Indulgences applied to the souls in purgatory

Almost all indulgences are now applicable to the souls in purgatory (Can. 930). In order that they may be applied to them in fact, the person who fulfils the conditions should form his intention of offering them to God for the benefit of certain souls, or for the benefit of the souls in purgatory in general. It is a controverted point among the theologians whether such application is infallible in its effect or not. The difficulty is about the divine promise to accept such offerings, some theologians holding that such a promise is implicitly contained in the words of our Lord: “ Whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven ”’; others denying this. The negative opinion seems to be more in accordance with the mind and practice of the Church.

Similarly, it is a disputed question among theologians whether one who gains an indulgence for the souls in purgatory must himself be in the state of grace. Many hold that he must be, as he must gain the indulgence himself before he can apply it to the holy souls. Others do not see the necessity of this, for such a one only fulfils the conditions, and on the fulfilment of these the Church offers to God the corresponding satisfactions. Both opinions are probable, but the former is safer in practice.

Preliminary note. Although the Supreme Pontiff can grant that we gain indulgences for other living persons, in fact, the Pontiff himself so disposing, no one acquiring indulgences can apply them to others living in this life (canon 930).¹ As regards the application of indulgences to the souls in purgatory, however, we note these things:

¹ The "privilege of the altar for the dying" does not conflict with the cited canon, because in that case the priest celebrating does not acquire the indulgence; rather, the indulgence attached to the Holy Mass is applied directly by the Church to the dying person by way of absolution. Hence the Holy Office, November 9, 1922, to 1, answered affirmatively to the question whether, after canon 930 of the new Code, the existence of an altar for the dying still persisted.

I. The power of the Supreme Pontiff to grant indulgences for the departed. That the Supreme Pontiff enjoys this faculty is proximate to faith, because of the condemnation, and that repeated several times, of the contrary opinion.¹ It is established from the practice of the Church, by which the Supreme Pontiffs have established various indulgences applicable to souls in purgatory; and it follows from the dogma of the communion of Saints, by virtue of which a mutual communication of goods has place in the Church.

The manner of granting indulgences for the departed was explained above, on p. 377.

¹ Thus, for example, proposition 42 condemned by Pius VI against the Synod of Pistoia (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1542).

II. Requisites so that one acquiring indulgences may apply them to the departed. It is required: 1. that the Supreme Pontiff has granted them as applicable to the departed; since, as canon 913, 2°, states, those inferior to the Roman Pontiff cannot grant indulgences applicable to the departed. Besides this, all indulgences granted by the Roman Pontiff, unless something else is established, are applicable to souls in purgatory (canon 930). 2. The intention of the one acquiring is required, by which he wills this and determines, in general or in particular, to whom the indulgence acquired by him is to be applied. The reason is that the Supreme Pontiff makes indulgences only applicable, as follows from canon 913, 2°, and 930. A virtual intention suffices, or even, because the matter concerns a quasi-donation, a habitual one.

It is disputed whether the state of grace is required in the one gaining. The Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, when asked several times concerning this matter, answered on August 20, 1822: Deferred; and on February 22, 1847: Let approved authors be consulted. Now from the approved authors, some¹ deny it, because the state of grace is required only as a disposition for obtaining the effect of the indulgence, that is, the remission of punishment. Therefore, if the effect is to be received by the departed person, it suffices that this person be in the state of grace, but the said state is not required in the living person who fulfills the conditions of the indulgence. Nevertheless, with St. Alphonsus (n. 534, under 10) and others,² it seems the contrary must be admitted. For by granting indulgences for the departed, the Supreme Pontiff constitutes them only as applicable, as follows both from concessions of the Supreme Pontiff and from canon 913, 2°, and canon 930; in other words, he grants to the faithful a certain right in the satisfactions of Christ and the Saints, or at least a right of offering those same satisfactions to God in the name of the Church. Now, if the matter concerns a sinner, the former cannot be admitted, since a sinner cannot merit any satisfaction for himself. As regards the latter, it likewise is admitted with difficulty that a right of this kind is granted to a subject who, even at the end of the works to be performed by him, persists in enmity with God; all the more because then the Church would grant to a sinner the faculty of doing for others what he cannot do for himself as regards previously remitted sins.

To what extent indulgences applied to the departed produce an infallible effect was explained above, on p. 377.

¹ St. Bellarmine, De Indulgentiis, book I, chapter 14; Billuart, De Indulgentiis, single dissertation, article 6.

² De Lugo, Disputation XXVII, n. 75; Tournely, De Poenitentia, last question, article 6; Wignandt, Tribunal Confessariorum, treatise 14, n. 96.

III. The measure according to which an indulgence comes to the departed.

1. If the indulgence is plenary and is applied to one person, it is understood, if we suppose that God assents to the Church making suffrage, to remit all the remaining punishments of the soul. If it is plenary and is applied to several or to all, which can be done,¹ the distribution is left to Divine Providence.

2. If the indulgence is partial, for example of one year, it is understood to remit so much punishment as would be remitted to someone if for a year he performed the penance once customarily imposed for sins according to the canons. If it is partial and is applied to several or to all, the distribution is left to the Providence of God.

¹ Raccolta, p. XI.

1. Copiosus, a priest, a stipend having been received, promised that he would celebrate thirty Gregorian Masses for the soul of the priest Iustus, recently deceased. But after ten Masses had been celebrated, he interrupted celebrating them for three days, since on those days he had received a very rich stipend for the application of the Mass. Then he celebrated another ten Masses not on the same altar, but on another altar, an unforeseen impediment having supervened. Finally, since he himself could not celebrate the remaining ten Masses, he committed them to another priest, who on days not impeded did not celebrate the Mass of Requiem, but according to the rite of the current day. - Did he act rightly?

R. Copiosus did not act rightly by interrupting the Masses. For the thirty Gregorian Masses, from the institution of St. Gregory himself, who first commanded that they be celebrated for the soul of a deceased monk, are to be celebrated on thirty continuous days, so that no day be omitted. - But that not all those Masses were celebrated on the same altar does not harm the special efficacy of the thirty Masses of St. Gregory. For St. Gregory prescribed nothing concerning the place of celebration, but only determined the time, on thirty continuous days, of offering the divine sacrifice. And this is confirmed from the S. C. Indulg., Jan. 14, 1889. - Likewise, it does not harm the aforesaid efficacy that the thirty Masses are not celebrated by one and the same priest. For although St. Gregory imposed upon one and the same priest that those Masses be celebrated, nevertheless from his words it clearly appears that their efficacy is to be sought only from the continued celebration of Mass for thirty days, and not from the priest celebrating: Take care that no day be omitted on which the saving Host is not offered for his absolution. And this is also confirmed from the S. C. Indulg., Jan. 14, 1889. - Finally, as regards the rite, it seems altogether more probable that the aforesaid Masses, on days not impeded, are to be celebrated in the proper rite for the dead, since St. Gregory says that the saving host is to be offered for the absolution of that deceased person, which in the obvious sense also includes the rite for the dead, when namely the rubric permits this; otherwise it will be enough to celebrate in the rite proper to the day. M. E. v. 12, p. 404 seqq.

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

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

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

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

Reply. It is disputed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply. There are two probable opinions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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