Chapter I. On Indulgences

1041. • Indulgence, as the word itself indicates, is the same as favor, condonation, mercy, remission. For an indulgence is the condonation of the penalty due to sins through the application of the satisfactions of Christ and the Saints; for Christ our Savior offered His satisfactions to God the Father for the full remission of our sins. These satisfactions of infinite value, to which are also added the satisfactions of the Blessed Virgin and the superabundant satisfactions of the Saints, are called the treasure of the Church, in which we participate through Indulgences.

Definition. An indulgence is the remission of temporal penalty due to God for sins remitted as to guilt, granted by a legitimate minister outside the Sacrament of Penance through the application of the treasure of the Church.

Division. An indulgence is distinguished in manifold ways:

1. Plenary or partial, insofar as the whole temporal penalty is remitted, or only a part of it.

2. Personal, local, or real, insofar as it is granted immediately to persons, for example, to a Confraternity; or is attached to some place, for example, a Church, Oratory, etc.; or is joined to some thing, for example, an Image, Cross, Rosary, etc.

3. Temporary or perpetual, insofar as it is granted for a determinate time or without any prescribed term.

1042. Principles. - I. The Church has true power to grant Indulgences. This is of Faith against the Protestants. For Christ, as is evident from Sacred Scripture, gave the Church full power of binding and loosing, both in the internal forum and in the external spiritual forum. Thus Christ Himself said to Peter, Matthew 16:19: Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Therefore He gave Peter, that is, His Church, the power of loosing whatever is bound, and therefore also the power of freeing from the penalty due to sins. To this is added the definition of the Council of Trent, session 25, Decree On Indulgences, where those who assert either that they are useless or that the Church lacks the power to grant them are condemned by anathema. It is further evident from the universal tradition and perpetual practice of the Church.

1043. • II. The Prelates of the Church alone have the power to grant Indulgences. For this faculty can belong only to those who have power over the mystical body of Christ and who can dispense the treasure of the Church.

Hence:

1. The Pope alone can grant Indulgences with respect to all the faithful, for he alone has jurisdiction over all the faithful. Suarez; Lacroix, no. 1317.

2. Bishops can indeed by common law grant Indulgences to their Diocesans. But their power is so restricted by the Decree of the Fourth Lateran Council, canon 62, that ordinarily they can grant only Indulgences of forty days, and on the day of the consecration of a Church, of one year.

3. A delegate can grant the same Indulgences as the one by whom he was delegated ¹. The reason is that acts of jurisdiction can be exercised through delegates, as is acknowledged by all.

¹ Understand this according to the measure which the delegating person has prescribed for the delegate.

4. Cardinals can grant Indulgences of one hundred days in the Churches of their titles; Nuncios, however, can grant to their subjects Indulgences of one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred days, but of less than one year. Lacroix, no. 1322.

5. Prelates inferior to a Bishop cannot grant any Indulgences; neither can Vicars General, except by express delegation of the Bishop; nor Capitular Vicars while the See is vacant; much less can Pastors. Lacroix, no. 1323.

1044. • III. Four things are required in the subject for gaining Indulgences:

1. That he be baptized, because the treasure of the Church cannot be dispensed to infidels; and that he not be excommunicated, because otherwise he is deprived of the communion of spiritual goods.

2. That he be a subject of the one granting ², as is evident from what has been said.

² Nevertheless, travelers are not excluded from Indulgences which have been granted generally in some place to those visiting a Church, altar, image, etc. Marchant, apud Diana, tome 4, tract 5, resolution 50, no. 4.

3. That he fulfill the works enjoined within the prescribed time, because Indulgences are granted under this condition.

4. That he be in the state of grace, at least when he performs the last prescribed work, because the penalty is not remitted unless the guilt has been remitted. St. Alphonsus, no. 433, etc.

1045. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Is the grant of an Indulgence made without cause valid?

Reply. Negatively. The reason is that the Prelates of the Church are only delegates of Christ for dispensing the treasure of the Church. But Christ cannot ratify the lavish distributions of His treasure made by prodigal dispensers. Furthermore, it does not belong to the faithful, nor to simple Priests, to judge concerning the sufficiency of the cause for which an Indulgence is granted; for they ought simply to judge it to be just. St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 532, etc.

