The Granting of Indulgences

I. Existence of the power in the Church of granting indulgences. That the power of dispensing indulgences belongs to the Church is of faith from Trent;¹ and it follows from the power which Christ conferred on the Church of remitting sins and opening the kingdom of heaven to believers;² for to the perfect remission of sin and to the opening of the kingdom of heaven there also belongs the removal of temporal punishment still remaining after the guilt of sins has been remitted. That this power can be used outside the conferral of the sacrament is clear from the general sense of the words, which also contain the power of teaching and of making laws; and this certainly has place outside the sacrament. Besides this, the whole tradition from the first centuries has recognized this power in the Church.³

¹ Council of Trent, session 25, Decree on Indulgences.

² Matthew 16:18.

³ Cf. Fanfani, cited work, p. 19-22.

II. Subject of the power. The Supreme Pontiff alone, by his own and full right, can grant indulgences (canon 912). The reason is that he, and he alone, can dispose of the common treasury of the Church to whom the government of the whole Church has been committed. Now the Supreme Pontiff commonly exercises the said power through the Sacred Penitentiary, whose office it is to judge all those things which regard the use and concession of indulgences, without prejudice to the right of the Holy Office to see to those things which regard dogmatic doctrine concerning the same indulgences or concerning new prayers and devotions (canon 258, § 2). Those inferior to the Supreme Pontiff can dispense indulgences by ordinary power only insofar as this has been expressly granted to them by law. Now the law states:

1. As regards a plenary indulgence.

a) Bishops, each in his own diocese, can impart the papal blessing with a plenary indulgence, according to the prescribed formula, twice a year, that is, on the solemn day of the Resurrection at Easter and on another solemn feast day designated by themselves, even if they have only assisted at the solemn Mass (canon 914). If some Bishop has several dioceses to be governed, he cannot, by his own right, transfer in one of them to another day the papal blessing attached to Easter of the Resurrection.¹

b) Abbots or Prelates nullius, Apostolic Vicars and Prefects, even if they lack episcopal dignity, can do the same, namely impart the papal blessing with a plenary indulgence according to the prescribed formula, in their territories on only one of the more solemn days during the year (cited canon).

c) Regulars who have the privilege of imparting the papal blessing are not only bound by the obligation of observing the prescribed formula, but also cannot use this privilege except in their own churches and in the churches of nuns or tertiaries lawfully aggregated to their Order; but not on the same day and in the same place² where the Bishop imparts it (canon 915).³

d) A pastor or another priest who assists the sick has the faculty of granting to them the apostolic blessing with a plenary indulgence at the point of death, according to the form handed down by approved liturgical books, and he should not omit to impart this blessing (canon 468, § 2).

e) Bishops, Abbots or Prelates nullius, Apostolic Vicars and Prefects, and major Superiors of exempt clerical religious institutes can designate and declare one daily perpetual privileged altar, provided another is not already had, in their cathedral, abbatial, collegiate, conventual, parochial, and quasi-parochial churches, but not in public or semi-public oratories, unless they are united to a parish church or are subsidiary to it (canon 916).

2. As regards partial indulgences.

a) Cardinals, from their promotion in Consistory, enjoy the faculty of granting indulgences of two hundred days, even to be gained as often as often, in places or institutes and for persons of their jurisdiction or protection; likewise in other places, but to be gained only by those present, on each occasion (canon 239, § 1, 24°).

b) Metropolitans or Archbishops can grant indulgences of one hundred days both in their own diocese and in suffragan dioceses (canon 274, 2°).

c) Residential Bishops, from taking possession of the diocese, enjoy the right of granting indulgences of fifty days in places of their jurisdiction (canon 349, § 2, 2°). But the words "in places of their jurisdiction" are not to be understood so that Bishops are prohibited from granting indulgences to exempt religious or in their churches.⁴

d) Apostolic Vicars and Prefects, even those who lack episcopal character, possess the same faculty as residential Bishops (canon 294, § 2).

e) The consecrating Bishop, when a church or altar is consecrated, even though he lacks jurisdiction in the territory, grants an indulgence of one year to those visiting the church or altar on the day of the consecration itself; but on the anniversary day, one of fifty days if he is a Bishop, one hundred if an Archbishop, and two hundred if a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church (canon 1166, § 3). Capitular Vicars and Vicars General lack ordinary power of granting indulgences, since the Law does not enumerate them. They therefore, like the others not enumerated above, cannot grant indulgences except by commission or delegation of the Supreme Pontiff or of another to whom the faculty of delegating has been expressly granted.

f) What Nuncios can do is to be drawn from their letters.

Note 1. Those inferior to the Roman Pontiff cannot: 1. commit to others the faculty of granting indulgences, unless this has been expressly granted to them by the Apostolic See; 2. grant indulgences applicable to the departed; 3. add other indulgences to the same thing or act of piety or sodality to which indulgences have already been granted by the Apostolic See or by another, unless new conditions to be fulfilled are prescribed (canon 913).

Note 2. Generals of Orders and Prelates of Religious, having regard to common law, enjoy no power of issuing Indulgences; but some of them have the privilege of reserving to themselves and of granting to others the faculty of imparting certain blessings - for example, the blessing of a rosary of the Most Holy Rosary - to which Indulgences are attached.⁵

¹ A.A.S. XXII, p. 195.

² Cited place: in the city, town (Brief of Leo XIII, July 2, 1882).

³ Here, however, the matter is not the papal blessing which religious missionaries are permitted to impart at the end of missions or in similar circumstances, but the privilege by which regulars, without another condition of function, are able to impart that blessing (Aertnys-Damen, Theologia Moralis, 5th ed., II, n. 1112).

⁴ Pontifical Commission, December 6, 1930 (A.A.S. 1931, p. 25).

⁵ Fanfani, cited work, p. 17.

III. Interpretation of the power of granting indulgences. Both ordinary and delegated power must be interpreted according to the proper meaning of the words and the common usage of speech; but in doubt it is to be taken broadly (canons 49, 50; St. Alphonsus, 534).

IV. Use of the power of granting indulgences.

1. In order that a concession be valid, a just cause is required. The reason is that the Supreme Pontiff is not the owner of the treasury of the Church, but has been constituted only its dispenser. But a dispenser is not judged to have been granted the faculty of disposing of goods at will, that is, without a just cause (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 25, a. 2; St. Alphonsus, n. 532).

2. Furthermore, for liceity there is required a cause proportioned to the quantity of the indulgence, so that for a greater indulgence a greater cause is required. But the gravity of the cause is to be judged "not only from the difficulty of the work, but from the intended end and the usefulness of the work for that end" (St. Alphonsus, cited place).

It is disputed whether the proportion of the cause is required for validity. Now with St. Alphonsus (cited place) and the more common opinion, it seems one must affirm this, because a dispenser does not seem to have been granted the faculty of disposing prodigally of goods. Besides this, once an indulgence has been granted, a proportionate cause is always presumed to be present. Furthermore, even if a proportionate cause were lacking, nevertheless the privileges attached to the indulgence would certainly be valid, for example the faculty of absolving from reserved cases, since these are matters of ecclesiastical law.

Note. The Supreme Pontiff or a Bishop can sometimes grant an indulgence without the injunction of any work, because there can be a just and reasonable cause for granting an indulgence in this way, for example to a worthy man, or at the point of death.¹

¹ Aertnys-Damen, Theologia Moralis, 11th ed., II, n. 1113.

