be given jurisdiction is required, because no one can dispense the treasury except he who has the ecclesiastical keys. Besides, he who offers suffrages does not know whether what he offers suffices to free the soul, or only to refresh it; but the Pontiff can offer from that infinite treasury as much as is required to satisfy entirely for the guilt of any punishment whatever; and therefore he is said to give a plenary indulgence, and to free souls by way of suffrage, because he offers as much as is enough for full satisfaction. See Cajetan, tract 16 on indulgences, question 6, and Cordoba, question 15 on indulgences.
The fourth question, the most difficult of all, is whether indulgences profit the dead from justice, or a fixed law, and from condignity, or only from the kindness of God and from congruity. Some teach that indulgences profit the dead from condignity, or from justice. So writes Dominic Soto on the fourth book, distinction 21, question 2, article 3, whom Navarrus follows on the Jubilee, notable 22, number 20. Their reason is that one living man can satisfy for another living man from condignity; therefore a living man can also satisfy for a dead one from condignity. For the reason of both satisfactions is the same, namely the union which is between the members of the same body of the Church. For a living man satisfies for a living man from condignity because they are members of the same body, united by the glue of faith and charity; but the dead too, who dwell in purgatory, are members of the same body, united by the glue of faith and charity. And if the suffrages of private persons profit the dead from condignity, insofar as they are satisfactions, surely much more will the satisfactions of Christ and of the saints, applied to the same faithful dead by the head of the Church, that is, by the Supreme Pontiff, profit from condignity. Others think the contrary: that the indulgences which are given to the dead rest on the mercy and kindness of God, and thereby profit them from congruity, not from condignity. So teaches Cajetan, tract 16, question 5, whom Peter Soto follows, lecture 3 on indulgences, and Antonio of Cordoba, question 15 on indulgences. Nor do these authors mean to signify that the Church's teaching on indulgences for the dead is doubtful or uncertain; on the contrary they affirm that it is certain and undoubted that indulgences are rightly given or received for the dead, and that they can profit them, and in fact do profit them, either to refreshment or to full deliverance, but to whom, when, and how much, as it pleases the divine goodness. In the same way the Catholic faith teaches that prayers are rightly poured out for the dead and profit them, and yet it is not from condignity but from congruity, not from justice but from mercy, that we trust to obtain whatever we ask from the Lord, as can be understood from the very form of the prayers. The reasons for this opinion are these. First, because it does not seem certain that the living can satisfy for the living from condignity, which was the foundation of the former opinion. For John Medina, in the Codex on satisfaction, question 5, and Cordoba, question 5 on indulgences, teach the contrary. For the union of faith and charity by which the living members of the Church are bound together does indeed make it that we can help one another and share our goods, and one satisfy for another at least from congruity; but it does not seem to make it that God is bound from justice to accept the satisfaction of one for another, unless some pact or promise of God himself about this matter is shown, although God can, and is accustomed to, accept it from his kindness. And it is confirmed by a likeness; for in the external court the judge is not bound to accept that one man be scourged, or sent to the galleys, for another, even if they are joined not only as Christians but also as citizens or as kinsmen. Finally, it seems to be proper to Christ alone to be able, for others, from condignity, as to merit, so also to satisfy, since he is the head of the body of the Church, and while he satisfied for us, he satisfied for his own body. The second reason: because even if it were certain that in the present life one can satisfy for another from condignity, yet the reason does not seem the same for satisfaction for the dead. For here we can pay penalties of the same kind, as by our fasting or alms satisfy for another who was going to undergo the penalty of fasting or alms; but the penalties to which the souls in purgatory are already assigned are of another kind; and therefore, as a judge is not bound to remit a bodily penalty to some one accused on account of a money fine which another offers, so