Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book II: Against the Adversaries of Indulgences
Chapter 19: Answer to the second part of the historical argument against 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 part of Chemnitz's history contains those times in which penances began to be redeemed. For Burchard writes, from the Roman penitential, that one who was to fast one day on bread and water could commute or redeem that fast if he recited fifty psalms on bended knees and fed one poor man that day; and that in the same way in those times it was permitted for other penances to be redeemed by others, or commuted into others. When these redemptions properly began is not so certainly agreed, but Burchard, who writes of them, flourished about the year of the Lord 1020. But mention of these redemptions exists also in the council of Tribur, canons 56 and 58, which council was held in the time of the emperor Arnulf, in the year 896. About these redemptions, then, Chemnitz says some things which seem to need discussion.
First, on page 323, he writes that around these times there was added to the works of penance the opinion of the work done; which he repeats several times below. And he calls the opinion of the work done that by which men began to believe that by these works satisfaction is made to God for sins, and that satisfactions of this kind are necessary not only for the sake of discipline, but also for appeasing God. In this matter Chemnitz errs twice: first in the name, then in the thing. For he does not understand what Catholic theologians meant to signify by the work done. For if he understood it, he certainly would not say that works of penance in the opinion of Catholics have their force from the work done. What, then, do Catholics call the work done? That which does not depend on the worthiness or holiness of the minister who does it, but has its force by the very fact that it is done, from divine institution. Such, for example, is baptism, which has the power of sanctifying from divine institution, and truly sanctifies even if it is conferred by a wicked and lost man. But works of penance, according to Catholic doctrine, accomplish nothing, that is, they do not appease God, do not satisfy for sin, do not expiate the guilt of punishment, unless they are done by a justified and reconciled man. Accordingly they have their force from the work of the doer, not from the work done, when they are not part of the sacrament of penance, but are freely taken up to appease God and to satisfy him for the guilt of punishment. But when they are part of the sacrament, then indeed they have force in both ways; but Chemnitz speaks of these works in the former way, and does not mean that in the opinion of Catholics they have it from the work done because they are part of the sacrament, but because they are taken up to appease God. So much for Chemnitz's blunder about the name. As to the thing, he has himself already cited, and reproved, Tertullian, Cyprian and Augustine, who wrote that works of penance appease God, and that by them sins are redeemed, healed, washed away, expiated; and we added other testimonies of Cyprian and Augustine by which it was proved that works of penance are necessary for satisfying God for sins, which otherwise must be washed out in the life to come by most heavy punishments in the fire of purgatory. It is not true, then, that in these times, that is, around the year of the Lord 1000, the opinion of the necessity and efficacy of satisfactions was added, since that opinion, or rather that certain faith, was always in the Catholic Church.
Second, Chemnitz adds that from those redemptions and commutations of penances there followed an enfeebling (for so he himself puts it) of true contrition, the overthrow of serious amendment, and a persuasion of impunity in offences. But it is strange why he says this, since those redemptions were most severe penances, and redemptions were permitted not of all penances but only of some; and if the ancient Fathers rightly at times relaxed and remitted the penances enjoined, why should it be counted a fault in the later Fathers that they judged the same penances could be redeemed by other more convenient ones, or commuted into other easier ones? Certainly among the Lutherans there is no need to redeem fasts with alms, since there are no longer any fasts appointed among them; nor do penitents need to ask by what works they may redeem the penances imposed, since Luther, their patriarch, wrote in the book on the Babylonian Captivity, on baptism, that all sins are swallowed up in a moment if faith stands or returns. But of these things we have often spoken.
But, says Chemnitz, in the council of Chalon under Charlemagne, as Burchard witnesses, there exists a canon against those who sinned deliberately, and promised themselves impunity in sinning on account of the giving of alms. Likewise against others who thought they could be purged of all sins if they went to Rome, or Tours, or other holy places under the pretext of prayer. Those canons do indeed exist, and were holily and prudently enacted against those who, without true conversion to God, indeed with the purpose of persevering in sins, thought it enough for them if they applied themselves to alms or pilgrimages. But these are the faults of men, not of the canons; for the canons which permitted redemption did not intend it to be done without a true purpose of leaving sins, or without true contrition and conversion to God.