QUESTION 2. Is venial sin an obstacle to gaining an Indulgence?

Reply. Negatively, unless the matter concerns an altogether plenary, or most fully plenary, Indulgence. The reason is that although the penalty due to this sin cannot be remitted, nevertheless the penalty due for other sins already blotted out can be remitted; for just as it is not repugnant that the guilt of some venial sin be remitted without the guilt of others being remitted, so neither is it repugnant that the penalty of remitted venial or mortal sins be blotted out, although the penalty for one or more venial sins remains to be discharged. Thus St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 534, etc.

1046. • QUESTION 3. Can an Indulgence which is granted as PLENARY be obtained at least PARTIALLY if there is an obstacle preventing it from being obtained in its entirety, for example, an attachment to some venial sin?

Reply. Affirmatively. The reason is: 1. because, from what was said in the preceding question, some unremitted venial sin does not prevent the penalty due for other sins from being remitted; 2. because the Supreme Pontiff, in granting a plenary Indulgence, is not presumed to will to restrict it only to those to whom all venial sins are remitted, but rather is deservedly considered to grant it according to the capacity of the subject, so that at least the penalty which can be remitted is remitted, namely, the penalty of remitted sins. For otherwise plenary Indulgences would often be of no benefit, since the faithful rarely cast off every, even the least, attachment to any venial sin and conceive sufficient sorrow for all venial sins in such a way that they obtain the remission of all. Hence it would come about that partial Indulgences were preferable to plenary ones, which is repugnant to common sense. St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 534.

Nevertheless, some teach that a plenary Indulgence is not granted except plenarily or most fully, as they say, so that it must obtain either the whole effect or none. But this opinion does not appear probable.

1047. • QUESTION 4. What is understood by Indulgences of ten or fifteen days, years, forty-day periods, etc., etc.?

Reply. According to the common opinion, there is to be understood a remission of as much penalty as formerly was remitted, or would have been remitted, through canonical penance of the same duration. Thus, for example, through an Indulgence of seven years, as much penalty is remitted as was remitted through a penance of seven years customarily imposed according to the ancient Canons. But how much canonical penances availed before God, and how much partial Indulgences of so many days or years now avail, is altogether unknown to us, because we do not know what proportion our satisfactions bear to the penalty due to our sins. Thus commonly.

QUESTION 5. Does one gain Indulgences who does not completely perform the work prescribed for them?

Reply 1. Negatively, if he omits a notable part of the work, such that according to moral estimation he does not perform it as to its substance; because he is not considered simply to satisfy the required conditions.

Reply 2. Otherwise, if he omits a very small part, because then the prescribed work is considered to be performed morally, or as to its substance. But a very small part must be taken relatively. Thus, in the Rosary, omission of one Pater and Ave seems very small; but it is otherwise if five Paters and Aves are required, because omission of a fifth part of the work is notable. Thus St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 534; Voit, no. 658, etc.

1048. • QUESTION 6. Can Indulgences be applied to the deceased, and how?

Reply 1. They can be applied if the following two conditions are present: 1. that they be specially granted in the Rescript of the Pontiff as applicable to them; 2. that there be an intention of making such an application. Thus all; Suarez, disputation 53, section 4.

Reply 2. Nevertheless, an Indulgence cannot be applied to the deceased by way of absolution, but only by way of suffrage, namely, by beseeching God that He may benignly will to accept such an application and apply it to the souls in Purgatory. The reason is that the Pontiff does not have jurisdiction over the souls of the deceased. Hence he cannot absolve them from penalties as though by a sentence. Thus Lacroix, no. 1336; Lugo, disputation 27, no. 58.

1049. • QUESTION 7. Does an Indulgence infallibly benefit the souls in Purgatory to whom it is applied?

Reply. It is disputed.

FIRST OPINION. It affirms. The reason is that Christ gave the Church infallible power by these words: Whatsoever thou shalt loose..., etc. But the grant of an Indulgence for the deceased is truly an act of the keys, since it proceeds from Apostolic authority; and a key always opens when the requisite conditions have been met. Therefore, an Indulgence is always efficacious and infallible for the deceased as well as for the living, provided the requirements are present. Thus Suarez.