V. Publication of granted indulgences.

1. Indulgences promulgated at Rome need no further publication. Indulgences are understood to have been promulgated at Rome whether they have been granted through Briefs or through decrees contained in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

2. New indulgences, even those granted to churches of regulars, which have not been promulgated at Rome, are not to be published abroad without consulting the Ordinary of the place. In publishing books, booklets, etc., in which concessions of indulgences for various prayers or pious works are listed, the prescription of canon 1388 is to be observed.¹

3. Those who have obtained from the Supreme Pontiff concessions of indulgences for all the faithful are bound, under penalty of the nullity of the grace obtained, to bring authentic copies of those concessions to the Sacred Penitentiary (canon 920). It is said:

1. Concessions for all the faithful. Indulgences granted for all the faithful are understood as those which all the faithful can always and everywhere gain without the special use of a blessed thing, or participation in a pious confraternity, or visitation of a determinate church.²

2. Authentic copies, that is, a written document, either signed by the Supreme Pontiff's own hand or subscribed by a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, which testifies to an oral oracle.

¹ That canon states: all books of indulgences, summaries, booklets, sheets, etc., in which their concessions are contained, are not to be published without the license of the Ordinary of the place. But the express license of the Apostolic See is required in order that it be lawful to publish in print, in any language, both the authentic collection of prayers and pious works to which the Apostolic See has attached indulgences, and the list of apostolic indulgences, and a summary of indulgences either previously collected but never approved, or now for the first time to be gathered from diverse concessions.

² Beringer-Steinen, cited work, I, n. 199-200.

VI. Interpretation of some indulgences granted or to be granted.

1. A plenary indulgence granted for the feasts of Our Lord Jesus Christ or for the feasts of the Blessed Virgin Mary is understood to have been granted only for the feasts which are found in the universal calendar. A plenary or partial indulgence granted for the feasts of the Apostles is understood to have been granted only for their natal feast. A plenary indulgence granted as daily perpetual, or for a time, to those visiting some church or public oratory is to be understood in such a way that on any day, but only once in the year, it can be acquired by each member of the faithful, unless something else is expressly said in the decree (canon 921).

2. An indulgence affixed to some Feast is acquired by the faithful on the fixed day duly constituted in their Diocese; by Regular Orders, on the fixed day duly constituted in their Calendar; by those enrolled in a sodality of some Regular Order, on the fixed day duly constituted in the Calendar of the Diocese or in the Calendar of the Order, but not on both days. Thus the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences.¹

3. When a plenary indulgence once in a month is granted to those who have performed a certain good work through an entire month, the month is not necessarily to be computed from the first day to the last, but is understood as a continuous space of a month, that is, of thirty days.²

¹ August 29, 1864; January 12, 1878.

² Aertnys-Damen, II, n. 1120.

I. Transfer of indulgences consists in this, that they are transferred from one place to another or from one time to another. Some things must be noted only about transfer with respect to time. Now, having regard to canon 922:

1. If the external solemnity of a feast is transferred, the indulgences attached to the feast are transferred to the day on which the external solemnity is held; otherwise, if only the Office and Mass are transferred and the external solemnity is held on the proper day.

2. If the matter concerns feasts which are celebrated without external solemnity, then the indulgences are transferred if the feast is only occasionally transferred.

3. Indulgences attached to sacred supplications or to novendial, septenary, or triduan prayers, which are performed before or after the feast or even while its octave lasts, are transferred or not transferred according as the indulgences attached to the feast day itself are transferred or not transferred.

Note. Nevertheless, observe that the same indulgence cannot be acquired twice, even at a different time. Thus one who, for example, in one diocese has gained the indulgence attached to the feast of the Immaculate Conception cannot gain the same indulgence again in another diocese if he is there on the day on which the external solemnity of the feast is celebrated in that place.¹ But for the Portiuncula Indulgence it was declared on January 13, 1930² that Christ's faithful can obtain it on the second day of the month in one church and on the Sunday next following in another church where that day has been substituted according to the norm of the Decree of the Sacred Penitentiary dated July 10, 1924, to VII.³

¹ Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, January 12, 1878 (Decreta authentica, n. 435, to III).

² A.A.S. 1930, p. 23.

³ A.A.S. 1924, p. 346.

II. Suspension of indulgences consists in this, that indulgences cease for a time, but when the time has passed, they revive without a new act of the superior. Now:

1. Indulgences attached to some church are suspended if the church is overturned from its foundations; they revive, however, if within fifty years it is built in the same or almost the same place and under the same title (canon 924, § 1). It is said "almost the same place," that is, at a small distance, for example twenty or thirty paces. If a church is renewed even totally through successive repairs, the indulgences persist.

2. Likewise indulgences attached to an altar are suspended if the altar is destroyed; but they revive if it is rebuilt under the same title and in the same church, even in another place.¹ Indulgences attached to a mission cross are continued if a new cross is substituted for a fallen or destroyed cross, provided the new cross is erected in the same or almost the same place, with at least the tacit consent of the Bishop.²

¹ Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, September 16, 1623^† (Decreta authentica, n. 317); July 18, 1902 (A.S.S. 1902, p. 62).

² Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, February 22, 1888 (cf. Analecta ecclesiastica 1902, p. 261); July 20, 1901.

III. Cessation of indulgences has place:

1. By the lapse of the time for which they were granted.

2. By revocation by the one granting or his Superior.

3. By the death of the one granting or by the resolution of his right, they cease only if they were given with the clause "at our good pleasure," or another equivalent clause; but not if they were given absolutely, without a clause, or with the clause "at the good pleasure of the Holy See" or a similar one (cf. canons 70 and 73).

4. By the death of the one to whom the indulgences were granted, if the matter concerns a purely personal privilege; likewise by the extinction of a Confraternity, if the extinction lawfully had place; otherwise, if unlawfully, in which case the indulgences revive when the Confraternity has been restored.¹

5. By the destruction or sale of the thing enriched with indulgences; namely, canon 924, § 2 states: Indulgences attached to rosaries or other things cease only when the rosaries or other things entirely cease to be or are sold. The exchange of one thing for another, however, seems to be equivalent to sale.²

Therefore indulgences do not cease because a price is paid after the rosary or blessed thing has been blessed, provided the sale itself had place before the blessing; nor do they cease from the fact that rosaries, crosses, etc., enriched with indulgences are given or lent to another for gaining indulgences; and this holds even if the one giving or lending the said rosaries, crosses, etc., has already used them for acquiring indulgences.³ Nor is it an obstacle that something is received or even asked, provided it is not done under the title of sale.

As regards rosaries, note that the indulgences are attached to the beads; hence the chain can be changed. If the beads are bound by a thread and this is broken so that the beads are gathered into one, the indulgences seem to be suspended and, when the rosary has been restored, to revive.

¹ Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, August 26, 1840 (Decreta authentica, n. 285).

² Cf. Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, June 4, 1721 (Decreta authentica, n. 78).

³ Cf. Sacred Penitentiary, February 18, 1921 (A.A.S. 1921, p. 164).

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.

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.

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.

"1. It is fitting that one who desires to obtain the faculty of blessing chaplets, crosses, rosaries, medals, etc., with the application of the Apostolic indulgences and those of Saint Bridget should present a petition furnished with commendatory letters from his own Ordinary if he belongs to the secular clergy, but, if he is a religious, from the Superior of his Order or Institute approved by the Holy See.