Last, Chemnitz adds that from these redemptions of penances there gradually arose the modern indulgences, by which sins are said to be able to be redeemed through the undue works of the saints. But that this is false is manifestly plain from this, that indulgences, such as are now in use in the Church, are older than those redemptions of penances. For the redemptions began around the year 1000, or 900, and we have shown by most certain testimonies that indulgences such as are now in use existed long before the year 900, in the time of Sergius II, Leo III and Gregory I. Nor does Chemnitz bring forward anything else to prove what he says except his own conjectures, and those the flimsiest.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIX. Respondetur ad alteram partem 'argumenti historici contra indulgentias. Altera pars historiae Kemnitii continet ea tempora, quibus poenitentiae redimi coepe¬ runt. Scribit enim Burchardus ex poeniten- tiali Romano, cum qui uno die in pane et aqua jejunaturus erat , potuisse jejunium illud comiSutare seu redimere, si quinqua¬ ginta psalmos flexis genibus recitasset, et pauperem unum eo die pavisset, et eodem modo alias poenitentias aliis redimi, vel in alias commutari per ea tempora licuisse. CAPUT XIX. 95 Quando hae redemptiones proprie coeperint, non ita certo constat, sed Burchardus, qui de illis scribit, circa annum Domini 1020. floruit. Sed exstat etiam mentio harum re¬ demptionum in concilio Triburiensi can. 56. ct 58. quod concilium tempore Arnulphi imperatoris anno 896. celebratum est. De his igitur redemptionibus nonnulla Kemnitius dicit, quae discussione indigere videntur. Primum pag. 323, scribit circa haec tempo¬ ra, accessisse ad opera poenitentiae opinio¬ nem de opere operato : quod ipsum inferius aliquoties repetit. Vocat autem opinionem de opere operato, quo credere coeperint ho¬ mines, his operibus satisfieri Deo pro pecca¬ tis, et necessarias esse ejusmodi satisfa¬ ctiones non solum causa discipliuae, sed etiam ad placandum Deum. In qua re bis errat Kemnitius, primum in nomine, deinde in re. Neque enim intelligit, quid Catholici theo¬ logi per opus operatum significare voluerint. Nam si id intelligeret , certe non diceret , opera poenitentiae ex sententia Catholicorum vim habere ex opere operato. Quid igitur Catholici opus operatum vocant ? id quod non pendet a dignitate, vel sanctitate mini¬ stri operantis, sed hoc ipso quod fit ex divi¬ na institutione vim habet. Talis est, exempli causa, Baptismus, qui vim habet sanctifican¬ di ex divina institutione, et revera sanctifi¬ cat, etiam si ab homine improbo, et perdito conferatur. At opera poenitentiae ex Catholi¬ corum doctrina nihil efficiunt, hoc est, non placant Deum, non satisfaciunt pro peccato, non expiant poena? reatum, nisi fiant ab ho¬ mine justificato, et reconciliato. Proinde ex opere operantis, non ex opere operato vim habent, quando non sunt pars sacramenti Poenitentiae, sed sponte assumuntur ad pla¬ candum Deum, eique pro reatu poenae satis¬ faciendum. Quando autem sunt pars sacra¬ menti, tunc quidem utroque modo vim ha¬ bent, sed Kemnitius loquitur de his operibus priore modo, neque vult ex sententia Catho¬ licorum eam habere ex opere operato quia sunt pars sacramenti, sed quia assumsu- muntur ad placandum Deum. Atque haec de hallucinatione Kemnitii circa nomen. Quod autem ad rem attinet, jam ipse citavit, et re¬ prehendit Tertullianum, Cyprianum, et Au¬ gustinum, qui scripserunt opera poenitentiae placare Deum, et per ea redimi peccata, sa¬ nari, ablui, expiari ; et nos addidimus alia testimonia Cypriani, et Augustini, quibus probatum est necessaria esse opera poeniten¬ tia? ad satisfaciendum Deo pro peccatis alio qui in vita futura, eluenda esse gravissimis poenis in igne purgatorii. Non igitur verum est, his tem-poribus, id est, circa annum Domini mi¬ lesimum accessisse opinionem de necessitate, et efficacia satisfactionum, cum ea opinio, vel potius certa fides in Ecclesia catholica semper fuerit. Secundo Kemnitius addit ex illis redem¬ ptionibus, et commutationibus poenitentia¬ rum, secutam esse languefactionem (sic enim ipse loquitur) verse contritionis, eversionem seriae emendationis, et persuasionem impu¬ nitatis in delictis. Sed mirum est, cur hoc dicat , cum illae redemptiones gravissimae poenitentiae fuerint, et non omnium poeniten¬ tiarum, sed solum aliquarum redemptiones permitterentur ; et si veteres Patres rete interdum relaxabant, ac remittebant injun¬ ctas poenitentias, cur vitio verti debet poste¬ rioribus Patribus, quod easdem poenitentias aliis commodioribus redimi, vel in alias faci¬ liores commutari posse censuerint ? Certe apud Lutheranos non opus est redimere jeju¬ nia eleemosynis, cum nulla sint amplius apud eos indicta jejunia ; nec poenitentibus opus est quaerere quibus operibus redimant impositas poenitentias, cum Lutherus, eorum Patriarcha, scripserit in lib. de captivit. Ba¬ bylonica ; de Baptismo, omnia peccata in momento absorberi, si stet, vel redeat fides. Sed de his saepe diximus. At, inquit, Kemnitius, in concilio Cabilo- nensi sub Carolo Magno, teste Burchardo, exstat canon contra eos, qui de industria pec¬ cabant,' et propter eleemosynarum largitio- nemimpunitatem peccandisibi promittebant. Item contra al os, qui putabant, se a pecca¬ tis omnibus posse purgari, si Romam, vel Turonum, aut alia sancta loca sub praetextu orationis pergerent. Exstant quidem isti ca¬ nones, et sancte, prudenterque statuti sunt adversus eos, qui sine vera conversione ad Deum, imuio cum proposito perseverandi in peccatis, satis sibi esse ducebant, si eleemo¬ synis, vel peregrinationibus operam darent. Sed haec vitia sunt hominum non canonum, neque enim canones, qui redemptionem per¬ mittebant, volebant fieri sine vero proposito dimittendi peccata, vel sine vera contritio¬ ne, et conversione ad Deum. Postremo adjungit Kemnitius, ex his red¬ emptionibus poenitentiarum paulatim ortas esse modernas indulgentias, quibus per o- pera indebita sanctorum peccata redimi LIBE» II. 90 posse dicuntur. Sed hoc falsum esse mani¬ feste patet ex eo, quod indulgentia}, quales nunc sunt in usu Ecclesia}, antiquiores sunt redemptionibus illis poenitentiarum. Nam redemptiones illic coeperunt circa annum millesimum, vel nongentesimum, et indul¬ gentias quales nunc sunt in usu fuisse osten¬ dimus per certissima testimonia diu ante annum nongentesimum tempore Sergii II, Leonis III, et Gregorii I. Neque Kemnitius aliud profert ad probanda qua} dicit, nisi suas, easque levissimas conjecturas.