Part III Chapter III §2: Indulgences — The Remission of Temporal Punishment Outside the Sacrament

§2: Indulgences

SECTION 2 THE REMISSION OF TEMPORAL PUNISHMENTS OUTSIDE OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE, OR THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF INDULGENCES Though indulgences may be treated separately, we prefer to deal with them in connection with the Sacrament of Penance; first, because confession is the usual means of gaining a plenary indulgence, and secondly, because indulgences, being remissions of the temporal punishments due to sin, form the natural complement of sacramental satisfaction. We will divide this section into three Articles, showing, 1. What an indulgence is; 2. That the Church has the power to grant indulgences ; and 3. That there are indulgences for the dead as well as the living. 23a INDULGENCES 233

Article 1: An Indulgence Defined

AN INDULGENCE DEFINED i. Definition. — An indulgence, in the theological sense, is a remission of temporal punishments due to sin. a) A complete technical definition may be drawn from the writings of approved theologians, and, especially, from certain official documents in which the teaching of the Church on the subject of indulgences is expressly set forth. These documents are principally six, to wit : ( 1 ) The Constitution “Unigenitus” of Pope Clement VI, A. D. 1349; (2) articles 26-28 of the instructions issued in 14 1 8 by Pope Martin V for the examination of those who were suspected of holding Wiclifite and Hussite errors; (3) the condemnation, by Pope Leo X, of articles 17-22 of Martin Luther, A. D. 1520; (4) the dogmatic definition contained in Session XXV of the Tridentine Council; (5) the censures pronounced by Pope Pius V (1567) against a certain proposition (number 60 in the collection of Propositiones damnatae) taught by Baius; and (6) the condemnation, by Pope Pius VI, in 1794, of certain theses 1 drawn up by the Jansenist Council of Pistoia. 1 Prop. Damnatat, 4043 234 INDULGENCES o) In the primitive Church an indulgence was called relaxatio, donatio, or condonatxo? The term indulgentia, which originated in the Middle Ages, is based upon Holy Scripture 8 and the Roman Law. An indulgence has two essential characteristics or notes : (i) it is a remission of temporal punishments; (2) it is granted outside of the Sacrament of Penance. An indulgence, therefore, is not identical with the sacramental penance enjoined by the confessor, which blots out punishments ex opere operator It is a remission of temporal punishments granted by the Church outside of the Sacrament, by an exercise of the power of the keys entrusted to her by her Divine Founder. It follows that indulgences can be granted only by those who possess the power of the keys, i. e. the pope and the bishops. It follows further that, as the power of the keys is not limited to this world,5 an indulgence is more than a mere remission of canonical works of penance ; it is a valid absolution, before God, from the punishments of sin which would otherwise have to be redeemed either by voluntary acts of penance here on earth or by compulsory suffering in purgatory. In other words, an indulgence is valid not only in the external forum of the Church, but likewise in foro divino, that is, before God. This simple explanation incidentally removes the mistaken notion that indulgences neutralize the penal effects of sin (concupiscence, disease, death) or that they can free a person from secular obligations towards others. P) Where does the Church get the merits by which she blots out the punishments of sin? She 2 Cfr. 2 Cor. II, 7, 20: xaP*” 4 V- w*^r0» Sect. 1. fe

draws them from a thesaurus of which our Lord Jesus Christ has constituted her the dispenser, and out of which she grants to each individual beneficiary as much as is needed to satisfy the justice of God. This thesaurus consists of the superabundant merits of Jesus Christ and His saints. In dispensing these merits to the faithful whenever there is a iusta causa, the Church acts in accordance with the justice as well as the mercy of God. He who gains an indulgence does not approach God empty-handed, but enriched with the merits of Christ and the saints, and thereby satisfies divine justice. God, on the other hand, in freely accepting these vicarious merits instead of the personal satisfaction due Him from the sinner, manifests His grace and mercy, i. e. His in^ dulgence in a subjective sense. The thesaurus Ecclesiae just mentioned is logically inseparable from indulgences for two reasons: (1) because an indulgence must have a real basis, and (2) because there are other forms of satisfaction, outside of the Sacrament of Penance, which are not drawn from that thesaurus, e. g. voluntary acts of penance, the Sacraments, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The remission of punishments called an indulgence is not an unconditional amnesty, but postulates in the recipient a moral disposition or worthiness, as well as the performance of certain prescribed acts. For this reason the moral worthiness of the recipient is not endangered by an indulgence, but rather partly taken for granted and partly effected. Charity or the love of God is the font and well-spring as well as the gauge and a necessary condition of the whole system of indulgences.