"2. In order that the aforesaid faculty be exercised validly, it will be necessary that the priest be approved for hearing sacramental Confessions, at least of men.

"3. For the lawful exercise of that faculty, the consent of the Ordinary of the place in which one wishes to use it is required, the Decree of this Sacred Congregation of 8 June 1888 remaining in force with respect to exempt religious. It is desirable that this consent be express; nevertheless, tacit or implicit consent also suffices, and, in some case when it cannot practically be done otherwise, even consent prudently presumed suffices." Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 14 June 1901; A. S. S., vol. 34, p. 124 ff.

604. Errors. That there is in the Church the power of granting indulgences was denied: (a) by the Waldenses, the Wiclefites, and also Peter of Osma, who taught that the Pontiff cannot bestow indulgences, nor liberate from purgatory;¹ (b) by Protestants: for Luther indeed at first seemed to censure the abuses of the questors of indulgences, but soon attacked indulgences themselves as useless and pernicious, and pious frauds invented for obtaining money. Modern Protestants assert the same, indeed many do not blush to affirm that indulgences are nothing other than a license to sin purchased by money paid.²

¹ Cf. Denzing., n. 615.

² This calumny is refuted no less pleasantly than eloquently by J. H. Newman, The Present Position of Catholics in England, London, 1889, p. 108 sq. Today, however, most Protestants soften these false accusations, saying that abuses of this kind flourished not in our times, but only in past centuries; nevertheless they attack indulgences as pernicious in their effects; thus Littledale, Plain Reasons, p. 102; Lea, op. cit., vol. III, p. 569 sq.

605. Thesis: The Church enjoys the power of granting indulgences, whose use is especially salutary for the Christian people. It is of faith from Trent:¹ "Since the power of conferring indulgences has been granted by Christ to the Church, and she has used power of this kind, divinely handed down to herself, even in the most ancient times: the Sacrosanct Synod teaches and commands that the use of indulgences, especially salutary for the Christian people and approved by the authority of Sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church, and condemns with anathema those who either assert that they are useless, or deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them."

¹ Decree concerning Indulgences, ap. Denzing., n. 862.

606. 1° The power of granting indulgences flows, by way of corollary, from three dogmas, namely, from the superabundance of the satisfactions of Christ, from the power of the keys, and from the communion of saints.

(A) That the satisfactions of Christ, as being of infinite value, were superabundant, we have already proved in the Treatise on the Incarnate Word, n. 192. Moreover, according to the common doctrine which the Supreme Pontiffs have confirmed, some among the Saints performed more satisfactory works than were necessary for making satisfaction for their own sins: thus the Blessed Virgin, who never, not even venially, sinned, and otherwise suffered many things patiently; so also many virgins, who lived an angelic rather than a human life; martyrs, who willingly embraced such bitter torments; and many others, who, free from every mortal sin, unceasingly crucified their members. From all these satisfactory works, performed in union with Christ, there arose as it were an immense treasury of satisfactions.²

² Code, c. 911.

Clement VI, in the year 1343, thus explains this doctrine; for concerning Christ he says:³ "For not by corruptible gold and silver, but by the precious blood of Himself, the unspotted and immaculate Lamb, He redeemed us; and He, innocent, immolated on the altar of the cross, is known to have poured forth not a small drop of blood, which nevertheless because of the union with the Word would have sufficed for the redemption of the whole human race, but copiously, as a certain stream ... How great a treasury, therefore, from this, lest the mercy of so great an effusion be rendered superfluous, empty, or excessive, He acquired for the Church militant, the pious Father willing to treasure up for His sons, so that thus there may be an infinite treasury for men, and those who have used it have become participants of God's friendship." Afterwards, concerning the saints, he adds: "To the heap of this treasury indeed the merits of the Blessed Mother of God and of all the elect, from the first just man even to the last, are known to provide aid; concerning its consumption or diminution there is in no way to be feared, both because of the infinite merits of Christ, as has been said, and because, the more persons are drawn to justice from its application, the more the heap of their merits increases." Hence therefore it is clear that the treasury of satisfactions which can be applied to Christians is inexhaustible.

³ Extrav. Unigenitus, Extrav. commun., l. V, t. 9, c. 2, p. 1304, ed. Friedberg.

607. (B) From another side, the power of the keys, whose existence we proved, n. 20 sq., in its amplitude includes the faculty of remitting not only guilt, but also the punishment annexed to sin, namely by applying to penitents certain satisfactions of Christ or of the saints, drawn from the aforesaid treasury. This is inferred from the texts cited above.¹ Namely Christ said to Peter, the prince of the Apostles: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven"; for in the former part of this text, to Peter and the Apostles is conferred the power of binding the faithful by any spiritual bond whatsoever, by retaining sins and imposing canonical penalties; therefore in the latter part, whatsoever thou shalt loose, there is likewise given the power not only of absolving sins, but also of relaxing canonical penalties with prudence; for there is a parallelism between each part. This is confirmed from other words of Christ: "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them" ...; for there is conferred there a most ample power of remitting sins, without any restriction; moreover sin involves three things, the debt of guilt, the debt of eternal punishment, the debt of temporal punishment; therefore the power conferred on the Church embraces these three things. Now the two former are taken away through the sacrament of Penance; the third can be taken away outside the sacrament, namely by condoning punishment through indulgences.

¹ Matt., XVI, 19; John, XX, 23.

608. (C) But the reason why the satisfactions of Christ and of the saints can be applied to penitents is drawn from the communion of saints. For all the faithful are so intimately joined under one head, Christ, that they form one body, and therefore all the good works of the just are as it were proper to each one, and can yield to their utility: "For as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, nevertheless are one body, so also is Christ ... And if one member suffers anything, all the members suffer with it; or if one member glories, all the members rejoice together."¹ Now, if the matter is so, the satisfactions of Christ and of the Saints, overflowing into others who are debtors to divine justice, can be derived to them, the authority of God which has been committed to the Church acceding; for, as St. Thomas says,² "those things which are common to some multitude are distributed to individuals of the multitude according to the judgment of him who presides over the multitude; hence, just as someone would obtain remission of punishment if another had made satisfaction for him, so also if the satisfaction of another is distributed to him by one who has power."

¹ I Cor., XII, 12-26.

² Supplem., q. 25, a. 1.

The matter is illustrated by a comparison. In a well-ordered Republic, the President has the power sometimes of softening the severity of laws and penalties, when the common good demands this, or when amendment of the guilty person has been manifested by certain signs; but the Church is a well-ordered society, indeed nobler and more perfect than other societies, since she promotes the supernatural good of souls; therefore it was fitting that the rulers of the Church should enjoy the power, for a just cause, of condoning something of spiritual debts; and this is done by taking away or diminishing punishments through indulgences.

609. 2° The thesis is proved historically.³ The historical progress of indulgences is intimately connected with the evolution of penitential discipline; and in it three stages can be distinguished.

³ Cf. A. Boudinhon, Sur l'histoire des indulgences, in Rev. de l'Institut cathol. de Paris, May 1902, p. 238-257.