God does not seem to be bound from justice to admit the satisfactions of this life for the remission of the punishments of purgatory, to which those souls are already assigned. But if it is done, as we certainly believe it is done, it is credible that it is done from the kindness of God. The third reason: because the souls themselves, as we gather from the histories of weighty authors, seem to have declared this very thing. For Peter Damian, in epistle 5 to Dominic, chapter 4, writes that the soul of Benedict, Roman Pontiff, set in purgatory, appeared by God's permission to a certain man, and asked of him that suffrages be made for it, and added that it would be freed through those suffrages when the divine compassion should so decree. Peter of Cluny also, in the first book on miracles, chapter 10, writes that the soul of a dead man appeared to someone, and having asked for suffrages, added that it would be freed through the ineffable mercy of God if it were helped through suffrages; and in chapter 27 he writes that another soul, likewise appearing and asking for suffrages, added that by the mediating clemency of the Creator it would be freed through those suffrages. But if suffrages rest on the divine goodness, and indulgences are not given to the dead except by way of suffrage, surely it seems to follow that indulgences too profit the dead from the divine goodness. Of these opinions I dare condemn neither; for the former seems very pious, the latter very reasonable.
The fifth question is what is required in order that indulgences profit the dead. And indeed it is certain, first, that authority is required, and that the highest, that is, of the Apostolic See; for bishops and other prelates lower than the Supreme Pontiff cannot grant indulgences to the dead, as Navarrus teaches on the Jubilee, notable 22, number 4, since the Vicar of Christ alone has the power of dispensing the treasury of the Church absolutely. For bishops can only apply it to their subjects, according to the measure determined for them by the Apostolic See. Second, it is certain that a just cause is required, as Saint Thomas teaches on the fourth book, distinction 45, question 2, article 3, little question 2. For the Supreme Pontiff cannot at his pleasure free souls from the punishments of purgatory; nor does the benefit of those souls suffice as a cause, or the glory of God which would overflow from the deliverance of those souls. For if these sufficed, Christ himself would already have freed all souls. And so some particular cause is required, belonging to the honour of God and the benefit of the Church, as we said of indulgences for the living; so that the Supreme Pontiff judges that thing, for the sake of which the indulgences are granted, to be more pleasing to God than the execution of justice which is exercised in the expiation of the souls of purgatory. Third, it is required that he who receives indulgences for the dead fulfil the work enjoined; for, as Saint Thomas in the place noted and other Doctors write, indulgences are not given primarily and directly except to the living, who can complete the works enjoined; but to the dead they are given secondarily and indirectly, insofar as the living complete the works enjoined for the dead. From which it is also required that he who completes those works be in the state of grace, if the works themselves require it, as we said above about the work enjoined on the living. For if the work enjoined does not require it, it can probably be said that indulgences profit the dead even if he who receives them for the dead is not in the state of grace. But it is altogether safer that he who desires to obtain an indulgence for the dead first take care that he himself obtain indulgence from fault through the sacrament of confession. Fourth, it is required, in the opinion of Cajetan, tract 16, question 5, on indulgences, that the dead person not only be in the state of grace and dwell in the places of purgatory, but also that, while he lived, he was devoted to the keys of the Church, and was eager to help the dead by suffrages, and did not neglect to satisfy for his own sins. For so Cajetan understands those words of Saint Augustine, in the book on the care for the dead, chapter 1, and in the Enchiridion, chapter 109, that suffrages do not profit all the dead, but only those who in this life merited that they might profit them. But this opinion of Cajetan, useful and pious as it is, because it stirs the living to good works, so it seems less true, and is refuted by everyone everywhere. For Saint Augustine in the places noted does not exclude from suffrages, even particular ones, any souls of those who dwell in purgatory, but only the souls damned to the eternal punishments of hell; for he says that those alone are capable of suffrages who, while they lived, merited it, namely because they persevered in the grace of God and in charity. For charity is the foundation of communion between the members of the Church, and not some particular devotion to the keys of the Church or anything of that kind.