y) We are now in a position to state briefly the essential characteristics of an indulgence. An indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishments which a penitent, whose sins are forgiven, has yet to undergo, either here or in purgatory; this remission is granted by the Church, through the power of the keys, from the treasury of the superabundant merits of Christ and His saints. b) The objections made against indulgences spring partly from ignorance and partly from malice. Chief among them is the charge that an indulgence is a forgiveness of past, or a permission to commit future, sins. The Church expressly teaches that indulgences presuppose the forgiveness of sins, either through the Sacrament of Penance or by an act of perfect contrition. An indulgence does not forgive sins, but merely remits the punishments due to sins. A Catholic who would ask for permission to sin would be a monster, and the Church would refuse such a request with horror and indignation. The phrase * indulgentia in remissionem omnium peccatorum* which is found in some papal Bulls, has given rise to controversies among the learned, but the faithful have never been in doubt as to what the ecclesiastical authorities meant in employing these words. The term ” peccatum” in these documents means “poena peccati” not “culpa.”* It is to be taken in its proper sense only when an indulgence is expressly granted in connection with confession as a necessary condition, or • Cfr. 2 Mach. XII, 46; x Pet. II, 24.

as an authorization to confessors to absolve penitents from reserved sins on the strength of a ” letter of indulgences/’ We will quote from a bull of Martin V to illustrate our meaning. ” Utrum credat” says the Pontiff, ” quod omnibus Christianis vere contritis et confessis ex causa pia et iusta possit concedere indulgentias in remissionem peccatorum.” 7 The ambiguous phrase ” mdulgentia a culpa et poena,” which occurs in ancient documents, is ascribed by Pope Benedict XIV8 to an abuse on the part of certain officials, whose conduct was not in conformity with the teaching and practice of the Church. This abuse was expressly condemned by Clement V,9 though it had never led to a real misunderstanding of the nature of indulgences on the part of the faithful.10 2. Division. — Indulgences may be divided into various classes, according to different principles of division. a) The most important distinction is that between plenary and partial indulgences, with which we shall deal later. Other divisions are the following: (1) Universal and local. Universal indulgences (indulgentiae universales) can be gained everywhere; local indulgences (indulgence locales) in certain specified places only. 7 Bull ” Inter cunctas” (Denzin- 10 Cfr. A. Franz, ” Wie man dem gcr-Bannwart, n. 676). Volke Im 1$. Jahrhundert Uber den BDe Synodo Dioecesana, VIII, Ablass predigte,” in the Mayencc 8, 7. Katholik, 1904, II, pp. 115 sqq. On 9 Clement, 1. V, tit 9, c. 2: the disfigurement of the Catholic ” Qunm mliqui ex ipsis tquaestori- doctrine of indulgences by Russian bus] eos a poena et a culpa, ut theologians, see A. Bukowsld, Die eorutn verbis ntamur, absolvant, nos Genugtuung fUr die SUnde nach der abusus huiusmodi … omnimode Auffassung der russischen Orthoaboleri volentet,” etc. doxie, pp. 1x5 sqq., Paderborn 191 x.

(2) Perpetual and temporary. Perpetual indulgences (indulgent iae perpetuae) can be gained at all times; temporary indulgences (indulgentiae temporariae) only within certain limited periods, e. g. on specified days of the week. (3) Real and personal. Real indulgences (indulgentiae reales) are attached to material objects, e. g. a rosary, a medal, a crucifix. Personal indulgences (indulgentiae personates) are not attached to objects and can be gained either by certain privileged classes of persons only, e. g. the members of a religious community, or by all Catholics without exception. (4) Solemn and plain. Solemn indulgences (indulgentiae solemnes) are granted for particular festive occasions, e. g. a triduum, a no vena; plain indulgences (indulgentiae nonrsolemnes) are not thus limited. b) The most important division of indulgences, to which we have already adverted, is that into plenary and partial. A plenary indulgence is the remission of the whole debt of temporal punishment due to sin ; a partial indulgence remits only a part of that punishment. To gain a plenary indulgence fully, one must be free from all affection for sin. There are many plenary indulgences. The ideal plenary indulgence is that known as the jubilee. A jubilee is a plenary indulgence granted by the Holy Father every twenty-fifth year, or upon extraordinary occasions, e. g. the accession of a new pope. In former times jubilee indulgences were granted only once every hundred years. A partial indulgence is the remission of a part of the

