Article — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
Article I. On The Nature And Division Of Indulgences
539. Nominal definition. Indulgentia is so called from indulgere and signifies nothing other than the remission of one's own right in favor of another, or the condonation of some fine to be exacted. The name indulgence was already known in the time of St. Thomas; but in patristic times other names were customarily employed, for example, peace, condonation, reconciliation, and so forth.
540. Real definition. An indulgence is the remission before God of the temporal punishment due, actual sin having been remitted as regards guilt, made outside the sacrament of penance by a legitimate superior through the application of the treasury of the Church.4
It is explained: a) The remission of temporal punishment, but not of guilt, whether mortal or venial. Hence it is a pure and rank calumny if certain non-Catholics babble that, according to Catholic doctrine, any sins whatever, even future ones, are remitted through indulgences. What is related concerning Tetzel, as though he had sold indulgences for future sins, is a fable already exploded a hundred times and nevertheless revived again and again by malicious or overly credulous men.5 Nor is it an objection that in certain Apostolic Letters indulgences are said to be granted for the remission of sins. For the name sin is sometimes taken for the punishment due to sin. Thus, for example, it is said: "Him [Christ], who knew no sin, he made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in him."6 Therefore, if indulgences are granted for the remission of sins, this signifies nothing other than for the remission of the punishment due to sins. Eternal punishment is always remitted with the guilt of sin; hence an indulgence is not granted even for the remission of eternal punishment. The punishments which are due to original sin are remitted by the sacrament of baptism; and therefore an indulgence destroys only temporal punishments due for actual sins. These punishments, however, it truly remits before God and not merely in the forum of the Church. Therefore Leo X proscribed proposition 19 of Luther: "Indulgences, for those who truly obtain them, do not avail for the remission before divine justice of the punishment due for actual sins."7 Pius VI condemned proposition 40 of the Synod of Pistoia: "The proposition asserting that an indulgence according to its precise notion is nothing other than the remission of a part of that penance which had been established by the canons for the sinner, as though an indulgence beyond the bare remission of canonical punishment does not also avail for the remission before divine justice of the temporal punishment due for actual sins: false, rash, injurious to the merits of Christ, long ago condemned in article 19 of Luther."8 St. Thomas9 already rightly observed that, if indulgences liberated only from ecclesiastical punishments and not from punishments to be discharged before God and in the other life, they would do more harm than good, and the Church would deceive the faithful in a matter of grave importance. For by exempting them from the lighter punishments of this life, she would send them to the far more bitter punishments of purgatory, relaxation from which they would have obtained through the punishments of this life. Furthermore, indulgences would then be useless for the souls in purgatory, which are no longer bound to canonical punishments.
b) Made outside the sacrament of penance by a legitimate superior. In the sacrament of penance not only guilt and eternal punishment are remitted, but temporal punishment also, at least in part. But since it is certain by faith that when guilt is remitted the whole temporal punishment is not always remitted at the same time,10 other remedies against the remaining punishment must be present. These remedies are: 1. sacramental satisfaction; 2. works of mortification freely undertaken; 3. the hardships and miseries of this life sent by God and patiently endured by man; 4. indulgences. But if a man has not by these remedies satisfied for the punishments due in this life, he must suffer in purgatory until the entire punishment has been destroyed. That the Church possesses the power of conferring indulgences will be proved in the following article.
4 Cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 911.
5 Cf. N. Paulus, Johann Tetzel, der Ablaßprediger, p. 130 ff. The same author also explains well what the so-called confessionalia were, and the indulgences from punishment and from guilt formerly granted by the Supreme Pontiffs.
6 2 Cor. 5:21.
7 Denz., n. 759.
8 Denz., n. 1540.
10 Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 8 and cann. 12 and 15 (Denz., nn. 904, 922a, 925).
541. c) Through the application of the treasury of the Church. The treasury of the Church, as we speak of it here, is nothing other than the accumulation of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints which the Church can dispense. This treasury has two foundations, namely, the communion of saints and vicarious satisfaction. That the communion of saints exists in the Church is a dogma of faith; and therefore a threefold Church is customarily distinguished: the Church militant, the Church suffering, and the Church triumphant. The communion of saints is that most intimate bond uniting all members of the Church into one body. St. Paul speaks beautifully and concisely of this union, concluding with these words: "Now you are the body of Christ and members of member."11 Hence the Roman Catechism12 says: "Whatever things are piously and holily undertaken by one belong to all, and that they may profit them is effected by charity, which seeks not the things that are its own." Upon this radical foundation of the communion of saints another is built, namely, vicarious satisfaction. For since so intimate a union exists among the individual members of the Church, one member of her can satisfy for another.