The last question is whether indulgences profit those for whom in particular they are received, or all in common. Praepositinus, a certain ancient author, as Saint Thomas relates on the fourth book, distinction 45, question 2, article 4, taught that the suffrages of the Church always profit the faithful departed in common, and those more who were nearer to deliverance; and to persuade this he brought forward the likeness of a lamp, which, if it is lit in the hall of the king for the king himself, yet does not shine for the king alone, but for all who are present, and for those more who have better eyes. He brought forward also a likeness from some book which perhaps is read at the king's table, from which the others who are present take no less fruit than the king himself, and some perhaps far more, although properly the book is read to the king. What Praepositinus said of suffrages he without doubt understood likewise of indulgences, which help the dead by way of suffrage. But the common answer of the Doctors is that both suffrages and indulgences profit all the dead as regards a certain accidental joy, for charity makes all things common in this sense, that all who are endowed with charity rejoice at the goods of others as if they were their own. But as regards satisfaction and deliverance from punishments, the common suffrages of the Church profit all in common, but particular suffrages, and indulgences which are received for certain souls, profit none but those to whom they are applied by the intention of the living. And that this is most true is clear, first, from the papal grants themselves. For Paschal I granted an indulgence in such a way that he who celebrated so many Masses for the soul of his father, or of another particular dead person, in the chapel of Saint Zeno, which is in the church of Saint Praxedes, should snatch those souls from the punishments of purgatory. Likewise Alexander VI, Clement VII and other Pontiffs, in the constitutions for the proclamation of the jubilee, say in express words that the indulgences of the jubilee year are extended by way of suffrage to the souls of the father, or mother, or other particular person for whom they are received. Second, because this is the sense of the whole Church and of all the faithful. Third, because Saint Augustine, in the book on the care for the dead, chapter 4, writes that the Church sends certain common suffrages to the souls of the dead, so that those who lack particular ones from kinsmen or friends may not lack some from the common Mother, which is the Church. Fourth and last, because there is no reason why satisfactions applied to some one soul by the intention of the one satisfying should either not profit that soul more than others, or profit others in any way. Nor do those likenesses of Praepositinus effect anything; for indulgences, or particular suffrages, are not like a lamp or a reading, but rather like a sum of money, which is given for the deliverance of some debtor from his debt in such a way that other debtors cannot be freed by it.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIV. De indulgentiis quae accipiuntur pro defunctis. De indulgentiis, quibus juvantur animae defunctorum sex quaestiones sunt. Prima an prosint. Secunda an per modum absolu¬ tionis .dari possint. Tertia quid sit dari in¬ dulgentias defunctis per modum suffragii. Quarta an ex justitia, an ex misericordia liberentur animae, quibus indulgentiae appli¬ cantur. Quinta quid requiratur ut indul¬ gentiae prosint defunctis. Sexta an indulgen¬ tiae prosint in particulari certis animabus, an solum omnibus in communi. Quod ad primam quaestionem attinet, hae¬ retici omnes, tum recentiores, tum anti¬ quiores, qui purgatorium negaverunt, con¬ sequenter etiam suffragia, et indulgentias mortuis prodesse negaverunt. Ex Catholicis Ostiensis in Summa lib. v. tit. de Remissio¬ nibus num 9. et Gabr. lect. 57. in Canonem Missae docuerunt indulgentias defunctis non CAPUT XIV. 51 prodesse : sed Gabriel cito correxit errorem, ut perspicuum est ex additione ad eamdem lectionem. Res autem certissima est, et apud Catholicos indubitata , indulgentiis juvari posse animas quse in purgatorio poenas luunt. Id quod primum probari potest ratione de¬ ducta ex Scripturis, Conciliis, et Patribus, Constat enim , animas defunctorum posse juvari suffragiis