Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book II: Against the Adversaries of Indulgences
Chapter 12: Defence of the second argument of Catholics for 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).
The second argument of Catholics Chemnitz says is taken from those apostolic words in 2 Corinthians 2: “For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.” From which place the most ancient use of indulgences is shown, since the Apostle forgave the penitent Corinthian the part of his penance which remained for him to carry out. Chemnitz tries to refute this argument, and because solid reasons were lacking he digresses into an explanation of the history and of the Greek words, so that by stuffing in much from here and there he has at last filled six pages. Let us run through his objections.
First objection: “The Papists say that fault is remitted to penitents in absolution, but that after its remission satisfactory punishments are to be imposed, which they pretend are redeemed and relaxed through indulgences. But that Corinthian had by no means been absolved from his sins before; rather he had been secure and impenitent, and therefore delivered to Satan, so that by affliction of the flesh, public rebuke and grief he might be brought to penance. For Paul would not have delivered him to Satan if, penitent and believing, he had been absolved from sins.” Answer. The Papists do not say that after the remission of fault, that is, after priestly absolution, satisfactory punishments are to be imposed; but they say they are to be imposed before absolution, although they are to be fulfilled after absolution, unless they were fulfilled before. For it does not much matter whether they are fulfilled before the priest's absolution or afterwards, provided they are fulfilled in the state of grace, which state of grace can be obtained through true contrition and the purpose of making confession in its time. Indeed, in public penance satisfaction was ordinarily to be fulfilled before absolution, as is known from the councils cited above. Now that Corinthian, although at the beginning he seemed impenitent, yet after the public rebuke and excommunication came to his senses and began to do a most severe penance. And at that time without doubt he received the grace of God through true contrition, and by the doing of penance was satisfying God. But of this satisfaction, which still required a longer time, Paul forgave the remaining part, and ordered him to be publicly absolved and reconciled. For since the sin had been public, and the penance public, so also the reconciliation and absolution from sins and from excommunication had to be public.
Second objection: “Paul did not impose a public fine on the Corinthian, so that by those punishments and afflictions of his he might satisfy God for the sin of incest. Not a syllable of this can be proved from Paul; on the contrary the whole doctrine of Paul cries out that Christ by his passion, obedience and death satisfied for our sins, and was made our redemption. But Paul himself writes that the cause and end of that grief of the Corinthian was this, that it might work penance, and be a proof whether the penance was serious and true.” Answer. Although perhaps blessed Paul did not appoint the Corinthian a fixed time or kind of penance, yet by this very thing he imposed on him a public fine, that he ordered him to be separated from the assembly of the faithful and admonished to do penance. For it was known to the Church how those who did penance ought to conduct themselves. For in the ancient councils it is only said: let those who have committed this or that sin do penance for so many years, and it is left as known from what things penitents ought to abstain. But that by that doing of penance the Corinthian ought to satisfy God, and not only show the Church that he had seriously come to his senses, is clear from that phrase, in the person of Christ. For the Apostle says that he pardons in the person of Christ for this reason, that satisfaction was to be made to Christ, and the Apostle, as Vicar of Christ, interprets the will of Christ and by his authority forgives the remaining satisfaction. Besides, the same is gathered from the word, pardoned; for if the doing of penance had no other end than to show true repentance, that doing of penance was already finished, since it was more than sufficiently agreed among all that he had truly repented. What, then, did the Apostle pardon when he says, and what I have pardoned, in the person of Christ for your sakes I have pardoned? Surely these words plainly teach that something was pardoned and remitted to him of which he was a debtor, and which could justly have been exacted of him. But how one's own satisfaction does not conflict with the satisfaction of Christ has been explained above more than once. For we confess that Christ is our redemption, and satisfied for the faults and punishments of all men, but that his satisfaction is applied through various instruments, as through faith, through baptism, through absolution, through good works, through indulgences.