temporal punishments due to sin. Partial indulgences are gauged by the penitential canons of the ancient Church, being granted for forty days, seven years, etc. In this sense a partial indulgence is indeed in the first place a relaxatio de iniunctis poenitentiis before the external forum of the Church;11 but together with the canonical penalties there is remitted a corresponding quantity of punishment in the internal forum of conscience, and consequently before God, just as was the case in the early Church.” An indulgence of forty days or seven years, therefore, means a remission of so much of the temporal punishment due to one’s sins as one could have discharged by doing penance for forty days or seven years under the ancient canons. c) There is still another division of indulgences deserving of mention, namely, indulgences for the living (indulgentiae pro vivis) and indulgences for the dead {indulgentiae pro mortuis). In speaking of ” the dead ” we mean neither the elect in Heaven nor the reprobates in hell, but the poor souls in purgatory. They alone of all Christians who have passed away can profit by indulgences. The elect no longer require a remission of punishment, while the reprobates are incapable of receiving such a favor. Indulgences for the living differ from indulgences for the dead in one essential respect : they produce their effect both per solutionem, i. e. by a grant from the treasury of the Church, and per absolutionem, i. e. by an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Indulgences for the dead, on the other hand, cannot benefit the poor souls per 11 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa 12 V. infra, Art. 2, No. 2. Tkeol., Suppl., qu. 25, art. z.

absolution?** because the poor souls are forever removed from the jurisdiction of the Church. Such indulgences, therefore, can be applied only through the instrumentality of the living, per tnodum suffragii, i. e. by means of intercession.18