It must be noted that a supernaturally good work produces a threefold fruit: meritorious fruit, impetratory fruit, and satisfactory fruit. A work is meritorious insofar as it proceeds from charity; it is impetratory insofar as there is joined with it a petition to obtain something from God; finally, it is satisfactory insofar as it is done with a certain burdensomeness. Meritorious fruit properly so called is inalienable, according to the saying: "And every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor."13 Nothing prevents it, however, from being said that one person can merit something for another by merit of congruity. Therefore St. Thomas teaches:14 "By merit of congruity someone can merit the first grace for another; because when a man constituted in grace fulfills the will of God, it is congruous according to the proportion of friendship that God fulfill the will of the man in the salvation of another, although sometimes there can be an impediment on the part of him whose justification some saint desires."
That one person can impetrate something from God for another is clear of itself, since so many prayers are made in the Church for the conversion of sinners, for the souls in purgatory, for benefactors, for enemies, and so forth.
That satisfactory fruit can be communicated to another is clear from Sacred Scripture, from the unanimous doctrine of theologians, and from the example of the ancient martyrs. St. Paul admonishes: "Bear ye one another's burdens,"15 and says of himself: "I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ in my flesh for his body, which is the Church."16 From among the doctors of the Church, let us hear St. Thomas alone:17 "What we do through friends we appear to do through ourselves, because friendship makes one from two through affection, and especially the love of charity; and therefore, just as through himself, so also through another can someone satisfy God, especially when there is necessity. For someone also regards the punishment which a friend suffers on his account as though he himself were suffering it, and thus punishment is not lacking to him while he suffers together with his suffering friend, and all the more insofar as he himself is the cause of his suffering. And again, the affection of charity in him who suffers for a friend makes the satisfaction more acceptable to God than if he suffered for himself; for the former belongs to ready charity, but the latter to necessity. From this it is gathered that one person can satisfy for another, provided that both are in charity." In the ancient Church, martyrs and confessors were able to remit to penitents part of their penance, insofar as their tortures were regarded as satisfactions for the punishments due to sinners.18
From what has been said it is clear that the whole doctrine concerning indulgences is founded upon these three principles: 1. There exists a most intimate union among the diverse members of the mystical body of Christ. 2. Vicarious satisfaction exists. 3. There exist superabundant satisfactions of Christ and the saints which are contained in the treasury of the Church, from which indulgences are imparted to the individual members.
11 1 Cor. 12:27.
12 Part I, c. 10, q. 20.
13 1 Cor. 3:8.
14 S. theol. 1, 2, q. 114, a. 6.
15 Gal. 6:2.
16 Col. 1:24.
17 Summa c. gent. 3, 158; cf. also Quodl. 2, a. 16 and Suppl., q. 25, a. 1.
18 Cf. Tertullian, Ep. ad martyres, c. 1 (Migne, Patr. lat. 1, 621).
542. The doctrine of St. Thomas concerning the nature of indulgences. Since not a few non-Catholic authors think that the doctrine concerning indulgences was invented at the time of the pseudo-Reformation, it is worthwhile to attend to those things which St. Thomas handed down concerning indulgences; for in a few words he comprehends the whole doctrine, and all Catholic theologians have embraced the same doctrine. The Angelic Doctor teaches:19 "[Indulgences] avail both as regards the forum of the Church and as regards the judgment of God for the remission of punishment remaining after contrition, confession, and absolution, whether it be enjoined or not. The reason why they can avail is the unity of the mystical body, in which many have supererogated in works of penance beyond the measure of their debts, and many also have patiently endured unjust tribulations, through which a multitude of punishments could have been expiated if they had been due to them; of whose merits there is so great an abundance that they exceed all the punishment due to those now living; and especially on account of the merit of Christ, which, although it operates in the sacraments, nevertheless its efficacy is not enclosed in the sacraments, but by its infinity exceeds the efficacy of the sacraments. But it was said above20 that one person can satisfy for another. The saints, however, in whom a superabundance of works of satisfaction is found, did not perform such works determinately for this person who needs remission, but commonly for the whole Church; as the Apostle says that he fills up those things wanting of the sufferings of Christ in his body for the Church to which he writes.21 And thus the aforesaid merits are common to the whole Church. But things which are common to some multitude are distributed to individuals of the multitude according to the discretion of him who presides over the multitude. Hence, just as someone would obtain remission of punishment if another had satisfied for him, so also if the satisfaction of another is distributed to him by one who has the power."