Third objection: “The pardon of which Paul speaks was absolution itself, or the remission of sins from fault and punishment. For he says he speaks of such a pardon as brings firm consolation to consciences, so that they are not swallowed up with sorrow, but have peace toward God, which happens when we are justified by faith, having received the remission of sins, Romans 4 and 5. He does not speak, then, of papal indulgences, which are given after absolution from fault.” Answer. I confess that the Corinthian, at Paul's order, received at the same time reconciliation, and absolution from fault and punishment, and also from the bond of excommunication; but I affirm that in that reconciliation was mixed an indulgence, that is, the forgiveness of the remaining satisfaction. For as I said above, it is not necessary that an indulgence be given at another time than the reconciliation. Yet that is false which Chemnitz says, that the Apostle speaks of that justification by which a man through faith is made just from ungodly and begins to have peace toward God, of which therefore Romans 4 and 5 speak. For that Corinthian had already come to his senses, and had conceived the greatest sorrow for his sin, and was doing penance out of love of God and hatred of sin, which cannot be done without faith, hope and charity. And so he was already justified before God through true penance and the desire of receiving absolution in its time, and there remained only reconciliation through the ministry of priests, which Paul ordered to be given. But that phrase, lest he be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow, does not signify that he had not been justified before God through true contrition, but signifies that there was danger that he would be worn out by excessive sorrow if the reconciliation were put off too long. And so he ordered that they console and refresh him, the remaining penance being altogether relaxed, so that he might be of good heart and thereafter run the way of God's commandments with greater eagerness.
Fourth objection: “It is a fiction, what some say, that Paul, for paying the debt of the incestuous Corinthian, took from the works of supererogation of the Corinthian church. For Paul cries out that the holy passion of Christ is the antilytron for our sins, and with great vehemence says, was Paul suffered and crucified for you?” Answer. There are none among Catholics who say that Paul took the price for the debt of the incestuous man from the works of supererogation of the Corinthian church. But since Catholics say that Paul, at the intercession, that is, the prayers, of the Corinthian church, forgave some part of the penance to the penitent Corinthian, Chemnitz so interprets it as if they had wished to say that the price of works of supererogation was offered. But these are impostures and fictions of his own, who finds it easier to refute arguments invented by himself than true ones.
Fifth objection: “It is not true that a fixed number either of days or of years of public penance was prescribed by Paul,” and so on. Answer. We do not say this, nor do we contend about this matter. It is enough for us that from Paul's epistle it is plainly gathered that the Corinthian was brought to do a most severe penance, and then, some part having been fulfilled, the rest was forgiven by the authority of the Apostle.
Sixth objection: “Lastly, it can only be pretended with the utmost impudence that that Corinthian gave money to redeem indulgences; it is most manifest, then, that that place of Paul, 2 Corinthians 2, in no way confirms papal indulgences.” Answer. If we said that it was necessary to redeem indulgences with money, and could not show that this was done by the Corinthian, then indeed Chemnitz's argument would accomplish something. But since we teach that it is not only not necessary, but not even lawful, to redeem indulgences with money, since by the decrees of councils and Pontiffs traffickings in indulgences are forbidden, with what impudence does Chemnitz infer that that place of Paul does not confirm papal indulgences, because we do not pretend money was given by the Corinthian to redeem an indulgence?