viventium, id «st, eleemo¬ synis, precibus, j-ejuniis, sacrificiis Missa¬ rum , aliisque piis operibus , ut copiose ostensum est a nobis in lib. i. de purgatorio fere toto, et lib. n. cap. 15. quae non sunt hoc loco repetenda. Et quamvis suffragia defunctis per modum impetrationis prosint, ac praesertim preces, et oblatio sacrificii : tamen nulla ratio reddi potest, cur non pro¬ sint etiam per modum satisfactionis, ac prae¬ cipue jejunia , et eleemosynae. Nam haec opera satisfactoria esse, satis a nobis proba¬ tum est in quarto libro de poenitentia, et in libris de operibus bonis in particulari, et de¬ functos, quibus haec suffragia a vivis appli¬ cantur, satisfactione indigere non dubium est. Constat praeterea illam esse rationem, cur suffragia viventium prodesse possint defunctis, quia fideles defuncti ita conjuncti sunt cum fidelibus viventibus ejusdem fidei, et charitatis vinculo, ut unam Ecclesiam, et unum corpus efficiant. Neque enim (inquit S. Augustinus lib. xx. de Civ. Dei c. 9.) pio¬ rum animae defunctorum ab Ecclesia sepa¬ rantur, quae est regnum Christi. Ex his duobus fundamentis aperte colligitur posse etiam privatos homines offerre Deo pro de¬ functis, tamquam membris ejusdem corporis satisfactiones suas , jejunia , eleemosynas , , peregrinationes, et similia opera laboriosa. Quod si privati homines possunt applicare defunctis, tamquam membris ejusdem cor¬ poris , satisfactiones suas, cur non potest Summus Pontifex applicare eisdem satisfa¬ ctiones Christi, et sanctorum, quce sunt in thesauro spirituali, cujus ipse dispensator est? Prseterea idem probatur ex usu Eccle- site : constat enim Paschalem Summum Pon¬ tificem ante annos 700. concessisse indul¬ gentiam pro defunctis, quae habetur in Ec¬ clesia S. Praxedis in introitu cappellaB S. Zenonis, cujus indulgentiae meminit etiam Gabriel loco notato, sed non recte vocat Pas- chasium V cum sit revera Paschalis pri¬ mus. Multi etiam pontifices alii, ut ibidem refert Gabriel, pro defunctis indulgentias concesserunt. Denique consentiunt Theologi, ut sanctus Thomas in 4. dist. 45. qusest. 2. art. 3. quaestiuncula 2. S. Bonaventura in 4. dist. 20. part. 2. quaest. 5. Richardus dist. 20. art. 3. quaest. 3. et alii; necnon Canonistae, ut Innocentius in cap. Quod au¬ tem, de pcenitent. et remiss. Felinus in serm. de Indulg. et alii. Neque iis repugnat, quod Joan. Major in 4. dist. 20. quaest. 2. dicat multos theologos contra sentire. Nam loquitur de indulgentia per modum absolu¬ tionis judicialis non de indulgentia abso¬ lute. Altera quaestio difficilior - est , de modo quo indulgentiae defunctis prodesse possunt, an videlicet Summus Pontifex possit animas defunctorum, quae sunt in purgatorio, judi¬ cialiter absolvere, ut facit cum hominibus viventibus, dum. indulgentias eis concedit. Nam Michael Medina disput. 7. cap. 34. et disput. 8. cap. 41. de indulgentiis, contendit animas defunctorum, quae sunt in purgato¬ rio, pertinere ad jurisdictionem Summi Pon¬ tificis, et posse ab eo indulgentias percipere per modum absolutionis. Sed contra sen¬ tiunt fere omnes alii scriptores, ut S. Bona¬ ventura, Richardus, Gabriel, et Joan. Major locis citatis. Qui postremus auctor testatur suo tempore a Schola Parisiensi fuisse dam¬ natam sententiam contrariam. Item Cajeta- nus tract. 15. cap. 5. Dominicus a Soto in 4. dist. 21. qusest. 2. art. 1. conci. 3. Petrus de Soto lect. 3. de Indulgentiis. Navarrus de Jubilaeo notab. 22. num. 6. Antonius Cordubensis q. 15. de Indulg. et alii ; et probatur ha3c sententia posterior , primo, quoniam S. Leo in epist. ad Rusticum Nar¬ bonensem episcopum, et habetur apud Gra¬ tianum 24. qusest. 2. can. 1. sic ait : De communione privatis, et ita defunctis, eo¬ rum causa judicio Dei reservanda est ; et Gelasius papa in epistola ad Faustum, et in altera ad Episcopos Dardaniee, ut est apud eumdem Gratianum 24. qusest. 2. can. Le¬ gatur, et can. Nec quisquam, disertis verbis docet, homines mortuos qui sunt in divino judicio constituti, non posse ab Ecclesia ju¬ dicari ; secundo , quia non potest Ecclesia mortuorum animas citare, non potest earum causam cognoscere, non potest eas cogere ad obedientiam, non igitur potest absolvere Vel ligare. Tertio, pontifex non habet aucto- (1) Joan. XXI, 17. 