21 Cf. Col. 1:24.
543. Scholion. On the intimate nature of indulgences. Among modern authors it is disputed whether an indulgence is rather an absolution granted through an act of jurisdiction, or only a payment or donation from the treasury of the Church. The truer and more common opinion teaches that indulgences granted to the living are at the same time an absolution and a payment;22 those applied to the dead, however, are only payments offered from the treasury of the Church.
It is certain that an indulgence granted to the living is a true absolution made by the power of jurisdiction. Hence, by granting indulgences, the Supreme Pontiff really absolves the living from temporal punishments; but since, in the present order of salvation, no liability either of guilt or of punishment is remitted without satisfaction, the Supreme Pontiff takes from the treasury of the Church satisfactions as great as correspond to the indulgences granted.
Nor may anyone say that then the Pope himself cannot gain indulgences, since no one can exercise an act of jurisdiction upon himself; for St. Thomas already foresaw and solved this difficulty,23 saying that no one indeed can exercise an act of jurisdiction upon himself, but that a superior can use for himself those things which he himself has granted to all by the authority of jurisdiction. Hence, just as the Pope cannot absolve himself from sins, but can grant to a priest jurisdiction to absolve him, so he can grant an indulgence to all for a pious work, and he himself, performing this work, gains the indulgence, as do the other faithful.
For the dead existing in purgatory, since they are no longer under the jurisdiction of the Pope, indulgences avail not by way of absolution properly so called, but by way of payment and suffrage. Therefore the Supreme Pontiff offers satisfactions from the treasury of the Church and applies them to the souls in purgatory by way of petition or suffrage.24
What an indulgence is not. Thus far it has been said what an indulgence is. In order that its nature may become known still more clearly, it must be said briefly what it is not. An indulgence is not: a) the remission of guilt, whether venial or mortal; b) the remission of ancient canonical punishments; c) liberation from amendment of life through works which guard against future falls; d) liberation from the obligation of repairing injuries perhaps inflicted upon one's neighbor.
Against an exaggerated opinion concerning the utility of indulgences, St. Thomas rightly warns:25 "Although indulgences avail much for the remission of punishment, nevertheless other works of satisfaction are more meritorious with respect to the essential reward, which is infinitely better than the remission of temporal punishment."
22 St. Thomas says: "He who receives indulgences is not, simply speaking, absolved from the debt of punishment, but there is given to him that from which he may pay the debt" (4, dist. 20, q. 1, a. 3, sol. 1 ad 2; cf. Code, c. 911).
24 Cf. Billot, De Eccl. sacr. II, 221 ff.; Chr. Pesch, Prael. theol. VII, n. 474 ff.; Beringer-Steinen, Die Ablässe15 I, n. 25.
544. Species of indulgences. Indulgences are divided:
a) By reason of their effect, into plenary and partial.
The former remit (according to the intention of the grantor) all the temporal punishment of some person which still remains. The latter remit part of the temporal punishment. Since the extent of an indulgence depends upon the intention of the grantor, ecclesiastical law establishes26 that one who, because of venial guilt not yet destroyed, cannot gain a plenary indulgence in a perfect manner, nevertheless gains it partially, insofar as he is capable. The practice of the faithful also accords with this; and therefore, for example, the faithful are accustomed to gain for themselves several times the indulgence called "As often as" (Toties quoties). If someone has truly gained a plenary indulgence, he is in the same state in which an adult is immediately after receiving baptism, and consequently, if he were to die after gaining the indulgence, he would immediately fly to heaven (without passing through purgatory). A partial indulgence remits part of the temporal punishments, as was said above. But if it is now asked how great this part is, nothing certain can be answered. Authors most commonly teach that, if the Supreme Pontiff grants, for example, an indulgence of seven years and seven forty-day periods, then so great a part of the punishments is remitted as was remitted through a penance of seven years and seven forty-day periods performed according to the ancient ecclesiastical discipline. The penances of the ancient Church were most rigorous; thus, for example, if someone had to perform a forty-day penance, he could eat nothing except bread and salt; and for drink he had nothing except water. Sometimes, indeed, such rigor was mitigated a little, insofar as the eating of legumes and other light foods was permitted, but the eating of meat was never permitted, and a strict fast was always prescribed.27
b) By reason of the subject, indulgences are distinguished into those for the living and those for the dead.