Last objection: “If indulgences rested on this Pauline place, it would follow that in the granting of indulgences Paul, or the Pope, could do no more than the other members of the Church. For Paul says, to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also pardon.” Answer. It does not follow that Paul or the Pope can do no more than the other members of the Church in the granting of indulgences. For the Corinthian church did what it did by the authority of Paul; as also at this time not only the Pontiff grants indulgences, but others too who have authority from him. Nor do those words cited by Chemnitz stand in the way, to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also pardon. For there follows, “For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.” From which it appears that Paul was the first who pardoned, then the Corinthians pardoned at Paul's order, and last Paul confirmed the pardon made at his order. Nor can Chemnitz deny this, although he now abuses those words for his purpose; for on page 243 he openly writes that the Corinthians did not dare to reconcile the penitent incestuous man, but referred the case to the Apostle. And so much for the second place.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XII. Defensio secundi argumenti Catholicorum pro indulgentiis. Secundum argumentum Catholicorum peti dicit Kemnitius a verbis illis Apostolicis 1[ Corinth. ii. Nam et ego quod donavi, si quid donavi . propter vos in persona Christi (1). Ex quo loco demonstratur usus indulgentiarum antiquissimus, cum Apostolus condonaverit poeniteuti Corinthio partem poenitentiae quae illi supererat peragenda. Refellere conatur Kemnitius hoc argumentum, et quia deerant solidae rationes digreditur ad explicationem historiae, et Graecarum dictionum, ut multa bine inde infarciendo sex tandem paginas impleverit. Percurramus ejus objectiones. Prima objectio : « Pontificii dicunt, poeni- tentibus culpam remitti in absolutione : post ejus vero remissionem imponendas poenas satisfactorias, quas per indulgentias redimi, et relaxari fingunt. Sed Corinthius ille n&- quaquam antea fuerat a peccatis absolutus.: sed fuerat securus, et impoenitens, atque ideo traditus satarim, ut afflictioue carnis, publica correptione, et contristatione ad poenitentiam adduceretur. Neque enim ip¬ sum Paulus satarim tradidisset, si poenitens et credens a peccatis absolutus fuisset ». Responsio. Non dicunt Pontificii post remis¬ sionem culpae, id est, post absolutionem sa¬ cerdotalem, imponendas poenas satisfactorias^ (l) 11 Cor. II, 10. Tom. VII. 0 82 LIBER II. sed dicunt imponendas ante absolutionem, quamvis post absolutionem adimplendae sint, nisi fuerint antea adimpletae. Non enim multum refert, utrum impleantur ante abso¬ lutionem sacerdotis vel postea, modo im¬ pleantur in statu gratia), qui status gratiae obtineri potest per veram contritionem, et propositum confessionis suo tempore facien¬ dae. Immo in poenitentia publica ordinarie implenda erat satisfactio ante absolutionem, ut notum est ex conciliis supra citatis. Porro Corinthius ille, quamvis initio impoenitens videretur, tamen post increpationem publi¬ cam, et excommunicationem resipuit, et gravissimam poenitentiam agere coepit. At¬ que eo tempore sine dubio per veram con¬ tritionem gratiam Dei recepit, et per actio¬ nem poenitentiae Ileo satisfaciebat. Hujus au¬ tem satisfactionis, quae adhuc longius tem¬ pus requirebat, partem reliquam Paulus condonavit, ac publice absolvi, et reconci¬ liari jussit. Quia en'm peccatum publicum fuerat, et poenitentia publica, ita etiam pu¬ blica, debuit esse reconciliatio, et absolutio a