(A) In the first epoch, which extends up to the seventh century, the granting of indulgences appears under the form of mitigation of public penance. That this penance was laborious and long-lasting has already been shown above, n. 151. But sometimes something of canonical penance, imposed by the authority of the Church, was remitted. (a) This was done especially in view of the intercession of martyrs. Tertullian is a witness of this matter; while he was still Catholic, he wrote these things:¹ "Which peace, not having it in the Church, some have been accustomed to entreat from the martyrs in prison; and therefore you also ought on this account to have, foster, and guard it in yourselves, so that perhaps you may be able to furnish it also to others." This practice afterwards, having fallen into the error of the Montanists, he reproved;² but even this very thing demonstrates that this practice existed and had been approved by the Roman Pontiffs. St. Cyprian likewise testifies to this, by declaring that those "who have received letters from the martyrs can be helped by their prerogative before God."³ Besides, the matter is so evidently established that it is denied by no one today. Now the relaxation of canonical penance was nothing other than the relaxation of the punishment owed to sin, since penance was ordered to the remission of this punishment.

¹ Tertull., Ad martyr., c. 1; P. L., t. I, p. 621.

² De pudic., c. 22; P. L., t. II, 1026.

³ St. Cyprian, ep. 18, t. II, p. 523, ed. Vind.; cf. ep. 21, 33, 36, and De lapsis.

(b) The same kindness was shown to those who by a laudable and fervent life redeemed their sins; thus the Council of Ancyra (314) decreed (can. 5): "We have determined that Bishops, the manner of conduct having been examined, have the power either of using clemency, or of adding more time. But before all things let both the preceding life and that which has followed be examined, and thus let clemency be imparted to them." Likewise Nicaea I (can. 12): "As many as, by fear and tears and penance, or by good works, demonstrate their conversion by the things themselves, not by simulation, these, after fulfilling the defined time of hearing, then at length may communicate with the faithful in prayer. Afterwards, however, it will be lawful for the Bishop to think something more humane concerning these."

(c) Punishments also were relaxed for the dying, so that they might be able more quickly to enter heaven; if they recovered, they were bound to pay certain penalties, but not all. Moreover in all these cases, the Church, by relaxing canonical penance, certainly did not wish to hand penitents over to graver punishments of purgatory, and therefore was using the power of condoning part of the satisfaction owed to sin.

610. (B) In the second period, from the seventh to the eleventh century, indulgence appears under the form of commutation of canonical penance into other works which were judged equivalent. For then a certain special penance was inflicted for each sin, as was noted above, n. 116. Now works of this kind were sometimes commuted into certain pious works, especially prayers, flagellations, and alms. Thus, according to St. Peter Damian, St. Dominic Loricatus, on each day of Lent, by subjecting himself to blows of rods, and by completing three psalters, was considered to do penance of one hundred years.¹ In the same age, to those who visited the basilicas of the Apostles at Rome, part of canonical penance was condoned. For Nicholas I says concerning a certain homicide: "Certain things [of penance] we have moderated, because he devoutly hastened to ask the suffrages of the prince of the Apostles, our nourisher."² Likewise, in the ninth century, Sergius II granted to those visiting the church of Saints Sylvester and Martin, on the feasts of several saints, an indulgence of three years and three quarantines: this is established from a marble tablet, placed in this church, which Baronius describes, at the year 847. Again, in the Vallicellian sacramentary, drawn up in the same century, mention is made of an indulgence of certain days and years. In the eleventh century, Leo IX condoned to those who had assembled for the consecration of the metropolitan church of Besançon the third part of their penance. - In these or similar cases, a certain part of canonical penance was commuted into pious pilgrimages or other works of this kind.

¹ Ap. Migne, P. L., t. CXLIV, p. 1015.

² Apud Ivo, P. L., t. CLXI, p. 700. - Some hold that certain indulgences were granted by Gregory the Great to those who visited the stations (the principal churches) of Rome. This is related by St. Thomas (in IV, dist. 20, q. 1, a. 3, sol. 2) and William of Auxerre (Summa, l. IV, tr. 6, c. 6); yet Morinus denies this (op. cit., l. X, c. 20, n. 10), because nothing concerning this matter appears in the letters or sermons of St. Gregory. Whatever the case may be, this practice is very ancient; for Boniface VIII commemorates it (year 1300), in the Bull of the Jubilee: "The faithful relation of the ancients has it that to those approaching the honorable basilica of the prince of the Apostles of the City, great remissions and indulgences of sins were granted." (Extravag. commun., l. V, t. 9, c. 1, p. 1303, ed. Friedberg.)

611. (C) In the third age, from the eleventh century, indulgences properly so called are now granted, or the total or partial remission of punishment owed to sin, yet after certain works determined by a legitimate superior have been posited. This was done especially for promoting expeditions into the Holy Land: thus Urban II, in the Council of Clermont, in the year 1095, decreed (can. 2): "Whoever shall have set out for the sake of devotion alone, not for the attainment of honor or money, to liberate the Church of God at Jerusalem, that journey shall be reputed to him for all penance." An indulgence of this kind was also granted to those who fought against heretics, especially the Albigenses. Afterwards, in the thirteenth century, Lateran IV (1215) decreed that indulgences not be extended too much, and thus abuses be prevented. - But the matter became more universal from the institution of the Jubilee. At the beginning of the fourteenth century, the jubilee was instituted or confirmed by Boniface VIII, who granted a plenary indulgence and other spiritual favors for the year 1300 and for each following hundredth year; afterwards Clement VI decreed that the jubilee be celebrated every fiftieth year, beginning from 1350; finally Paul II wished that it have place every twenty-fifth year, beginning from the year 1475. Afterwards the Pontiffs began to grant extraordinary jubilees, or an indulgence after the manner of a jubilee, for grave causes. Soon they became accustomed to bestow plenary or partial indulgences for promoting pious works, namely the erection of churches or hospitals. On this occasion certain abuses crept in, from the fact that questors, or preachers of indulgences, in order to obtain more abundant alms, amplified beyond measure the force and efficacy of indulgences. But Trent eradicated this abuse by abolishing questors.

From all these things it is gathered how greatly Protestants are deceived who, with Chemnitz, say that Catholics "cannot bring forward either any testimonies of the Fathers, or any examples of the ancient Church, that such doctrine or use of such indulgences ever existed at any time in the old Church up to the years after Christ's birth 1200."

612. (D) Difficulties are solved. (a) The granting of indulgences frees man from the debt of making satisfaction, and therefore mutilates the sacrament of Penance, which involves some satisfaction; therefore it must be rejected.

Resp.: I deny the supposition, for indulgences prudently granted do not exempt the penitent from sacramental or extra-sacramental satisfaction, but are granted to those sincerely contrite so that they may have that from which they may satisfy more promptly and efficaciously. For no one can gain indulgences unless he performs certain prescribed works and sincerely repents.

(b) The adversaries insist: Facility in satisfying for all sins through some prayers or works generates spiritual sloth, since there is no proportion between the prescribed works and the punishment remitted.

Resp. I deny the subsumed proposition: for external works which are prescribed, although they are light in themselves, suppose interior dispositions of contrition and firm purpose, which exclude sloth; for, as Cajetan says (De suscipient. indul., q. 1), indulgences are not profitable to those neglecting to satisfy by themselves, because they are unworthy of indulgence, but to those whose will is so prepared for satisfying that the work is not delayed unless impeded. Thus, for example, he does not gain a plenary indulgence unless he is free from every affection toward venial sins. But when these things have been posited, the facility of the work enjoined is rather a certain kind of allurement, by which penitents are drawn to procure perfect interior dispositions: and thus there are promoted contrition of heart, zeal for prayer, frequentation of the sacraments, and the practice of works of mercy.