SECOND OPINION. It denies. The reason is that there is no divine promise by force of which God is considered certainly to accept an offered Indulgence. Hence He appears to admit it for application according to His good pleasure alone. Moreover, the Church maintains the practice of celebrating Masses for many years and for the same souls, for example, anniversary Masses, even at privileged altars, or altars to which the privilege of a plenary Indulgence adheres. But that practice would be empty if they were freed immediately by the first Mass applied to them. St. Alphonsus, no. 534; Billuart, Appendix, article 6.

It is certain, however, that Indulgences benefit the deceased at least for the most part; for otherwise the Church would do something useless in applying them to the deceased, which certainly cannot be said without impiety.

1050. • QUESTION 8. Must a special application be made to certain determinate souls, or does a general application suffice?

Reply. A general application made to all the souls dwelling in Purgatory suffices, because suffrages are divisible and therefore can be distributed to all souls. This is further clear from the practice of the Church, which commands Masses to be celebrated for the deceased in general, especially on the second day of November. Likewise, when collections are made in Churches for the souls in Purgatory, the Masses to be celebrated from them must be applied for all in general. But if someone wishes to restrict his application, he must then specially determine certain souls. It is a pious practice by which Indulgences are applied to the souls needing greater assistance ³. Furthermore, let each follow his own devotion.

³ Piety is never lacking in any work by which the souls in Purgatory are aided. Furthermore, piety seems to shine forth more if, with the order of charity preserved, greater help is given to the souls of those to whom we owe more under some title.

QUESTION 9. Is the state of grace required for gaining an Indulgence for the deceased?

Reply. There are two probable opinions:

FIRST OPINION, the more common ⁴. It affirms, because no one can apply an Indulgence to another unless he first makes it his own; but one who remains in the state of mortal sin cannot make Indulgences his own. Therefore, etc. St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 534, calls this opinion more probable.

⁴ But Naldus, Summa, word Indulgence, no. 7, says that the negative opinion is more received; and those who prefer it certainly judged it more probable.

SECOND OPINION. It denies, because the work is performed only as a condition upon which, once it is fulfilled, the Supreme Pontiff applies the Indulgence, or the satisfactions of Christ and the Saints, to the deceased ⁵. Billuart, Suarez, Navarre, Toledo, Praepositus, etc.

⁵ According to Toledo, the reason is that the cause of satisfaction, or the price of the penalties, is not the work of the one who is in sin, but the Indulgence itself and the treasure of the merits of Christ and the Saints. But that particular work through which the Indulgences are applied is done in the name of the Church, in which grace is never lacking. An example is at hand in one who gives alms and sends them through the hands of a man existing in mortal sin; for the fruit of the alms is not lost from the fact that the one who executes the work is in sin. See Diana, tome 4, tract 5, resolution 36.

The VV. here object, page 948, no. 164, to the first opinion the words of St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 534, at Busembaum's resolution 10: This seems truer to me with Wigandt, because no one can apply an indulgence to another unless he first makes it his own. Then, ibid., they add in a Note: When St. Alphonsus calls some opinion truer, he no longer regards the other as probable.

Reply 1. St. Alphonsus did not say here that this opinion is truer, but, this seems truer to me; and the word seems is that of one opining, while opinion signifies assent with prudent fear concerning the opposite. 2. The names of Toledo, Suarez, Navarre, etc., for several others may be seen cited in Diana, both loc. cit. and tome 4, tract 1, resolutions 4 and 5, can bring it about that, with the reverence due to the Holy Doctor Alphonsus preserved, it is lawful without the note of temerity to doubt concerning this judgment of his, or better, opinion; especially since the authors of the opposite opinion easily answer the reason adduced by Wigandt by denying the supposition, namely, as though in the case the faithful first gain an Indulgence for themselves, or make it their own, and then yield or apply it to another. For from the fact that the Church herself thus applies the merits of Christ and the Saints, and that the work enjoined to the faithful is something like a condition, it is also argued therefrom that no one has considered it to be within our power to apply Indulgences to another living person; although, if someone truly makes Indulgences his own, no reason appears why he cannot yield them to another living person, or why the authority of the Church is necessary for applying Indulgences to the deceased, which authority is not necessary for anyone to apply to the deceased the satisfactory merit of fasts, alms, mortifications of the flesh, etc.