peccatis, et ab excommunicatione. Secunda objectio. « Paulus non imposuit Corinthio mulctam publicam, ut suis illis poenis, et afflictionibus Deo pro peccato in¬ cestus satisfaceret. Nulla syllaba hoc ex Paulo probari potest ; imo tota Pauli do¬ ctrina clamitat, Christum sua passione, obe- dientia, et morte pro peccatis nostris satis¬ fecisse, et factum esse nostram redemptio¬ nem. Causam vero, et finem illius contrista¬ tionis Corinthii Paulus ipse scribit hanc fuisse, ut ea operaretur poenitentiam, et esset Soxtvr, an seria, et vera esset poenitentia». Responsio. Quamvis fortasse B. Paulus non indixerit Corinthio certum tempus, vel spe¬ ciem poenitentiae, tamen hoc ipso imposuit illi mulctam publicam, quod jussit eum separari a coetu fidelium, et admoneri, ut poenitentiam ageret. Notum enim erat Ec¬ clesiae, quomodo gerere se deberent, qui poenitentiam agebant. Nam in antiquis con¬ ciliis solum dicitur : tot annis poenitentiam agant, qui hoc aut illud peccatum commise¬ rint, et relinquitur ut notum a quibus rebus se abstinere debeant poenitentes. Quod au¬ tem ilia actione poenitentiae Corinthius Deo satisfacere debuerit, et non solum ostendere Ecclesia) serio se resipuisse, perspicuum est ex illo verbo, in persona Christi. Ideo enim Apostolus dicit, se donare in persona Chri¬ sti, quia Christo satisfaciendum erat, et Apostolus, ut Christi Vicarius, interpretatur Christi voluntatem, et ejus auctoritate con¬ donat reliquam satisfactionem. Praeterea idem colligitur ex verbo, donavi, nam si actio poenitentiae non alium finem habebat, quam ostendere veram resipiscentiam, jam finita erat illa poenitentia) actio, quoniam satis superque constabat omnibus, illum vere resipuisse : Quid igitur donavit Aposto¬ lus, cum ait, et ego quod donavi, in persona Christi propter vos donavi. Certe haec verba manifeste docent aliquid ei donatum, et re¬ missum, cujus debitor erat, et quod ab eo juste exigi potuisset. Quemadmodum autem non pugnet propria satisfactio cum satisfa¬ ctione Christi, supra non semel explicatum est. Fatemur enim Christum nostram esse redemptionem, et satisfecisse pro culpis et poenis omnium hominum, sed ejus satisfa¬ ctionem applicari per varia instrumenta, ut per fidem, per Baptismum, per absolutio¬ nem, per opera bona, per indulgentias. Tertia objectio. « Condonatio, de qua Pau¬ lus loquitur, fuit ipsa absolutio, seu remissio peccatorum a culpa et poena. Dicit enim se loqui de tali condonatione, qua) conscien¬ tiis ad fert firmam consolationem, ut non absorbeantur tristitia), sed pacem habeant erga Deum, quod fit quando fide justifica¬ mur accepta remissione peccatorum. Rom. iv et v- Non ergo loquitur de Pontificiis indul¬ gentiis, queo dantur post absolutionem a culpa. » Responsio. Fateor Corinthium jussu Pauli simul accepisse reconciliationem, et absolutionem a culpa, et poena, et a vinculo etiam excommunicationis, sed affirmo, in ea reconciliatione admixtam fuisse indul¬ gentiam, id est, condonationem reliquae sa¬ tisfactionis. Nam ut supra dixi, non est ne- cessc, ut indulgentia detur alio tempore, quam reconciliatio. Illud tamen falsum est quod Kemnitius dicit, Apostolum loqui de illa justificatione, qua homo per fidem ex impio fit justus, et pacem ad Deum habere incipit, de qua igitur ad Rom. iv et v. Nam Corinthius ille jam resipuerat, et dolorem maximum de peccato suo conceperat, et poe¬ nitentiam ex amore Dei, et odio peccati age¬ bat, quae sine tide, spe, et charitate fieri non possunt. Itaque jam coram Deo justifi¬ catus erat per veram poenitentiam, et desi¬ derium absolutionis suo tempore recipiendae, et solum restabat reconciliatio per ministe¬ rium