Article 2: Proof from Scripture, Tradition, and History

THE POWER OF THE CHURCH TO GRANT INDULGENCES i. Heretical Errors vs. the Teaching of the Church. — The Catholic doctrine of indulgences was attacked by the Waldenses and the followers of Wiclif and Hus, but principally by the so-called Protestant Reformers. Pope Martin V (1418) condemned Wiclif s assertion that * it is foolish to believe in the indulgences granted by the pope and the bishops.* 1 Leo X proscribed Luther’s proposition that “indulgences do not benefit those who truly gain them for the remission of punishment due to actual sins in the eyes of a just God.” 2 The dogmatic teaching of the Church was defined by the Council of Trent as follows: “Since the power of conferring indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church, and she has, even in the most ancient times, used this power, delivered unto her of God ; the holy Synod teaches 18 V. infra, Art 3. eas consequuntur, non valent ad re1* Fatuum est credere indulge*- missionem poenae pro peccatis actiis Papae et episcoporum.* (Den- tuaJibus debit ae apud divinam t»zinger-Bannwart, n. 622). stitiam.” ( Denzinger-Bannwart, n. a ” Indulgentiae his, qui veraciter 759). INDULGENCES 241 and enjoins that the use of indulgences for the Christian people, most salutary and approved by the authority of sacred councils, is to be retained in the Church ; and it condemns with anathema those who either assert that they [namely, indulgences] are useless, or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them.” 3 The assertion of the Council of Pistoia that an indulgence is nothing more or less than a remission of part of the canonical penance enjoined by the ancient discipline,4 was censured as ” false, temerarious, and derogatory to the merits of Christ” by Pope Pius VI (1794). 5 That the granting of indulgences is a salutary practice appears clearly from the teaching and conduct of the Church. But we must prove that she has the power to grant indulgences. 8Sess. XXV: ” Quum potestas conferendi indulge ntias a Christo Ecclesiae concessa sit atque huiustnodi potestate divinitus sibi tradita antiquissimis etiam temporibus ilia usu fuerit, s. Synodus indulgentiarum usum christiano populo maxime salutarem et sacrorum conciliorum auctoritate probatum in Ecclesia retinendum esse docet et praecipit eosque anathemate datnnat, qui aut inutiles esse asserunt vel eas concedendi in Ecclesia potestatem esse negant.* (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 989). — In the Tridentine profession of faith we read: * Indulgentiarum etiam potestatem 4 Christo in Ecclesia re lie tarn fuisse illarumque usum christiano Populo maxime salutarem esse aMrmo.” (Ibid., n. 998). 4 ” Indulgentiam secundum suam praecisam notionem aliud non esse quam remissionem partis eius poenitentiae, quae per canones statuta erat peccanti” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1540). • s Ibid. : ”… quasi indulgentia praeter nudam remissionem poenae canonicae non etiam valet ad remissionem poenae temporalis pro peccatis actualibus debitae apud divinam iustitiam: — falsa, temeraria, Christi meritis iniuriosa, dudum in art. 19 Lutheri damnata.” 242 INDULGENCES 2. Proof From Sacred Scripture and Tradition.— That the Church has the power to grant indulgences from the treasury of the superabundant merits of Christ and His saints, can be proved from Scripture as well as Tradition. The Scriptural argument is based on the universal character of the power of the keys. a) The power of the keys includes the faculty of loosing (facultus solvendi) as well as that of binding.6 Christ said to St. Peter, and in his person to his successors, the popes: “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” 7 To all the Apostles together, and to their successors, the bishops of the Catholic Church, He said : “Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” 8 In these texts our Divine Lord conferred upon St. Peter and the college of the Apostles, that is to say upon the pope and the bishops, formally and without limit, the power of loosing as well as the power of binding. In other words, all the moral ties which • V. supra, pp. 6 sqq. 8 Matt. XVIII, 18: 6ffa ibp 7 Matt XVI, 19: 6 iap \vcrys \vpav& rots ovpavoUINDULGENCES 243 bind men in the eyes of God and debar them from Heaven, may be loosed by the Church, and whatever she looses shall be so accounted before God. To the category of these moral bonds belong, without doubt, the temporal punishments which remain after the sins to which they are due are forgiven.9 Consequently these punishments are subject to the power of the keys, and the Church can remit them. To this consideration may be added another. The remission of the eternal punishment of sin through the Sacrament of Penance is proof of a far greater power than the remission of merely temporal punishments effected by indulgences. The Church unquestionably has the larger power ; there is no reason to deny her the smaller. Let it not be objected that her power to remit temporal punishments is limited to the total or partial remission of the penitential works imposed in confession. Christ has not attached the facultas solvendi to any particular rite, nor to a limited class or group of punishments. He gave this power to His Church unconditionally and without limitation, and hence she can employ it outside of, as well as in, the Sacrament of Penance, especially since the faithful themselves are able to redeem the temporal punishments due to their sins by personal works of satisfaction.10 This truth is illustrated by St. Paul’s attitude towards the incestuous man at Corinth.- Though he had delivered this sinner “up to Satan,” i. e. excommunicated him,11 he received him back and remitted his punishment when he » V. supra, Sect 1,’ Theses I to 10 V. supra, Sect 1, Thesis II. III. liCfr. 1 Cor. V, 3 sqq.