52 LIBER I. ritatem nisi in oves quas pascendas susce¬ pit, juxta illud Joan. xxi. Pasce oves meas (1). At animae defunctorum non possunt pasci a Pontifice, cum non possint ab eo doctrinam, vel sacramenta, vel leges et jura percipere : non igitur sunt ei subjectae, ac proinde non possunt ab eo ligari vel solvi. Quarto, quo¬ niam Pontifices ordinarie cum extendunt indulgentias ad mortuos, addunt particu¬ lam, per modum suffragii, ut perspicuum est ex Constitutionibus Alexandri VI et Clementis VII de indictione jubilaei. Refert etiam Gabriel in additione ad lectionem 57. super Canonem, se vidisse declarationem Sixti IV quod indulgentiae prosint defunctis per modum suffragii. Quod (ut mox dice¬ mus) opponitur ei, quod est, per modum absolutionis. At objiciunt aliqui verba Do¬ mini, Matth. xvi. Quodcumque solveris su¬ per terram, erit solutum et in coelis, et p ro* bant, illud, super terram, non referri ad eos, qui solvuntur, sed ad eum qui solvit, ut sensus sit : Quodcumque solveris tu super terram degens, erit solutum a me, qui sum in coelis. Praeterea dicunt, defunctos qui sunt in purgatorio, adhuc esse viatores, et auxilio egentes, ac proinde videri esse sub¬ jectos Pontificis jurisdictioni. Denique osten¬ dunt ex can. Sane, 24. quaest. 2. saepe ab' Ecclesia excommunicari defunctos, et rur¬ sus absolvi ab excommunicatione, ex quo sequi videtur ut proprie sint Ecclesiae judi¬ cio subditi. Sed facilis est responsio. Nam ad primum dici posset, Gelasium, cujus mag¬ na est in Ecclesia auctoritas, exposuisse illud (super terram) ut referatur ad eos, qui solvuntur, non ad eum qui solvit, ut patet ex can. Legatur, jam' citato. Sed esto, re¬ ferri possit ad eum, qui solvit, nihil tamen ex eo sequitur : quia debet intelligi de solu¬ tione circa eos, qui sunt ei subjecti. Alioqui posset Summus Pontifex ligare et solvere eos etiam, qui sunt in ccelo vel in gehenna, si ita universaliter accipiatur ligandi, vel solvendi potestas. Ad secundum responderi potest, non omnes viatores esse proprie sub¬ jectos Pontifici, sed solum eos, qui sunt oves visibiles hujus ovilis, et membra hujus visibilis Ecclesiae. Quod autem defuncti, qui in purgatorio degunt, aliquo modo sint viatores, et egentes auxilio Ecclesiae, et cum ipsa Ecclesia visibili invisibiliter conjuncti per fidem et charitatem, facit, ut possint ab Ecclesia nostra juvari, et indulgentiis frui, non ut subditi per modum absolutionis, sed ut amici absentes per modum suffragii. Ad tertium respondemus, defunctos ab Ecclesia posse excommunicari, et ab excommuni¬ catione absolvi, solum quoad ea, quae a viventibus fieri debent. Nam cum defunctus excommunicatur, id fit, quia post mortem detegitur ejus pertinacia in hseresi, aut ali¬ quid ejusmodi, et id solum ex illa excom¬ municatione sequitur, ut pro ipso non fiant suffragia, non sepeliatur in loco sacro, et similia. Et contra, si detegatur aliquis per errorem excommunicatus, et ideo absolva¬ tur, effectus absolutionis erit, ut pro ipso oretur, et sacrificetur, ejusque cadaver ho¬ norifice sepeliatur. Itaque excommunicatio, vel absolutio defunctorum, est potius decla¬ ratio sententiae, quae ferenda fuisset, si me¬ ritum eorum non latuisset, quam nova ali¬ qua poena, quae ad animas ipsas pertingat. Quod autem legitur in n. libro Dialogorum S. Gregorii cap. 23. de Sanctimonialibus a B. Benedicto excommunicatis, quae de se- pulchris exire videbantur, et de Ecclesia recedere, quando inter Missarum solemnia diaconus clamabat : Quji non communicant recedant : inter miracula referendum vide¬ tur. Voluit enim Deus eo signo demonstrare quanti faciendae sunt admonitiones sancto¬ rum. Nam alioqui S. Benedictus non eas excommunicaverat, sed solum excommuni¬ cationem minatus fuerat, ut_(S. Gregorius ibidem dicit. Praeterea non eas excommuni- cavit post mortem, sed in vita (si tamen ea excommunicatio dicenda sit). Neque eas proprie per sententiam postea absolvit, sed per intercessionem mittendo oblationem, quae pro eis Domino offerretur. At (inquies) S. Gregorius ibidem, ut ostendat, non esse mirum, si S. Benedictus potuit in carne mortali degens de spiritibus defunctorum judicare, allegavit illud Evangelicum : Quod¬ cumque solveris super terram , erit solutum et in coelis. Respondeo, S. Gregorium argu¬ mentum a simili ducere voluisse. Nam quem¬ admodum divina potestate sibi collata pos¬ sunt praelati cum sint homines in carne mor¬ tali degentes, judicare de rebus spirituali¬ bus , ita potuit S. Benedictus , in carne adhuc mortali degens, extraordinario privi¬ legio sibi collato a Deo, ligatas tenere, vel solvere animas earum, quibus dum viverent, Q) Joan, XXI, 17. CAPUT XIV. 53 excommunicationis sententiam fuerat com¬ minatus. Neque credibile est S. Gregorium S. Leoni repugnare voluisse, qui in epist. ad Rusticum, jam citata, disertis verbis docet, non posse ab Ecclesia solvi eos, qui commu¬ nione privati de. hac vita recedunt, cum jam sint in divino judicio constituti. Tertia qusestio est, quid significet illud (per modum suffragii) cum Pontifices di¬ cunt, indulgentias valere defunctis per mo¬ dum suffragii. Non desunt, qui existiment indulgentias prodesse defunctis per modum suffragii quia prosunt eis suffragia, id est, Missae, preeces, et