sacerdotum, quam Paulus dari jussit. Illud autem ; ne abundantiori tristitia absor- CAPUT XIII. beretur, non significat illum non luisse co¬ ram Deo justificatum per veram contritio¬ nem : sed significat periculum fuisse, ne ni¬ mia tristitia conficeretur, si nimis diu recon¬ ciliatio differretur. Itaque jussit, ut eum consolarentur, et recrearent, relaxata om¬ nino reliqua poenitentia, ut bono animo es¬ set, et majori alacritate deinceps curreret viam mandatorum Dei. Quarta objectio. « Factum est, quod di¬ cunt quidam, Paulum pro solvendo debito Corinthii incestuosi accepisse ex operibus supererogationis Ecclesiee Corinthiacae. Cla¬ mitat enim Paulus sanctam Christi passio¬ nem esse avr\XiTpov pro peccatis nostris, et magna vehementia, inquit, numquid Paulus pro vobis passus et crucifixus est. » Respon¬ sio. Nulli sunt ex Catholicis, qui dicant Pau¬ lum accepisse pretium pro debito incestuosi ex operibus supererogationis Ecclesiae Corin¬ thiacae. Sed cum Catholici dicant, Paulum ad intercessionem , id est , ad preces Ecclesiae Corinthiacae condonasse aliquam poenitentiae partem Corinthio pcenitenti , Kemnitius ita interpretatur, ut dicere volue¬ rint, oblatum fuisse pretium operum super¬ erogationis. Sed haec imposturae, et fig¬ menta ipsius sunt, qui facilius sibi esse du¬ cit, argumenta a se conficta, quam vera re¬ fellere. Quinta objectio. « Non est verum, certum numerum, vel dierum, vel annorum publicae poenitentiae fuisse a Paulo praescriptum etc. » . Responsio. Neque nos hoc dicimus, neque de hac re contendimus. Satis nobis est, quod ex epistola Pauli perspicue coi igitur, adduc¬ tum Corinthium ad agendam acerrimam poenitentiam, ac deinde parte aliqua adim¬ pleta, reliquam auctoritate Apostoli condo¬ natam. Sexta objectio. « Postremo non nisi impu¬ dentissime fingi potest , Corinthium illum dedisse pecunias ad redimendas indulgen¬ tias : manifestissimum igitur est, locum il¬ lum Pauli II Cor. ii. nullo modo confirmare pontiticias indulgentias. » Responsio. Si di¬ ceremus necessarium e.‘ Se, pecunia redimere indulgentias, et non possemus ostendere id a Corinthio factum, tunc sane aliquid effice¬ ret argumentum Kemnitii. Sed cum docea¬ mus, non solum non esse necessarium, sed neque licitum pecunia redimere indulgen¬ tias, cum decretis conciliorum, et Pontifi¬ cum nundinationes indulgentiarum prohi¬ bitae sint : qua impudentia Kemnitius colli¬ git, locum illum Pauli non confirmare pon¬ tificias indulgentias, quia non fingimus a Corinthio pecunias pro indulgentia redi¬ menda? Ultima objectio. « Si huic loco Paulino inniterentur indulgentia}, sequeretur in con_ cessione indulgentiarum non plus posse Paulum, vel Papam, quam reliqua membra Ecclesia}. Paulus enim dicit, cui condonatis aliquid, et ego condono. » Responsio. Non sequitur, non plus posse Paulum, vel Pa¬ pam, quam reliqua membra Ecclesise in con¬ cessione indulgentiarum. Nam Ecclesia Co¬ rinthiaca id quod fecit, ex auctoritate Pauli fecit ; sicut etiam hoc tempore non solum Pontifex indulgentias concecfit, sed etiam alii, qui ab ipso auctoritatem hahent. Neque obstant illa verba a Kemnitio citata, cui condonatis aliquid et ego condono. Sequitur enim, Nam ego quod donavi, si quid donavi^ propter vos in persona Christi. Ex quo ap¬ paret, primum fuisse Paulum, qui donavit, deinde Corinthios donasse jussu Pauli, po¬ stremo Paulum confirmasse donationem suo jussu factam. Neque hoc negare potest Kem¬ nitius, licet nunc abutatur illis verbis ad suum propositum ; nam pag. 243. aperte scribit, Corinthios non fuisse ausos reconci¬ liare incestuosum prenitentem, sed causam ad Apostolum retulisse. Atque haec de se¬ cundo loco.