The first opinion is to be recommended as safer. Therefore the faithful are to be urged most strongly that, whenever they find themselves guilty of grave sin, they take care to be reconciled with God before they endeavor to make satisfaction for others ⁶.

⁶ The care of bringing it about that the faithful are reconciled with God is certainly excellent. But care must be taken at the same time lest, while a reason of this kind is urged more fervently than is fitting, an effect altogether contrary to the desire of the preacher should follow and souls be deprived of the suffrages of very many. Diana cries out to the contrary, loc. cit.: No one is excused when some indulgence is applied by the Supreme Pontiff to the deceased by way of suffrage if they do not take it for them. For, as was said, both the just and sinners can obtain it for the deceased.

1051. • QUESTION 10. Are CONFESSION and ABSOLUTION, even from venial sins, required for gaining Indulgences which are granted with the clause: CONTRITE AND CONFESSED?

Reply 1. Confession is certainly required notwithstanding the state of grace. The reason is that although confession is then not necessary for the remission of sins, nevertheless it is required as a condition, or a prescribed work. This is evident from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences approved by Clement XIII on 19 May 1759. Hence the probability of the opposite opinion, which formerly was defended by many theologians, falls. Confession can, however, be made on the vigil of the day on which the Indulgence is to be gained. Thus the same Congregation established. See St. Alphonsus, no. 534, etc.; Bouvier.

Reply 2. Absolution, however, is not required. This is evident from a recent Declaration of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences on 15 December 1841. See the work of Father Antonin Maurel entitled Le Chretien eclaire sur la nature et l'usage des Indulgences, page 64. This work was approved by a special decree of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences.

1052. • QUESTION 11. Is confession required as often as a plenary Indulgence is to be gained?

Reply 1. It is not required with respect to all plenary Indulgences, for there are several Indulgences for the gaining of which no confession is required. Such are the Indulgences granted for the exercise of the Way of the Cross.

Reply 2. It is required with respect to most plenary Indulgences. This is proved from the Rescripts of many grants.

Nevertheless, by a special indult granted in perpetuity, the faithful who are accustomed to confess once a week can gain all plenary Indulgences occurring during the week, provided they remain in the state of grace. Thus from the Decree of Clement XIII, 9 September 1763; and it is also confirmed by the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 15 November 1841.

Indeed, not a few Bishops, especially in France, obtain from the Roman Curia an extension of this privilege to every other week, or to those who confess twice a month.

Likewise, according to a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences approved by Pius VII on 12 June 1822, the faithful who are not accustomed to confess every week can make the confession necessary for gaining an Indulgence on a feast day eight days before the feast.

1053. • QUESTION 12. Can someone gain DIFFERENT Indulgences, or THE SAME Indulgences several times, on the same day?

Reply 1. As to different Indulgences, the faithful generally can gain them, at least if they are partial and attached to different works, or to the same works which can be repeated several times in a day. Thus commonly the Theologians, and this is confirmed by the practice of the Church and of the faithful.

Reply 2. As to the same Indulgences, this depends upon the mind of the Pontiff granting the Indulgences. Hence attention must be given to the letters of grant; and if these determine nothing, one must stand by the common interpretation and practice of the Church.

Thus the Indulgences of stations, or of the visitation of a Church, cannot be obtained several times on the same day, as is evident from a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences approved by Innocent XI. Voit, no. 653; Lacroix, no. 1370. On the contrary, it is lawful to gain several times in a day the several Indulgences attached to the Rosary and to each of its parts, or to the recitation of the acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity, etc., because in the Rescript of the Pontiff it is said: as often as.

QUESTION 13. Can someone gain several Indulgences by the same act or work?

Reply 1. Affirmatively, if the prescribed work cannot or is not customarily repeated on the same day, such as fasting, Communion, etc., and different Indulgences to be gained concur, for example, Indulgences of different Confraternities, or those attached to different Churches, granted under different titles and on the same day.