As is evident from what was said above, indulgences are granted to the living by way of juridical absolution, which nevertheless includes the payment of the punishment due from the treasury of the Church. Indulgences, however, are granted for the dead by way of suffrage, insofar as the Supreme Pontiff offers to God, from the treasury of the Church, satisfactions for the punishments still to be discharged by the souls in purgatory. All indulgences granted by the Supreme Pontiff are applicable to the souls in purgatory, unless the contrary is certainly established, as happens, for example, with the indulgence to be gained at the moment of death.28
c) By reason of their mode, indulgences are distinguished into personal, real, and local.
In the strict sense, those indulgences are called personal which are granted immediately to determinate persons, whether physical or moral, for example, to the members of some confraternity, religious institute, and so forth. In a broader sense, however, those indulgences are called personal which, independently of any place or thing, are granted to all the faithful who perform some pious work; for example, an indulgence of three hundred days is granted to those reciting certain ejaculatory prayers.
Real indulgences are those which are immediately attached to some portable thing, for example, a Rosary, a medal, and so forth. Real indulgences can be applied only to solid things which are not easily broken or torn, and not to such things as hollow, non-solid glass, paper, and so forth. Real indulgences cease only: a) if the things entirely cease to exist, for example, if the image of a crucifix is broken into two parts. The indulgence does not perish, however, if the alteration is slight, for example, if a few beads of some Rosary are lost and new ones are substituted; nor even (according to the modern discipline) if someone other than the owner uses these things with the intention of gaining the indulgences; b) if the thing endowed with indulgences is sold.29 In order to avoid even the appearance of simony, the Church has gravely forbidden, under penalty of the loss of the indulgences, that things enriched with indulgences be sold or bought, even if no profit is thereby received. Nothing, however, prevents someone from acquiring for himself several things enriched with indulgences and afterward, before using them, giving them to others as a gift. Several indulgences can be applied to the same thing. Thus, for example, the same Rosary can receive the indulgences of the Dominicans, the Crucigers, and St. Bridget.
Local indulgences are those which are immediately affixed to a pious place, such as a church, an altar, a miraculous image, and so forth. Attention must be paid to the clauses under which indulgences have been granted to some place. Thus, for example, if an indulgence has been granted to all who make a pious pilgrimage to some church, the inhabitants of the place where the church is situated cannot gain this indulgence, because they are not considered pilgrims.30 If the church or altar to which the indulgence was granted is destroyed, the indulgence ceases, as is evident of itself. If, however, the same church or the same altar is afterward rebuilt in almost the same place (that is, within a space of thirty paces), and this under the same title and at least within fifty years, the indulgence revives.31
26 Code of Canon Law, c. 926.
27 Cf. Beringer-Steinen, Die Ablässe15 I, n. 29. All partial indulgences of one thousand or several thousand years have been revoked. Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, May 26, 1898, and August 10, 1899.
28 Code of Canon Law, c. 930.
29 Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, July 16, 1887; Code of Canon Law, c. 924, § 2.
30 Decreta authentica Indulgentiarum, n. 202.
31 Code of Canon Law, c. 924, § 1.
545. Note. Indulgences granted to some church of regulars cease if such churches pass into the possession of the bishop or of another religious order.32 The reason is that indulgences are granted to these churches principally because they are administered by such a religious order. Consequently, if such an order afterward (even after a long time) recovers the same church, the indulgences also revive. There are considered churches of regulars not only those which are possessed by them, but also all those which have merely been entrusted to them permanently, although the bishop or someone else is the owner.33 But if some church is administered by a regular priest, even permanently, it is not yet considered a regular church, but is secular, and does not have the indulgences of churches of regulars.34
32 Decreta authentica Indulgentiarum, n. 246.
33 Cf. Beringer-Steinen, Die Ablässe15 I, n. 177.
34 Cf. Decreta authentica Congregationis Indulgentiarum, nn. 47 and 395.