alia pia opera, quae Pon¬ tifex injungit, cum indulgentias tribuit. Sed hoc non est indulgentias prodesse, nam etiamsi Pontifex ea opera non injungeret, valerent illa suffragia ad refrigerium de¬ functorum. Itaque frustra darentur indul¬ gentiae defunctis, si nihil adderent praeter valorem suffragiorum. Neque Pontifices di¬ cerent, indulgentias prodesse per modum suffragii, sed dicerent cum Hostiensi, indul¬ gentias non prodesse defunctis ut indulgen¬ tiae, sed sola vi suffragiorum adjunctorum. Alii existimarunt, indulgentias defunctis prodesse per modum suffragii, quia tametsi ipsae indulgentiae revera prosint , tamen prosunt per suffragia viventibus imperata. Pontifex enim applicat satisfactiones Christi et sanctorum ex thesauro tam viventibus, quam defunctis, sed viventibus applicat per opera ipsis viventibus injuncta , defunctis vero per opera eisdem viventibus imperata, quae opera, cum fiant nomine defunctorum, suffragia qua3dam defunctorum dici possunt. Sed neque haec sententia rationem idoneam reddit illorum verborum : neque enim hoc est indulgentias prodesse per modum suffra¬ gii, sed est prodesse per ipsa suffragia. Vera igitur sententia est, indulgentias prodesse per modum suffragii, quia non prosunt per modum absolutionis juridicae, sed per mo¬ dum solutionis, quo modo prosunt suffragia, quae vel publice, vel privatim pro defunctis fieri solent. Sed cum suffragia tribus modis defunctos juvent, per modum meriti de con¬ gruo, per modum impetrationis, et per mo¬ dum satisfactionis, indulgentiae autem non sint nisi satisfactoriae, intelligendum est in¬ dulgentias dari defunctis per modum suffra¬ gii tantum satisfactorii. Itaque quemad¬ modum cum quis dat eleemosynam, vel je¬ junat, vel peregrinatur ad Loca Sancta pro defunctis non absolvit defunctos a reatu poenae, sed offert Deo satisfactionem illam pro defunctis, ut Deus eam acceptans libe¬ ret defunctos a debito poenae, quam luituri erant, sic Pontifex non absolvit animas de¬ functorum, sed offert Deo ex thesauro satis¬ factionum , quantum necesse est ad eas liberandas : et Deus acceptans alienam satis¬ factionem communicatam animabus defun¬ ctorum, eas liberat a reatu illo poenae. Sed hoc interest inter suffragia, et indulgentias, quod ut suffragia offerantur, non requiritur aliqua jurisdictio, sed ut indulgentiae den¬ tur, requiritur jurisdictio, quia non potest thesaurum dispensare, nisi qui habet claves ecclesiasticas. Praeterea qui offert suffragia, nescit, an id quod offert sufficiat ad animam liberandam, vel solum refrigerandam : at Pontifex potest offerre ex thesauro illo infi¬ nito quantum requiritur ad satisfaciendum integre pro reatu cujuscumque poenae : et ideo dicitur dare indulgentiam plenariam, atque animas liberare per modum suffragii, quia offert quantum ad plenam satisfactio¬ nem satis est. Vide Cajetanum tract. 16. de Indulg. quaest. 6. etGordubensem quaest. 15. de Indulgentiis. Quarta quaestio, difficillima omnium, ea est, utrum ex justitia, sive certa lege, et ex condigno prosint indulgentiae defunctis, an solum ex benignitate Dei, et ex congruo. Aliqui docent, indulgentias ex condigno, sive ex justitia defunctis prodesse. Ita enim scribit Dominicus a Soto in 4. dist. 21. q. 2. art. 3, quem sequitur Navarrus de Jubilaeo notab. 22. num. 20. Ratio eorum est, quo¬ niam potest unus vivens pro alio vivente ex condigno satisfacere, igitur potest etiam vi¬ vens pro mortuo satisfacere ex condigno. Eadem enim est ratio utriusque satisfactionis, unio videlicet, quae est inter membra ejus¬ dem corporis Ecclesiae. Nam vivens pro vivente satisfacit ex condigno, quia sunt membra ejusdem corporis, glutino fidei et charitatis unita : at sunt etiam mortui, qui in purgatorio degunt, membra ejusdem cor¬ poris glutino fidei et charitatis unita. Quod si privatorum suffragia ex condigno defun¬ ctis prosunt, quatenus satisfactiones sunt, certae multo magis satisfactiones Christi et sanctorum iisdem mortuis fidelibus a capite Ecclesiae, id est a Pontifice Maximo applicatae proderunt ex condigno. Alii contra sentiunt, indulgentias, quae defunctis dantur, niti misericordia, et be¬ nignitate Dei, ac per hoc ex congruo, non ex 54 LIBER I. condigno eis prodesse. Ita docet Cajetanus tract. 16. quaestione 5. quem sequuntur Pe¬ trus de Soto lect. 3. de indulgentiis, et An¬ tonius Cordubensis ; quaest. 