Reply 2. Negatively, however, if the Indulgences concur under the same title, for example, if someone has two medals, to each of which an Indulgence of one year has been granted with the burden of repeatable works; for then several Indulgences cannot be obtained together at the same time unless the enjoined works are repeated, because such is considered to be the mind of the one granting when he enjoins works which can be repeated. Thus with Voit, no. 655, etc.

1054. • QUESTION 14. Can several plenary Indulgences be acquired on the same day?

Reply 1. No one can gain a second Indulgence at the same time if, after the first, no penalty to be discharged any longer remains ⁷.

⁷ The reasons which were adduced by both parties to the dispute, see reply 2, manifestly show that those things which are said in this first response do not pertain to the matter.

Reply 2. Otherwise, affirmatively. This is proved by a recent Decision of the Sacred Congregation ⁸. Formerly it was disputed in the Schools. Some denied it, at least for the most part, because Communion, which is generally customarily prescribed for gaining an Indulgence, cannot be repeated on the same day. Others affirmed it, because Communion was not imposed as a work to be fulfilled, but rather as a condition necessary for gaining the Indulgence. But with the aforesaid Decision intervening, the entire dispute has been removed.

⁸ To the question, Can several plenary Indulgences be gained on the same day when the reception of the divine Eucharist is prescribed for each? the Sacred Congregation replied: Affirmatively, provided, however, that the other conditions imposed respectively are observed. 27 May 1841.

1055. • QUESTION 15. Is an intention required for gaining Indulgences, and if so, what kind?

Reply 1. An intention at least virtual is certainly required whenever an Indulgence is granted with a certain intention to be formed by the recipient; otherwise it would be null.

Reply 2. In other cases it is disputed.

FIRST OPINION, which seems more probable, teaches that a positive intention, at least virtual, is required. The reason is that the prescribed work must be directed to the end intended by the Church; but one who does not at least virtually intend to gain the Indulgence cannot accomplish this. Thus Billuart, Appendix on Indulgences, article 5. This, however, must be understood only when the matter concerns an end expressly prescribed by the Church.

SECOND OPINION. It holds that a habitual intention suffices. The reason is that of itself no intention is required; for the effect of the Indulgence, or the remission of penalty, depends wholly upon the grant of the Church and not upon the intention of the agent. Hence, although he conducts himself passively and does not attend to the Indulgence, indeed, does not know that he is gaining it when it accrues to him, nevertheless he obtains a right to it. For an Indulgence is granted by the Church by way of payment for the work performed; but for the validity of a payment it is not necessarily required that the one for whom it is made know of it.

In practice the former opinion seems to be recommended as safer and more efficacious for exciting pious movements of the soul. From another consideration, the use of probability does not avail in the matter of Indulgences ⁹, since not probability, but truth produces the effect. Furthermore, it is commonly admitted that an intention formed in the morning suffices for gaining all the Indulgences occurring during the day. Praiseworthy and most useful is the practice of pious souls who always renew in the morning the intention of gaining all the Indulgences attached to the good works which they will perform on that day. Lacroix, etc.

⁹ Others will easily deny this. For it is a very well-known principle that, whenever probable opinions concerning matters situated within the power of the Church are advanced and put into practice, she supplies, wherever there is need, that which pertains to the validity of acts. Now in the present matter, see Diana, tome 4, tract 5, resolution 18, both parties to the dispute have recourse to the mind and will of the Roman Pontiff granting the Indulgences. For those who contend that the performance of the work does not suffice give as their reason that such does not appear to be the intention of the Pope; and conversely those who contend that the performance of the work suffices prove this because it is not to be thought that the Supreme Pontiff requires in one gaining an Indulgence an actual intention, actual being opposed to habitual and interpretative, because neither does the nature of an Indulgence necessarily demand it, nor do the words of the grant signify it, etc. See Laymann, book 5, tract 7, chapter 6, no. 5.

Furthermore, the reason adduced for the first opinion, as the Author says it is to be

1056. • QUESTION 16. If a faculty is granted to commute the works enjoined for gaining Indulgences, must the commutation necessarily be made in confession?