613. (c) They insist again: the granting of indulgences tends to diminish the time of purgation in this or the other life; but this is against the order intended by God.¹

¹ Littledale's argument returns to this (op. cit., p. 109): "God loves these souls, and detains them in Purgatory, not that they may pay punishments, but that they may be purified. We confidently admit that God punishes them with the greatest mercy, kindness, and efficacy. Hence their untimely departure from Purgatory brings them no advantage, unless nevertheless it is admitted that the Roman Church is wiser and kinder than God Himself, and that she snatches the victims from the divine hands, so to speak!"

Resp. I deny the minor: for to God, who loves penitent souls, nothing is more acceptable than to diminish this time of purgation; on the one hand indeed, as a wise Legislator, He established that no one would enter the kingdom of heaven except after the payment of the punishment owed to sin; but on the other hand, as a merciful Father, He wishes to spare penitents; therefore if someone satisfies for others, he performs a work pleasing to God, namely by helping Him to reconcile the rights of justice and mercy.

(d) The granting of indulgences has furnished occasion for innumerable abuses; for the Roman Pontiffs, without any reason, did not blush to bestow indulgences of one hundred, one thousand, and more years, indeed to sell them for money, thus committing the most shameful crime of simony. Resp. We do not deny that some abuses crept into the granting and preaching of indulgences; but those abuses were neither universal nor frequent, and were several times reproved by the Roman Pontiffs and Councils; thus in the eleventh century, Gregory VII, to the Bishop of Lincoln asking an indulgence of delicts, agreed, yet under this condition, that by adhering to good works he should bewail the excesses committed;² in the twelfth century, Gregory VIII declared to the faithful of Benevento that it was safer that they do penance than that they obtain even a remission of the third part of penance; in the thirteenth century, Lateran IV reproved the laxity of certain Bishops in granting indulgences; and Trent (sess. XXV concerning Indulgences) established that the office of holy indulgences be dispensed holily and incorruptly to all the faithful, and proscribed all abuses which through ignorance or superstition had crept into various dioceses. Now a thing good and useful in itself must not be eradicated because of some inconveniences which arise from it, but the inconveniences themselves are to be prevented, insofar as it can be done; and this indeed the Church has done when opportunity was given.

² Cf. Baronius, Annales ecclesiast., at the year 1703, n. 71; Drouin, l. cit., § 4, where these and other facts are related.

But what is added concerning the selling of indulgences rests on a false supposition. Money which sometimes was given, or even now sometimes is given, for example on the occasion of a jubilee, for gaining an indulgence, is not and never was the price of the indulgence; for it was alms prescribed as a pious work, and to be turned to good uses, for defeating the Turks who were disturbing the peace of Europe, for the erection and endowment of churches, hospitals, and other institutes of this kind. From another side, only a few indulgences are granted under this condition; for most require only merely spiritual works.¹

¹ Some Protestants go farther, and assert as certain that absolution from sins is sold for money; in proof of this they exhibit the taxes of the Chancery, which must be paid when absolution from censures is sought. But here they confuse two things plainly distinct: absolution from sins in the internal forum, which can never be procured by money; and absolution from censures in the external forum, for which sometimes alms are demanded, either so that expenses for the dispatching of letters of absolution may be paid, or as a charitable compensation for scandals given: in which case money thus collected is to be expended for pious uses. J. H. Newman refutes this splendidly (op. cit., p. 112-113).

614. Corollaries. (a) Indulgences can be applied to the faithful departed detained in purgatory by way of suffrage, that is, not by way of absolution, but by way of satisfaction and payment of debt, insofar as the satisfactions of Christ and of the Saints, stored up in the treasury of the Church, are offered to God in compensation for the punishment to be expiated by the departed. "For there is no reason," says St. Thomas,² "why the Church can transfer the common merits, on which indulgences rest, to the living and not to the dead." For Christ satisfied for all, and His satisfactions can be applied both to the living and to the departed by him who enjoys legitimate authority. In reality, the Roman Pontiffs, already at least from the ninth century, granted indulgences of this kind; thus John VIII (878) and John IX (900).¹ Hence Pius VI condemned as false, rash, and offensive to pious ears the proposition of the Synod of Pistoia asserting "that still more lamentable is this: that this chimerical application [of indulgences] has been willed to be transferred to the departed." (Denzing., n. 1405.)

² Suppl., q. 71, a. 10.

¹ Cf. Mabillon, preface in century VI Bened., n. 108.

Yet power of this kind is so exercised that these indulgences are directly applied to the living by way of juridical absolution, and only indirectly to the dead, by way of payment of debt. For, as St. Thomas says (l. cit.), directly and principally he receives the indulgence who does that for which the indulgence is given; hence, since the dead cannot do anything of those things which are prescribed, indulgences cannot directly have force for them. Therefore the granting of an indulgence for the departed comes to this: that, by force of the authority of the Church, the living faithful person, who performs the pious work to which it is attached, can apply to the departed the remission of punishment which, by gaining the indulgence, he acquires.

615. (b) Indulgences have force not only before the Church, for taking away canonical penalties, but also before God for remitting temporal punishments owed to sins. This is certain from the condemnation of the contrary opinion which the Synod of Pistoia had defended.² For, as St. Thomas rightly observes,³ the opinion of the adversaries is expressly against the privilege given to Peter, to whom it was said that what he remitted on earth would be remitted in heaven. Hence the remission which is made as to the forum of the Church also has force as to the forum of God. Moreover the Church granting indulgences of this kind would harm rather than help, since in purgatory punishments would have to be endured which she would remit on earth.

² Ap. Denzinger, n. 1403.

³ Suppl., q. 25, a. 1.

628. 1° On Suspension. Indulgences can be suspended in a twofold manner: (a) from the very nature of the matter, when one of the essential conditions required for gaining them ceases for a time, for example, when the stations of the Way of the Cross are removed so that they may again be placed in the same place; (b) extrinsically, or from the will of the one granting, an example of which is had in the time of Jubilee, when almost all other indulgences are suspended, from the things to be said below.

629. 2° On Translation. It can occur in two ways, as to place and time.

(a) As to place, a local indulgence is transferred when the competent Superior orders it no longer to be gained in the place to which it had been attached, but in another determinate place; this is done especially when the community which held the former place migrates to another.

(b) As to time, when an indulgence granted for some time is transferred to another; this especially has place in indulgences granted for some feast. Now an indulgence annexed to some feast is transferred whenever the external solemnity is transferred, although the office and Mass are not transferred;¹ but if there is question of feasts which are accustomed to be performed without solemnity, when the feast is transferred in perpetuity, the indulgence is transferred;² but when the feast is transferred by accident, the indulgence remains affixed to the day. - Yet such an indulgence cannot be acquired twice; for example, if someone at Rome has gained the indulgence annexed to the feast of the Immaculate Conception, he cannot acquire the same at Paris if he is in that city at the time when the transferred solemnity is celebrated.

¹ Decret. authent., n. 360, August 9, 1852.

² Decret. authent., n. 435, January 12, 1878.

630. 3° On Cessation. Indulgences can cease:

(a) Through the death of the one granting, if this has been expressed in the grant itself either explicitly, or implicitly, for example, if the clause at my good pleasure or another similar one has been added, but not at the good pleasure of the See, because the See does not die.

