Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book II: Against the Adversaries of Indulgences
Chapter 9: Answer to the first head of the disputation of Martin Chemnitz on indulgences
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. VII, De Indulgentiis et Jubilaeo, Book II, 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).
Martin Chemnitz, in the fourth part of his Examination of the Council of Trent, discussing the Council's decree on indulgences, which is found in the last session, sets up a very long, that is, in his usual way, a very wordy disputation on indulgences. This we undertake to refute in this place, and with God's good help we shall without great trouble uncover his frauds and lies, and briefly and clearly refute his arguments, if there are any of some weight. But at the outset I want the reader warned that I do not intend to waste time reciting the things which Chemnitz, to make his book fuller, copied out of the books of Catholics, which are very many, such as all the penitential canons which he brought forward from the councils, from Burchard and from Gratian, and other things of that kind. Likewise that I do not intend to repeat the refutation of other Lutheran errors, which are everywhere pressed by Chemnitz, although they do not bear on the present matter; for enough exists both in the books of other Catholics and also in ours, from which those errors are most fully confuted. Finally, that I do not intend to contend with words without necessity, nor to report and throw back the insults and abuse with which he everywhere bespatters Catholics (which would be endless), unless at times his excessive impudence forces us to say something. Two things only, then, I have set myself in this discussion of Chemnitz's disputation: to note what Chemnitz falsely charges to us, and to answer his arguments against indulgences clearly and solidly.
In the first chapter of his disputation, that is, page 213 in the Frankfurt octavo edition, Chemnitz sets out the state of the question, namely what it is that is taken under the name of indulgence in this disputation. Where there are many things wrongly said by him, to make the Catholic cause odious. “First he wonders why the Council of Trent, if it did not wish altogether to condemn and cast off papal indulgences, did not at least bury the mention of them, or suspend their approval, since it is known to the whole world, and even to the Papists themselves” (as he puts it), “that the impudent and impious traffic in indulgences was deplored and reproved by many learned and pious men.” But there is no reason for him to wonder. For the councils of the Catholic Church, such as Trent was, are not accustomed to change their doctrines every year, as the Lutherans do, nor to be carried about with every wind of doctrine. The old councils, the Lateran, Lyons, Vienne (as we showed above), approved indulgences and condemned the abuses which had perhaps crept in. The Council of Trent did altogether the same. Nor are corruptions in religious worship, if any creep in from the greed of wicked men, to be charged to the Catholic Church, especially when not only pious and learned men but the councils themselves keep watch against corruptions of that kind. Nor can Chemnitz be ignorant of this, since in this very disputation, page 332, he reports the decree of the Lateran Council, and page 345 the decree of the Council of Vienne, against the abuses which had begun to be mixed into the preaching of indulgences, and on the same page 213 recites in full the decree of the Council of Trent by which all superstitions and abuses are condemned and forbidden, and by name evil gains, from which the cause of very many abuses among the Christian people has flowed. But good uses are not to be taken away so that abuses may be destroyed, nor is the Church to be overturned from its foundations under the appearance of reformation, as the Lutherans and Calvinists strive to do. But he does not lie who says: “Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” Matthew 16.
Second, the same Chemnitz, page 218, says that in the opinion of Catholics the temporal punishment which remains to be paid after fault is remitted in the sacrament of penance is greater than can be paid off by any man in this life. But this he falsely charges to us, nor will he find any Catholic writer who says it. On the contrary, Catholic theologians teach that a justified man can not only satisfy God for the debt of temporal punishment, but can do so from condignity. See, besides the rest, Dominic Soto on the fourth book of the Sentences, distinction 19, question 1, article 4. Chemnitz ascribes these false doctrines to us so that we may seem to rest on false foundations when we teach that in purgatory punishments are paid by the spirits of the dead, and that indulgences have a place both in this life and in the next.
Third, in the same place Chemnitz says that Catholics teach that the divine justice exacts still greater punishments, to be paid in purgatory, even if the canonical penance is fully paid in this life. But it is most certain that this too is falsely charged to Catholics. For God will exact greater punishments only when the canonical penance enjoined is less than was fitting. But if an equal one is enjoined, as it plainly can be, and it is fully paid, all Catholics teach that nothing remains to be paid in purgatory, as may be seen in Saint Thomas and the other theologians on the fourth book, distinction 20.