15. de indul¬ gentiis. Neque significare volunt hi auctores dubium, aut incertum esse dogma Eccle¬ siasticum de Indulgentiis defunctorum, immo affirmant, certum esse, et indubitatum, quod indulgentiae recte dentur , vel suscipiantur pro defunctis, quodque illis prodesse possint, et re ipsa prosint, vel ad refrigerium, vel ad plenam liberationem, sed quibus, quando, et quantum divinae pietati placuerit. Quo- * modo etiam pro mortuis recte fundi preces, eisque prodesse fides catholica docet, et tamen non est condigno, sed ex cougruo, non ex justitia, sed ex misericordia nos impetrare confidimus quicquid a Domino petimus, ut vel ex ipsa forma precum intel- ligi potest. Rationes hujus sententiae sunt hae. Prima, quoniam non videtur certum, posse viventes pro viventibus satisfacere ex condigno, quod erat fundamentum prioris opinionis. Contrarium enim docent Joan. Medina Cod. de satisfactione quaest. 5. et Cordubensis qusest. 5. de Indulgentiis. Unio enim fidei et charitatis, quo colligantur inter se viva membra Ecclesise, facit quidem ut possimus invicem adjuvare, et bona nostra communicare, et unus pro alio saltem ex congruo satisfacere, sed non videtur facere, ut teneatur Deus ex justitia acceptare unius satisfactionem pro altero, nisi ostendatur de hac re pactum, vel promissio aliqua ip¬ sius Dei, quamvis possit Deus, et soleat acceptare ex benignitate sua. Et confir¬ matur a simili, nam in foro externo non tenetur judex acceptare, ut unus flagelletur, vel ad triremes amandetur pro alio, etiamsi illi non solum sint conjuncti ut Christiani, sed etiam ut cives, vel ut consanguinei. Denique videtur esse proprium solius Christi posse pro aliis ex condigno, ut mereri, ita etiam satisfacere quoniam est caput corporis Ecclesiae , et dum pro nobis satisfecit : pro corpore suo satisfecit. Secunda ratio, quo¬ niam etiamsi certum esset, posse in praesenti vita unum pro alio ex condigno satisfacere : tamen non videtur eadem ratio de satis¬ factione pro defunctis ; hic enim possumus solvere poenas ejusdem generis, ut nostro jejunio, vel eleemosyna satisfacere pro alio, qui jejunii, vel eleemosynae poenam subi¬ turus erat : at poenae, quibus jam addictae sunt animae in purgatorio, sunt alterius ge¬ neris; et ideo sicut non tenetur judex remit¬ tere poenam corporalem uni alicui reo propter mulctam pecuniariam quam alius offert, ita non videtur teneri Deum ex justi¬ tia admittere satisfactiones hujus vitee pro remissione poenarum purgatorii , ad quas animae illae jam sunt addictae. Sed si id fiat, ut certo fieri credimus, ex benignitate Dei fieri credibile est. Tertia ratio, quoniam ipsae animae, ut ex historiis gravium aucto¬ rum colligimus, hoc ipsum declarasse viden¬ tur. Nam Petrus Damiani in epist. 5. ad Dominicum cap. 4. scribit animam Bene¬ dicti Pontificis Romani in purgatorio consti¬ tutam apparuisse, Deo permittente, cuidam, atque ab eo petiisse, ut suffragia pro ipsa fierent, et addidisse, se per ea suffragia liberandam, quando hoc miseratio divina decreverit. Petrus quoque Glumiasensis in primo libro de miraculis cap. 10. scribit animam defuncti apparuisse alicui, et postu¬ latis suffragiis adjecisse, per ineffabilem misericordiam Dei se liberandam , si ei per suffragia subventum fuisset, et cap. 27. scribit aliam animam similiter apparentem, et suffragia postulantem adjecisse, Condi¬ toris mediante clementia se per ea suffragia liberandam. Quod si suffragia nituntur pie¬ tate divina, et indulgentise defunctis non dantur, nisi per modum suffragii, certe sequi videtur, ut etiam indulgentiae ex divina pie¬ tate defunctis prosint. Ex his sententiis neutram reprobare au¬ deo, videtur enim prior admodum pia, po¬ sterior vero valde rationabilis. Quinta quaestio est, quid requiratur ad hoc ut indulgentiae defunctis prosint. Et quidem certum est primum auctoritatem requiri, eamque summam, id est, Apostolicae sedis ; non enim Episcopi, aliive Praelati summo Pontifice inferiores indulgentias de¬ functis concedere possunt, utNavarrus docet de Jubilaeo notab. 22. num. 4. quoniam solus Christi Vicarius habet potestatem dis¬ pensandi thesaurum Ecclesiae absolute. Episcopi enim solum possunt applicare sub¬ ditis suis, secundum mensuram sibi ab Apostolica sede determinatam. Secundo cer¬ tum est, requiri causam justam, ut S. Thomas docet in 4. distinet. 45. quaest. 2. art. 3. quaest. 2. Non enim potest Summus Pontifex pro arbitrio liberare animas a poe¬ nis purgatorii; neque sufficit pro causa,, utilitas illarum animarum, vel gloria Dei, quae redundaret ex animarum iilarum libe CAPUT XIY. 55 ratione. N am si ista sufficerent, Christus ipse jam omnes animas liberasset. Itaque requiritur causa aliqua particularis pertinens ad honorem Dei, et Ecclesiae utilitatem, si¬ cut de indulgentiis pro viventibus diximus ; ita ut Summus Pontifex arbitretur gratiorem esse Deo rem illam, cujus gratia indulgentiae conceduntur, quam executionem justitiae, quae exercetur in expiandis animabus pur¬ gatorii. Tertio requiritur, ut qui pro de¬ functis indulgentias suscipit, adimpleat opus injunctum, nam, ut S. Thomas loco notato, et alii Doctores scribunt, indulgentiae pri¬ mario et directe non dantur, nisi viventibus, qui possunt opera injuncta perficere : de- funtis autem dantur secundario, et indirecte quatenus viventes pro mortuis opera in¬ juncta perficiunt. Ex quo etiam requiritur, ut qui opera illa perficit, sit in statu gratiae, si opera ipsa id requirant, ut diximus supra de opere viventibus injuncto. Nam si opus injunctum id non requirat, probabiliter dici potest, prodesse defunctis indulgentias, etiamsi is, qui pro defunctis eas suscipit non sit in statu gratiae. Sed omnino tutius est, ut qui cupit mortuis indulgentiam obtinere, prius det operam, ut ipse indulgentiam a culpa per sacramentum Confessionis obti¬ neat. Quarto requiritur ex sententia Cajetani tract. 