Reply. Affirmatively. For one must stand by the rule handed down by Benedict XIV, Constitution Inter praeteritos, section 63, where he establishes that commutations of this kind must be made in confession alone.

For, after recalling the controversy concerning the commutation of vows, absolution from censures, and the power of dispensing in other matters, or of commuting the prescribed works, namely, whether all these things must be done by the Confessor in the act of sacramental confession or not, he concludes thus: But We, in order to remove every difficulty, have enjoined in the instruction, Constitution Convocatis, that no absolutions, commutations, or dispensations can be given by penitentiaries outside the act of sacramental confession. This has seemed to Us both congruous and fitting to the gravity of the matter and the quality of the ministry; it removes every occasion of controversy and is conformable to the practice of Our Apostolic Penitentiary ¹⁰.

¹⁰ Benedict XIV, as is clear, speaks here of faculties granted and of the manner of using them on the occasion of the Jubilee of 1750; he does not establish a general law. Hence, in the Instruction which he had handed down in the Constitution Convocatis, and which he expressly indicates in this place, he imposed for the use of the granted faculties not only this condition but other conditions at the same time, which surely no one has judged should be held as general laws. Let them understand, he says in sections 24 and 25, that they cannot use peculiar faculties of this kind granted to them by Us, as above, for this Holy Year, except with those penitents who sincerely and seriously will to obtain the present Jubilee of the same Holy Year... Let them further observe that the aforesaid absolutions, commutations, and dispensations cannot be exercised by them outside the act of sacramental Confession, NOR OUTSIDE EACH ONE'S OWN BASILICA OR CHURCH.... Therefore let us conclude that commutations, etc., must necessarily be made in Confession only when a condition of this kind is expressly provided in the grant of the faculty.

1057. • QUESTION 17. Can deaf-mutes gain Indulgences to which vocal prayers are attached, and if so, how?

Reply. Formerly they could not gain these Indulgences, since they could not satisfy the required conditions. But by the benign understood, leads rather to the second opinion. For he establishes that only that end must be intended which the Church expressly prescribes. But the Church certainly has never expressly prescribed that the faithful have the intention of gaining an Indulgence. Therefore. But if the Church sometimes prescribes that the faithful pray for this or that end, for example, that God may deign to humble the enemies of Holy Church, this pertains to the work enjoined, not to the intention of enjoying the gain of the Indulgence. Hence it can happen that someone directs prayers to that end, but neither thinks nor knows anything concerning the gain of the Indulgence. grant of Pius IX on 15 March 1832, they can enjoy this benefit, provided they observe the following: 1. if some Church is to be visited, it will suffice if, in approaching it, deaf-mutes pray to God in mind and affection; 2. if public prayers are to be offered, nothing else is required of them except that they unite themselves with the assembled faithful with a pious mind; 3. if private prayers are to be recited, they can obtain from a Confessor a commutation into any other pious works. See the newspaper L'Univers, 1 February 1854; L'Ami de la Religion, 2 February 1854.

1058. • QUESTION 18. Are Indulgences lost if a movable thing to which they are attached is handed over to another?

Reply 1. Affirmatively, if ownership of that thing is transferred to another. The reason is that the Church intends to grant the Indulgences only to the person for whom some thing was blessed, or to the first person who uses it. The Church most wisely established this to forestall abuses which otherwise would creep in if Indulgences could be transferred and given from one person to another.

Reply 2. Negatively, however, if ownership of the thing is not transferred by the handing over, that is, if the thing is delivered to another only on loan, provided nevertheless that the lender does not intend to grant the borrower the benefit of the Indulgence. This is proved from the Decision of the Sacred Congregation, 26 November 1714. Gousset, no. 906, etc.

QUESTION 19. To what things can Indulgences be applied?

Reply. Indulgences can be applied to any solid things whatsoever, not even iron or wood being excepted, as formerly. Even a chaplet made of solid glass can be blessed with the Indulgences attached. Therefore, only things which can easily be broken or torn, such as paper, blown glass, etc., must be excepted. This is evident from a recent Decision of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences. Father Maurel, work cited, page 184.

1059. Resolutions. - 1. A Bishop can grant Indulgences to his subjects staying outside his Diocese, because he has personal jurisdiction over them. Bishops, however, can grant Indulgences only by way of absolution, and therefore for the living alone. Thus commonly.