Fourth, Chemnitz, page 219, says that satisfactions from the treasury of the Church are applied through indulgences to those who redeem them either with money or with other works, and that this is the doctrine of Catholics; and a little below he says that in the opinion of Catholics indulgences are dispensed to bidders and buyers. But these are sheer calumnies and impostures. The Supreme Pontiff is indeed accustomed to enjoin alms and other pious works when he grants indulgences, yet not so that indulgences may be bought (for that money does not come to the Pontiff, but to the poor), but so that the faithful of Christ may be exercised in good works, and so that by the generosity of some the want of the wretched may be relieved.
Fifth, on the same page Chemnitz says that in the opinion of Catholics the treasury of the Church consists of the good works of the saints which were not necessary to them for meriting and obtaining salvation, which are called works of supererogation; likewise of the sufferings of the same, which they had no need of for purging their own offences. But as this last, about the sufferings, is true, so that about works of supererogation is false. For there is no theologian who has written that meritorious works of supererogation are contained in the treasury of the Church. For those works, although they were of supererogation, still did not lack their own reward, and therefore no reason allows that they can be applied to others. Some indeed call the sufferings of the saints works of supererogation, as satisfactory works by no means necessary to them. But we dispute about the thing itself, not about the name. But these things are not invented by Chemnitz without cause. For he knows that the Lutherans greatly hate works of supererogation, so that they cannot bear even the word. From this, then, he thought that indulgences would be hateful and accursed by this very fact, if they were said to have flowed from the works of supererogation of the saints.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IX. Respondetur ad primum caput disputationis Martini Kemnitii de indulgentiis. Martinus Kemnitius in 4. part. examinis Concilii Tridentini, discutiens decretum con¬ cilii de indulgentiis, quod habetur in ult. sess., longissimam, id est, verbosissimam more solito de indulgentiis disputationem instituit. Eam nos hoc loco refutare aggre¬ dimur, ac Deo hene juvante non magno ne¬ gotio fraudes ejus et mendacia detegemus, et argumenta, si quae erunt alicujus mo¬ menti, breviter ct dilucide refellemus. Sed illud initio lectorem admonitum volo, nolle me tempus terere in recitandis iis , qum Kemnitius, ut librum suum pleniorem fa¬ ceret, ex libris Catholicorum descripsit; quae plurima sunt, ut canones omnes pceniten- tiales, quos ex conciliis, exBurchardo, ct ex Gratiano in medium attulit, et alia id genus. Item nolle me repetere refutationem aliorum errorum Lutheranorum, qui passim a Kem- nitio inculcantur, quamvis ad rem praesentem non faciant. Satis enim multa tum in libris aliorum Catholicorum, tum etiam in nostris exstant, unde errores illi plenissime confu¬ tentur. Denique nolle me verbis sine neces¬ sitate contendere, neque convicia, et contu¬ melias, quibus Catholicos passim aspergit, referre, et retorquere (quod longissimum esset), nisi aliquando nimia ejus impudentia nos cogat aliquid dicere. Igitur duo tantum in hac discussione Kemnitianae disputationis praefare mihi propositum est, ut notem quae falso Kemnitius nobis imponit, et argumentis ejus adversus indulgentias perspicue, solide¬ que respondeam. In primo capite disputationis suae Kemni¬ tius, id est pag. 213. in editione Francofor- diensi in octavo, statum quaestionis exponit, quid videlicet illud sit, quod nomine indul¬ gentiae in hac disputatione accipiatur. Ubi multa sunt, quaj perperam ab illo dicuntur, ut causam Catholicorum odiosam reddat. « Primum miratur cur Tridentinum Conci¬ lium, si pontificias indulgentias non prorsus damnare et abjicere volebat, non saltem ea¬ rum mentionem sepelierit, vel approbatio¬ nem suspenderit : cum toti orbi, atque adeo ipsis Pontificiis notum sit* (ut ipse loquitur) impudentem et impiam indulgentiarum nundinationem a multis doctis, et piis viris 74 LIBER II. deploratam, et reprehensam fuisse. » Sed non est cur miretur. Nam concilia Ecclesiae Catholicae, quale Tridentinum fuit, non co¬ lent dogmata quotannis mutare, ut Luthe- rani