(b) Through the revocation of the competent Superior sufficiently promulgated.

(c) Through the death of the person, or the legitimate extinction of the College, to which they had been granted; but if some College has been illegitimately suppressed, and afterwards revives, the indulgences likewise revive.

(d) Through the destruction of the place or things to which the indulgences were attached, if it is total physically and morally; but not if the thing in common estimation, although physically renewed, remains morally the same. Hence they are not lost if the thing is renewed even totally by successive repairs, indeed if an altar is destroyed, yet in such a way that a new one is built in the same place and under the same title.³

³ Decret. authent., n. 317, April 24, 1843.

N. B. Through the transfer of ownership of a movable thing, for example, a rosary, to which an indulgence is attached, the indulgence now no longer ceases; for the decree of Alexander VII forbidding that transfer has been abrogated by the Sacred Penitentiary (February 18, 1921).

546. Errors. The following denied to the Church the power of granting indulgences: a) the Waldensians, or the so-called Poor Men of Lyons, the Wycliffites, the Hussites, and Peter of Osma. The errors of John Wycliffe were condemned by the Council of Constance in sessions 8 and 19;³⁵ the errors of Peter of Osma were condemned by Sixtus IV through the Bull Licet ea of August 9, 1479.³⁶ b) The Protestants. Luther at first wished to censure only the abuses of the collectors of indulgences, but he admitted the indulgence itself, just as he also acknowledged the power of the Supreme Pontiff to grant indulgences;³⁷ afterward, however, he attacked indulgences themselves, which he called pious frauds.³⁸ Modern Protestants are accustomed to assert the same thing; indeed, several dare to affirm that indulgences are nothing other than the freedom to sin more freely, purchased by the payment of money.

³⁵ Cf. Denz., n. 622.

³⁶ Cf. Denz., n. 729.

³⁷ Luther says in his first thesis, proposed at Wittenberg on October 31, 1517: "Whoever speaks against the truth of the papal indulgence, let him be a curse and accursed."

³⁸ Leo X condemned the proposition of Luther: "Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful and remissions of good works; and they are of the number of those things which are lawful, and not of the number of those which are expedient" (Denz., n. 758).

547. Proposition 1. The Church has the power of granting indulgences.

This is of faith and was defined in the Council of Trent (session 25, Decree on Indulgences).³⁹ Consequently, in the Profession of Faith prescribed by Pius IV, it is said: "I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church...."⁴⁰

Proof 1. From Sacred Scripture. The power of granting indulgences is deduced from three dogmas of faith: 1. from the superabundance of the satisfaction of Christ; 2. from the communion of saints; 3. from the power of the keys. Enough has already been said above concerning the first two. The power of the keys which was handed down by Christ to the Church is indicated by the words: "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."⁴¹ Therefore the power of loosing all things which exclude from the kingdom of heaven is handed down to St. Peter. But not only sins exclude from the kingdom of heaven, but also the punishments remaining after the remission of guilt. Therefore St. Peter and his successors must have the power of remitting those remaining punishments; and this is done by the granting of indulgences. Therefore, from Sacred Scripture it is established that the Church has the power of granting indulgences.

Proof 2. From theological reason. The power of conferring indulgences is intimately connected with the power of the keys handed down to the Church, and conduces exceedingly to the good of religion and the exercise of virtues. Therefore such a power must be admitted. For if the power of absolving from guilt and eternal punishment has been granted to the Church, as is done in the sacrament of penance, the faculty of absolving also from temporal punishment cannot fittingly be denied to her, since this likewise excludes from the kingdom of heaven. Daily experience proves that the gaining of indulgences conduces to every kind of virtue and to the good of religion. For various heads of Christian doctrine are inculcated concerning the justice of God demanding satisfaction for committed faults, the mercy of Christ so abundantly satisfying for us, and the Church so mercifully bestowing helps upon us and so securely leading us to heaven. Moreover, a man cannot gain indulgences except by the exercise of good works, such as the reception of the sacraments of penance and Communion, prayers, pilgrimages, alms, and so forth. Hence it is not wonderful that St. Ignatius of Loyola writes: "For those seeking the love of God and heaven, indulgences are an immense treasury and precious gems."⁴² Voltaire, however, is reported to have said concerning the jubilee of the year 1775: "One more jubilee like this, and it is all over with philosophy."⁴³

Proof 3. From the tradition and continuous practice of the Church. St. Paul himself already granted an indulgence to the incestuous Corinthian, to whom he remitted part of the temporal punishment which he had imposed upon him.⁴⁴ Nor may anyone say that St. Paul merely remitted canonical penance, but not the temporal punishments themselves which were due in the forum of God. For the holy Apostle says: "And to whom you have pardoned anything, I also. For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ."⁴⁵ Therefore St. Paul in the person of Christ condoned these punishments, and consequently also in the forum of God.

³⁹ Denz., n. 989. Cf. above, n. 538.

⁴⁰ Denz., n. 998.

⁴¹ Matt. 16:19; cf. John 20:23.

⁴² Cited by Chr. Pesch, Prael. dogm. VII, n. 505.

⁴³ Ibid.

⁴⁴ 1 Cor. 5:1 ff.

⁴⁵ 2 Cor. 2:10.

548. The historical progress of indulgences is intimately connected with the development of penitential discipline. Three periods can be distinguished in it: the first period down to the eighth century; the second down to the twelfth century; the third period down to our days.

In the first period indulgences appear under the form of a mitigation of public canonical punishment, which was granted especially through the so-called letters of the martyrs. Concerning these St. Cyprian testifies:⁴⁶ "Those who have received letters from the martyrs can be assisted before God by their prerogative." Tertullian teaches the same thing (which, however, after he had fallen into the heresy of the Montanists, he rejected).⁴⁷ Similar things are contained in the First Council of Nicaea.⁴⁸ Punishments were also relaxed for the dying at that time, so that they might be able to enter heaven more quickly. Furthermore, in these cases the Church wished to relax not only canonical penances, because from this no advantage would have arisen for the souls themselves, but rather harm; for then the remaining punishment would have had to be discharged in purgatory, which certainly would have been still harsher than the rigorous penances imposed by canonical discipline. From all these things it is evident that already in the first centuries of the Christian era true remissions of temporal punishments, valid in the forum of God, or indulgences, were granted.

In the second period the matter appears still more clearly. St. Thomas relates:⁴⁹ "The Pope grants an indulgence, so that he who goes to one church has seven years of indulgence; indulgences of this kind were also instituted by Blessed Gregory at the stations of Rome." William of Auxerre relates the same thing.⁵⁰ Therefore Gregory the Great already granted indulgences which remain in force even in our times. Although this fact is denied by certain authors, for example, by Morinus, nevertheless Boniface VIII, granting for the year 1300 a plenary indulgence to those visiting the basilica of St. Peter, testified: "The faithful account of the ancients has it that great remissions and indulgences of sins were granted to those approaching the venerable basilica of the Prince of the Apostles in the City. We therefore... holding all and each of such remissions and indulgences ratified and approved, confirm them."⁵¹ Indulgences were granted by the Supreme Pontiffs especially when expeditions were made to the Holy Land to fight against the Turks. Thus, for example, Urban II established in the year 1095: "We, trusting in the mercy of God and in the authority of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, relax for the Christian faithful who take up arms against them [the infidels] the penances enjoined upon them for their offenses." Indulgences for the dead also already occur in the ninth and tenth centuries. Thus Paschal I granted that one who said a certain number of Masses for a deceased person in a certain chapel of St. Zeno would free that deceased person from purgatory. John IX granted an indulgence for the deceased Emperor Arnulf.⁵²

In the third period indulgences become more frequent and easier. St. Thomas, living in the thirteenth century, handed down a complete doctrine concerning indulgences which has not been changed down to our days. Boniface VIII granted the first jubilee in the year 1300. Moreover, the Protestants themselves are bound to concede that the practice of indulgences flourished in the Catholic Church from the twelfth century onward.