2. Anyone can gain Indulgences for any other living Christian by way of payment or satisfaction; for although the fruit of merit is not applicable to another, nevertheless the fruit of satisfaction is applicable, provided that the other person is in the state of grace. But for this a special intention of gaining the Indulgence determinately for that person is required. The application of satisfaction can be made for one who is ignorant, does not request it, or is absent, etc. Thus Suarez, Lugo, Lacroix, no. 1327, etc. ¹¹.

¹¹ Croix does not assert that absolutely anyone can, at his own discretion, apply to any other living Christian those Indulgences which he himself can gain; rather, as is evident from the following no. 1329, book 6, part 2, he admits this when the Pope has expressly granted that some Indulgence can be applied to another living person, as is customarily done for the deceased; this, however, is not customarily done.

Suarez also supposes the same thing, writing thus, On Penance, disputation 52, section 8, no. 6: If the form of the Indulgence is only that one who does this or that obtains such a remission, then the Indulgence cannot be applied to another, because an Indulgence effects no more than it expresses. Hence, just as it does not extend beyond the quantity expressly granted, so neither does it extend beyond the persons expressed. Likewise... because an effect granted ex opere operato in favor of one who performs such a work can never be applied to another by that person's will unless this very thing is expressed in the grant, because it is as it were a personal privilege.... But if the very form and tenor of the Indulgence is expressed such that the one acting thus can obtain such a fruit either for himself or for another, then there is no doubt that one can act for another to gain that Indulgence.

Lugo speaks thus concerning the same matter, On Penance, disputation 27, no. 77: A just man could, from the same faculty of the Pontiff, gain an Indulgence for other baptized persons, whoever they might be. Commonly, however, the faculty of gaining an Indulgence for other living persons is not granted, because, since they themselves can also assist themselves, it is not expedient to foster their sloth, so that they take care neither to make satisfaction nor even to gain Indulgences for themselves.

3. Indulgences attached to some thing are not lost unless that thing has been completely changed so that it can no longer be called the same thing; for example, if a Church were entirely or almost completely demolished, the Indulgences adhering to it would cease. They are not lost if it is totally renewed through successive repairs, since it would remain morally the same. Therefore, neither does a chaplet which is successively repaired lose its Indulgences, although its beads have from time to time been completely renewed in parts. Gousset, no. 905.

4. Indulgences do not expire by the death of the one granting, since they are favors, nor before knowledge of their revocation. Indulgences are to be accepted as they read; nevertheless, since they are favors, they are to be interpreted broadly, while the proper meaning of the words is nevertheless preserved. Hence they are to be considered perpetual if they were given without a restriction of time. St. Alphonsus, no. 524.

1060. • 5. An Indulgence granted for the point of death does not require the application of a Confessor or the ministry of another. Nevertheless, it is expedient that the dying frequently invoke the names of Jesus and Mary and that the gaining of the Indulgence be recalled to their minds.

6. If a dying person has several blessed Images, Crosses, Medals, or Rosaries, he can gain an Indulgence toties quoties, as often as he repeats the name of Jesus or performs the required work, at least more probably, whether the Indulgences proceed from the same grant or from different grants. Nevertheless, any time during which the point of death is verified suffices for gaining them, even if death follows only several days afterward. Thus St. Alphonsus, ibid.; Suarez, etc. Dying persons can likewise gain several Indulgences under the title of various Confraternities, even if they are ignorant of them or do not remember them. St. Alphonsus, ibid.

7. It is required, however, that the dying person have with him the things to which the Indulgences are attached, namely, Rosaries, Crosses, etc. Nevertheless, it is not necessary that he have these suspended from his neck or wrapped around his arm, as is customary to be done for the deceased, or grasped in his hand; but it suffices that these things be in the bed or suspended near the dying person, although he neither sees nor touches them, nor knows or remembers that he has them. St. Alphonsus, no. 534.

8. Although it is expedient that all the works be performed in the state of grace, nevertheless this is not necessary according to the common opinion; rather, it suffices that the last work be performed in grace. St. Alphonsus, ibid.