16. quaest. 5. de Indulgentiis, ut de¬ functus non solum sit in statu gratiae, et in purgatorii locis degat, sed .etiam, ut dum viveret, fuerit devotus clavium Ecclesiae, mortuosque suffragiis juvare studuerit, et pro suis peccatis satisfacere non neglexerit. Ita enim intelligit Cajetanus verba illa S. Augustini lib. de cura pro mortuis cap. 1. et in Enchiridio cap. 109. suffragia nonpro- desse omnibus mortuis, sed illis tantum, qui in hac vita meruerunt, ut sibi prodesse pos¬ sent. Sed haec Cajetani sententia, ut est uti¬ lis et pia, quia excitat viventes ad opera bona, ita videtur minus vera, et ab omnibus passim refellitur. Nam S. Augustinus locis notatis non excludit a suffragiis etiam parti¬ cularibus ullas animas ex iis, quae degunt in purgatorio, sed solum animas damnatas, ad aeternas poenas inferorum : dicit enim eas tantum esse capaces suffragiorum, quae dum viverent, id meruerunt, quia videlicet in gratia Dei et charitate perseverarunt. Gha- ritas enim est fundamentum communionis inter Ecclesiae membra, et non aliqua pecu¬ liaris devotio ad Ecclesiae claves vel aliquid hujusmodi. Postrema quaestio est , an indulgentiae prosint illis, pro quibus in particulari susci¬ piuntur, an omnibus in communi. Praepo¬ sitivus quidam antiquus auctor, ut refert S. Thom.-in 4. dist. 45, quaesi 2. art. 4. doce¬ bat, suffragia Ecclesiae semper prodesse de¬ functis fidelibus in communi, et illis magis qui liberationi propinquiores erant; atque ad hoc persuadendum adducebat similitudi¬ nem lucernae, quae si accendatur in aula regis pro ipso rege, non tamen lucet soli regi, sed omnibus, qui adsunt, et illis magis, qui habent oculos meliores. Adducebat quo¬ que similitudinem ex libro aliquo, qui forte legatur ad mensam regis, ex quo non mino¬ rem fructum percipiunt alii, qui adsunt, quam rex ipse, et nonnulli forte longe ma¬ jorem, quamvis proprie regi liber legatur. Quod praepositivus de suffragiis dixit, idem sine dubio de indulgentiis intellexit, quae ju¬ vant defunctos per modum suffragii. Sed responsio communis Doctorum est, tam suf¬ fragia, quam indulgentias prodesse omnibus defunctis , quoad gaudium quoddam acci¬ dentalium, charitas enim facit omnia com¬ munia in hoc sensu, quod omnes, qui sunt praediti charitate, gaudent de bonis aliorum, ac si propria essent. Sed quo ad satisfa¬ ctionem, et liberationem a poenis, suffragia Ecclesiae communia prodesse omnibus in communi, sed suffragia particularia, et in¬ dulgentias, quae pro certis animabus susci¬ piuntur, non prodesse nisi illis, quibus ex intentione viventium applicantur. Atque hoc esse verissimum, perspicuum est, primo ex ipsis Pontificiis concessionibus. Nam Pas¬ chalis I indulgentiam ita concessit, ut qui pro anima patris, vel alterius particularis personae defunctae tot Missas celebravit in cappella S. Zenonis, quae est in Ecclesia S. Praxedis, animas illas de purgatorii poenis eripiat. Item Alexander YI, Clemens VII, aliique Pontifices in constitutionibus de in¬ dictione jubilaei, disertis verbis dicunt, in¬ dulgentias illis anni jubilaei extendi per mo¬ dum suffragii ad animas patris, vel matris, vel alterius personae particularis pro quibus suscipientur. Secundo quoniam hic est sen¬ sus totius Ecclesiae, omniumque fidelium. Tertio quoniam S. Augustinus in lib. de cura pro mortuis, cap. 4. scribit, Ecclesiam suffragia quaedam communia transmittere ad animas defunctorum, ut quibus desunt particularia a consanguineis, vel amicis, non 'desint aliqua a communi Matre, quae 56 LIBER I. est Ecclesia. Quarto denique, quoniam nulla ratio est, cur satisfactiones uni alicui animae per intentionem satisfacientis applicatae, aut illi non prosint magis, quam aliis, aut aliis ullo modo prosint. Neque similitudines illae praepositivi aliquid efficiunt, non enim si¬ miles sunt indulgentiae, vel suffragia parti¬ cularia lucernae , vel lectioni , sed potius summae pecuniariae, quae ita datur in libera¬ tionem alicujus debitoris ab aere alieno, ut per eam non possint debitores alii libe¬ rari. I DE INDULGENTI IS