⁴⁶ Ep. 18; cf. Epp. 21, 33, 36.

⁴⁷ Ad mart., c. 1 (Migne, Patr. lat. 1, 621), and De pudic., c. 22 (ibid. 2, 1026).

⁴⁸ Can. 12.

⁴⁹ In 4, dist. 20, q. 1, a. 3, sol. 2.

⁵⁰ Summa, l. 2, tr. 6, c. 9.

⁵¹ Extrav. comm., l. 5, tit. 9, c. 1.

⁵² Cf. Schoofs, Die Lehre v. kirchl. Ablaß, p. 46, cited by Chr. Pesch, Prael. dogm. VII, n. 503.

549. Proposition 2. The Pope can grant indulgences principally; others, however, insofar as they receive from him either ordinary or committed, that is, delegated, power. Thus St. Thomas⁵³ and the Code of Canon Law, c. 912.

The reason for this proposition is that he alone can grant indulgences who has the dispensation of the treasury of the Church. Now the Pope has this dispensation principally; others, however, insofar as they are delegated by the Supreme Pontiff. Whether this power in bishops is to be called ordinary or delegated is rather a question of name than of reality. How far the power of others extends will be stated below.

For the validity of the granting of indulgences, a just and reasonable cause is required. For the Supreme Pontiff is only the administrator of the treasury of the Church, which he can dispense, not at will, but reasonably in the name of God. Hence, if he were to grant the greatest indulgence for a most trifling work, he would act not only illicitly but also invalidly. St. Thomas constantly assigns the honor of God and the utility of one's neighbor as causes for granting indulgences.⁵⁴ In estimating the proportion of the cause, however, not only the objective difficulty of the enjoined work must be considered, but also the utility of religion, of the Church, and of the faithful. Hence, for example, the plenary indulgence attached to the little prayer "Behold, O good Jesus," to be said after receiving Communion, is not to be called exaggerated, because by it the faithful are incited to receive the Eucharist more frequently and more devoutly.

The current practice of the Church. The following can grant indulgences:

a) The Supreme Pontiff for the whole Church. Sometimes the Pope grants indulgences by an oral declaration, but ordinarily, according to the current discipline, indulgences are granted through the Sacred Penitentiary;⁵⁵ indeed, all general grants of indulgences made to all the Christian faithful are invalid unless they have been reviewed by the Sacred Penitentiary.⁵⁶ But the following do not need such review: a) indulgences which are granted by religious orders according to the privileges granted to them;⁵⁷ b) indulgences granted by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith;⁵⁸ c) all particular indulgences; d) faculties of blessing pious objects and of attaching indulgences and privileges to them.⁵⁹

b) Residential bishops were able, until the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), to grant all indulgences in their own diocese. But then their power was limited, and now they can grant one year at the consecration of some church, and on other occasions fifty days of indulgences. Archbishops can grant one hundred days; Cardinals, however, two hundred days.⁶⁰

Indulgences granted by a bishop can be gained outside the territory by his subjects, and within the territory by all who dwell there,⁶¹ even exempt religious and in their churches.^61a

But it must be noted that all who are inferior to the Roman Pontiff cannot:

1. commit to others the faculty of granting indulgences, unless this has been specially granted to them;

2. grant indulgences applicable to the dead;

3. add other indulgences to the same thing, act of piety, or sodality to which indulgences have already been granted by the Holy See or by another, unless new conditions to be fulfilled are prescribed.⁶²

Nuncios, legates a latere, and the Major Penitentiary at Rome can likewise grant some indulgences.⁶³ By special pontifical delegation other priests also, such as regular prelates, visitors, confessors, and so forth, can sometimes bestow indulgences, for example, the papal blessing.

⁵³ Quodl. 2, a. 16.

⁵⁴ Suppl., q. 25, a. 2; Quodl. 2, a. 16.

⁵⁵ Code of Canon Law, c. 258, § 2.

⁵⁶ Ibid., c. 920.

⁵⁷ Holy Office, June 15, 1910.

⁵⁸ Holy Office, July 13, 1910.

⁵⁹ Benedict XV, Motu proprio, September 16, 1915; cf. Beringer-Steinen, loc. cit., n. 201.

⁶⁰ Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, May 26, 1898; cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 239, § 1, n. 24; c. 274; c. 349, § 2, n. 2; c. 1166, § 3. Titular bishops cannot grant indulgences. Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, August 23, 1852. Vicars and Prefects Apostolic, however, can grant an indulgence of fifty days. Code of Canon Law, c. 294, § 2.

⁶¹ Code of Canon Law, c. 927.

^61a Pontifical Commission, December 6, 1930 (Acta Apost. Sed. XXIII, 25).

⁶² Code of Canon Law, c. 913.

⁶³ Cf. Beringer-Steinen, Die Ablässe¹⁵ I, n. 65 and Supplement.

673. The concession of indulgences requires three things: the power of the one granting, - a just cause, - the due form.

I. The power of the one granting. It is in the Supreme Pontiff, to whom the dispensation of the whole spiritual treasury has been entrusted, which he exercises by himself or through the Sacred Penitentiary (can. 912 and 258, § 2); in others it is derived from the concession of the Supreme Pontiff, and indeed in such a way that some by ordinary power can bestow certain indulgences, but only those to whom this has been expressly granted by law (can. 912), as bishops; others only by a power delegated to them, as is granted to apostolic nuncios and legates. "The Pope," says St. Thomas, q. 26, a. 3, "has the fullness of pontifical power, as a king in a kingdom. But bishops are taken into a part of the solicitude, as judges set over individual cities; on account of which he calls only them brothers in his letters, and all the rest he calls sons. And therefore the power of making indulgences resides fully in the Pope, because he can make them as he wills, provided, however, that a legitimate cause exists. But in bishops it is taxed according to the ordinance of the Pope. And therefore they can make them according as it is taxed for them, and not beyond."

Nevertheless, from can. 913: "those inferior to the Roman Pontiff cannot 1) commit the faculty of granting indulgences to others, unless this has been expressly granted to them by the Apostolic See; 2) grant indulgences applicable to the dead; 3) add other indulgences to the same thing or act of piety or sodality to which indulgences already have been granted by the Apostolic See or by another, unless new conditions to be fulfilled are prescribed."