faciunt, neque circumferri omni vento doctrinae. Concilia vetera, Lateranensia, Lugdunensia, Viennensia (ut supra ostendi¬ mus) indulgentias approbarunt, abusus, qui forte irrepserant, condemnarunt. Idem omni¬ no Tridentinum Concilium fecit. Neque tri¬ buendae sunt Ecclesiae Catholicae, si quae irrepunt ex cupiditate pravorum hominum corruptelae in cultu religioso, praeses tim cum non solum pii, et docti viri, sml ipsa etiam concilia vigilent adversus ejusmodi corrupte¬ las. Neque id Kemnitius ignorare potest, cum in hac ipsa disputatione pag. 332. referat decretum concilii Lateranensis et pag. 345. decretum concilii Viennensis adversus abu¬ sus, qui in indulgentiarum praedicatione ad¬ misceri coeperant, et idem pag. 213. integre recitet decretum concilii Tridentini, quo damnantur, et prohibentur superstiLiones, et abusus omnes, et nominatim pravi quae¬ stus, unde plurimorum in Christiano populo abusuum causa fluxit. At non sunt tollendi boni usus, ut destruantur abusus, neque specie reformationis Ecclesia funditus ever¬ tenda est, ut Lutherani et Calviniani facere moliuntur. Sed non mentitur, qui ait : Tues Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ec¬ clesiam meam, et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam (1), Matth. xvi. Secundo idem Kemnitius pag. 218. dicit ex sententia Catholicorum temporalem poenam, quae remanet luenda post remissam culpam in sacramento Pcenitentise, majorem esse, quam ut a quoquam hominum in hac vita exsolvi possit. Sed hoc falso nobis imponit, neque ullum scriptorem Catholicum inve¬ niet, qui hoc dicat. Immo vero Catholici Theologi docent, non solum posse hominem justificatum satisfacere Deo pro debito pceme temporalis, sed etiam id posse ex condigno. Vide prmter eseteros, Dominicum a Soto in 4. sentent. dist. 19. q. 1. art. 4. Porro falsa ista dogmata nobis Kemnitius adseribit, ut videamur super falsis fundamentis inniti, cum docemus in purgatorio poenas dari a spiritibus defunctorum, et tum in hac vita, tum iti alia indulgentias locum habere. Tertio ibidem Kemnitius dicit, Catholicos docere, divinam justitiam majores adhuc poenas exigere, quse in purgatorio luendse sint, etiamsi canonica poenitentia in hac vita plene exsolvatur. Sed hoc etiam falso Catho¬ licis imponi certissimum est. Tunc enim so¬ lum majores poenas Deus exiget, quando poenitentia canonica injuncta est minor, quam par esset. Sed si injungatur aequalis, ut plane injungi potest, et ea plene exsolva¬ tur, nihil in purgatorio solvendum superesse omnes Catholici docent, ut videre est apud S. Thomam , aliosque Theologos in 4. dist 20. Quarto Kemnitius pag. 219. dicit, satisfa¬ ctiones ex thesauro Ecclesim per indulgentias applicari illis, qui eas vel pecunia, vel aliis operibus redimunt, atque hanc esse Catholi¬ corum doctrinam, et paulo infra, dicit, ex sententia Catholicorum, indulgentias licitan- tibus, et redimentibus* dispensari. Sed hse merse sunt calumniae, et imposturae; eleemo¬ synas quidem, aliaquc pia opera Pontifex Maximus solet injungere \C,um indulgentias tribuit, non tamen ut emantur indulgentiae (neque enim ea pecunia ad Pontificem, sed ad pauperes pervenit); sed, ut exerceantur in operibus bonis Christi fideles, et ut alio¬ rum liberalitate miserorum inopiae succur¬ ratur. Quinto, in eadem pagina Kemnitius dicit, ex sententia Catholicorum, thesaurum Eccle¬ siae constare ex operibus bonis sanctorum, quae ipsis ad promerendam, et consequendam salutem necessaria non erant, quae vocantur opera supererogationis : item ex passionibus eorumdem, quae ipsis ad propria delicta pur¬ ganda opus non fuerunt. Sed ut hoc postre¬ mum de passionibus est verum, ita illud de operibus supererogationis est falsum. Neque enim ullus Theologorum est, qui scripserit thesauro Ecclesiae contineri opera meritoria supererogationis. Illa enim opera, quamvis supererogationis fuerint, tamen suo praemio non caruerunt, atque ideo nulla ratio sinit, ut aliis applicari possint. Vocant quidem aliqui opera supererogationis passiones san¬ ctorum, ut satisfactorias ipsis minime neces- sa:ias. Sed nos de re ipsa, non de nomine litigamus. Sed ha?c non sine causa finguntur a Kemnitio. Scit enim Lutheranos valde odisse opera supererogationis , ut ipsum etiam vocabulum ferre non possint. Inde igitur existimavit, vel hoc ipso indulgentias fore invisas, et exeerandas, si ex operibus i (1) Mat. XVI, 18. CAPUT X. 75 supererogationis sanctorum fluxisse dice¬ rentur.