In particular: a) "Bishops can impart the papal blessing with a plenary indulgence, according to the prescribed formula, each in his own diocese twice in the year, that is, on the solemn day of Easter of the Resurrection and on another solemn feast day to be designated by them, even if they merely assisted at the solemn Mass; but Abbots or Prelates nullius, Vicars and Prefects Apostolic, even if they lack episcopal dignity, can do this in their territories on only one of the more solemn days of the year" (can. 914). But "Regulars who have the privilege of imparting the papal blessing are not only held by the obligation of observing the prescribed formula, but cannot use this privilege except in their own churches and in the churches of nuns or tertiaries legitimately aggregated to their Order; but not on the same day and place on which the Bishop imparts it" (can. 915); this, however, is not to be understood of the apostolic blessing which religious preachers are permitted to impart at the end of missions or spiritual exercises, and which is given by another formula, but of the privilege by which, without another condition of a function, regulars are able to give that blessing.

b) "Bishops, Abbots or Prelates nullius, Vicars and Prefects Apostolic, and major Superiors of an exempt clerical religion, can designate and declare one altar as a daily perpetual privileged altar, provided another is not had, in their cathedral, abbatial, collegiate, conventual, parochial, quasi-parochial churches, but not in public or semi-public oratories, unless they are united to a parochial church or subsidiary to it" (can. 916).

c) Cardinals enjoy the faculty "of granting indulgences of 200 days, even to be gained toties quoties, in places or institutes and for persons of their jurisdiction or protection; likewise in other places, but to be gained only by those present, on each occasion" (can. 239, § 1, 24).

d) "In suffragan dioceses the Metropolitan can only... grant indulgences of 100 days, as in his own diocese" (can. 274, 2).

e) "Once possession of the diocese has been taken, residential Bishops have the right... of granting indulgences of 50 days in places of their jurisdiction" (can. 349, § 2, 2), even to exempt religious or in their churches (com. int., Dec. 6, 1930).

f) "When a church or altar is consecrated, the consecrating Bishop, although he lacks jurisdiction in the territory, grants an indulgence of one year to those visiting the church or altar on the day itself of the consecration; but on the anniversary day, 50 days if he is a bishop, 100 if an archbishop, 200 if a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church" (can. 1166, § 3).

It should be noted that the communication of the good works of his Order which regular Prelates sometimes grant to distinguished benefactors contains no bestowal of indulgence, but only participation in suffrages.

II. A just, that is, reasonable and pious cause. For the Pontiff is not the owner of the treasury of the Church, but its steward and dispenser; and a faithful dispenser must observe the rules of justice and equity, and therefore not remit the punishments of sins without a just cause, which cause can be nothing other than the honor of God and the general utility of the Church (q. 25, a. 2); otherwise he would dispense contrary to the very will of the Lord, would exceed his power, and the concession would be null (q. 26, a. 3). Therefore the cause must be extrinsic, or diverse from the punishment itself to be taken away; and it is required to be proportioned to the effect and quantity of the indulgence: it is necessary, Billuart notes, a. 4, from Bellarmine, that the end please God more than the satisfaction which is relaxed by the indulgence, and that the work enjoined be a suitable means and proportioned to attaining this end, so that a more abundant dispensation, lest it be prodigal, requires a graver cause; otherwise, for the part by which it exceeded proportion, it would be invalid.

Hence a) an indulgence for the whole Church demands a public cause; on the contrary, for a particular indulgence a private cause suffices;

b) public causes are usually enumerated: the exaltation of the faith, concord among Christian princes and peoples, the conversion of the enemies of the Church, the promotion of the worship of God and the Saints, the reformation of the people, the increase of faith, charity, and religion, incitement to good works and to the frequenting of the sacraments;

c) the sufficiency of the cause is to be prudently estimated, not only from the difficulty of the work, but from the intended end and the usefulness of the work for the end; and this is presumed to be present for an indulgence granted by the Roman Pontiff;

d) nevertheless the Pontiff or Bishop can sometimes grant an indulgence without the imposition of a work, if there is a reasonable cause for this, as can be in a very worthy man, or at the article of death.

III. The due form. Although no form of itself is necessarily to be observed in the concession of indulgences, nevertheless by the usage of the Church it is the case that indulgences, except perhaps merely private ones, are expressed and published in an authentic writing. Thus:

1. "Those who have obtained concessions of indulgences from the Supreme Pontiff for all the faithful are held by the obligation, under penalty of nullity of the grace obtained, of bringing authentic exemplars of the same concessions to the Sacred Penitentiary" (can. 920).

2. "New indulgences, even those granted to churches of regulars, which have not been promulgated at Rome, are not to be made public without consulting the Ordinary of the place" (can. 919, § 1).

3. "All books of indulgences, summaries, booklets, sheets, etc., in which their concessions are contained, are not to be published without the license of the Ordinary of the place. But the express license of the Holy See is required that it be permitted to publish in print, in whatever language, both an authentic collection of prayers and pious works to which the Apostolic See has annexed indulgences, and a list of apostolic indulgences, and a summary of indulgences either previously collected but never approved, or now for the first time to be gathered from diverse concessions" (can. 1388).

4. The Sacred Penitentiary on Dec. 31, 1937, issued a decree concerning its new authentic collection, in which, namely, are contained prayers and pious works, both those which in favor of all the faithful and those which in favor of certain groups up to that day had been enriched, with general concessions of indulgences not reported in the same collection having been abrogated.

It should be noted: a) For indulgences to be applied to things or to persons, a certain form of rite must sometimes be observed by the minister. The ordinary form for crosses, rosaries, and medals consists in making by hand the sign of the cross over the things, without the pronouncement of a formula or the sprinkling of blessed water; but a proper formula is to be observed for crosses of the way of the cross, rosaries of the Most Holy Rosary or of the Seven Sorrows, enrollment in the confraternity of the Most Holy Rosary or of the holy Scapular, or the apostolic blessing at the article of death. The privilege of Cardinals according to the norm of can. 239, 5 and 6, however, remains intact.

b) One who has obtained from the Apostolic See the faculty of blessing things with the application of indulgences with the consent of the Ordinary of the place, in order to exercise the faculty validly must be a priest approved to hear confessions in the diocese. In order to exercise it licitly, the consent of the Ordinary of the place is required, at least tacit or implicit, and if it cannot practically be done otherwise, even prudently presumed (S. C. Indg., June 14, 1901); for religious, however, if they do not use the faculty outside the religious house, the license of the superior then suffices, even if in the rescript it is said: with the consent of the Ordinary of the place (S. C. Indg., June 4, 1888).

c) Concessions of indulgences and faculties of imparting them are to be interpreted broadly because they are favors (can. 50); but according to the proper signification of the words, and therefore they must not be extended to other cases besides those expressed (can. 49); which, moreover, would be of no utility, since even common error does not supply for the defect of truth. Probability of opinion cannot meet this, since it is not a matter of honesty alone but of the validity of the act for obtaining the end (II, n. 94, 4), nor is it proved that the Church supplies.

Thus one who has the faculty of blessing pious things privately for applying an indulgence cannot use it publicly in a church or oratory before the faithful gathered and holding in their hands the things to be blessed (S. C. Indg., Jan. 7, 1843).

Question 3. How practically is the application of these Indulgences made?

Resp. Our Most Holy Lord Pius X "deigned to decree and declare:

"In blessing several similar or diverse objects of religion, which are offered joined or commingled to a priest furnished with several faculties, and to be enriched in themselves with indulgences by force of diverse faculties, one sign suffices for several blessings and attachments of indulgences. And the declaration is not extended to metallic medals to be substituted for scapulars, concerning which in the decree of the S. Office given on the day 16 December, in the year 1910." S. C. S. Off. (S. D. I.), 18 May 1914.

X. The supreme dispenser of indulgences is the Supreme Pontiff. What indulgences bishops and archbishops can grant it does not concern me to discuss. Indulgences granted without cause are not ratified before God.