showed sorrow. The Apostle justifies this step as follows : ” 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,” 12 i. e. either with the authority of Christ, as Estius and other exegetes hold, or before the face of Christ, in His presence, i. e. Christ looking on and approving, as is maintained by Comely and others. Here we have all the requisites of a true indulgence : due regard for the contrite heart of the sinner ; the intercession of the faithful ; the exercise of Apostolic power in persona Christi without the intermediary of a Sacrament, and the partial remission of ecclesiastical and divine penalties granted on the assumption that the sin itself together with its eternal punishment had already been remitted.18 b) The argument from Tradition is based on the history of indulgences. This may be conveniently divided into five periods. ) The first period extends from the Apostolic age to the Nicene Council (325). During this period the bishops, for weighty reasons, especially out of regard for the intercession of the martyrs, as embodied in the so-called libelli pads, sometimes shortened or partially remitted the punishments for grievous sin, which were quite often extremely severe. 12a Cor. II, 10: “Cm autem aliquid donastis (gaplfefffc), et ego; nam et ego quod donavi ($ Kex&ptVfiai), ei quid donavi, propter vos (Si Vfids) in persona Christi (ip TrpoawTra) = by the authority of Christ) Cfr. Al. Schafcr, ErklSrung der beiden Brief e an die Korinther, p. 392, Munster 1903; J. MacRory, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians, P. II. p. 26, Dublin 1 915. is Cfr. Estius, Comment, in Epist. S. Pauli, in h. I. This practice may be studied in the writings of Tertullian and St. Cyprian. Tertullian addresses the martyrs as follows : ” Some in the Church, not having this peace, were wont to implore the martyrs in prison. And therefore, you must have and foster and preserve the same [peace] in yourselves for this reason, among others, that you may be in a position to bestow it upon others.” 14 In later life, after he had joined the Montanists, Tertullian contradicted his previous teaching; but in complaining that Catholics regarded the intercession and the merits of the martyrs as efficacious before God, he unwittingly testified to the fact that this species of indulgences was considered valid both in foro divino and in the external forum of the Church.1* St. Cyprian, while inveighing against the frequent misuse of the libelli martyrum, admits their efficacy within proper bounds. ” Those who have received a libellus [letter of intercession] from the martyrs,” he says, ” and can be assisted by their help before God in their transgressions, if they begin to suffer from some infirmity and danger, should, after having made their confession and received the imposition of the hand in Penance, be committed to God with the peace promised them by the martyrs.* 16 It 14 Ad Martyr., c. x: * Quam pacem quid-am m Ecclesia non habentes, a martyribus in career* exorare consueverunt. Et ideo earn etiam propterea in vobis habere et fovere et custodire debetis, ut si forte et alUs praestare possitis.* (Migne, P. L., I, 621). 15 De Pudic., c. 22: * SuMciat marytri propria delicto purgasse. Ingrati vel superbi est, in alios quoque spargere quod pro magna fuerit consecutus. Quis alienam mortem sub solvit nisi solus Dei Uliusf Nam et in ipsa passione liberavit latronem. Ad hoc enim venerat, ut ipse a delicto purus et omnia sanetus pro peccatoribus obiret. Proinde qui ilium aemularis donando delicto, si nihil ipse deliquisti, plane patere pro me; si vero peccator es, quomodo oleum faculae tuae suMcere et tibi et mihi poteritf ” 16 Ep., 13, n. 2: “Qui libellum a martyribus acceperunt, et auxilio eorum adiuvari apud Dominum in delictis suis possunt, si premi inUrmitate aliqua et periculo coeperint, exomologesi factd et manu eis a vobis in poenitentiam impositd, cum should be noted, however, that the martyrs acted only as mandatories, and not as the dispensers, of these (improperly so-called) indulgences. “The martyrs,” says St. Cyprian, “recommend that something be done; but it must be done by the priest of God [only] if it be just, licit, and not against the Lord’s command.” 17 After the edict of Milan, A. D. 313, martyrdom became a comparatively rare occurrence, and what we may call indulgences took the form of an episcopal remission of canonical punishments. The bishops were moved to grant such a remission by the zeal of some penitents. The Council of Ancyra (314) expressly vindicates this power to the bishops.18 The Nicene Council advises them to use it in certain cases.19 These episcopal acts not merely had reference to the external forum of the Church ; they were true indulgences because the performance of the canonical penance was regarded as possessing a satisfactory value in the eyes of God.20 P) The practice of indulgences continued in essentially the same form throughout the second period, from the First Nicene Council to the Second (325-787). pace a martyribus sibi promissa ad Dominum remittantur.’* (Migne, P. L.f IV, 261). 17 Cfr. St. Cyprian, De Lap sis, c. 18: * M and ant martyr es aliquid fieri; sed si iusta, si licita, si non contra ipsum Dominum a Dei sacerdote facienda.* 18 Can. 2: “Nisi forte aliquid episcoporum conscii sint lab oris eorum et humilitatis et mansuetudims et voluerint eis aliquid amplius tribucre vel adimere, penes ipsos ergo erit de his potestas.” 19 Can. 12, apud Hardouin, Cone, Vol. I, 327 : ” Quotquot metu et lacrimis atque poenitentid vel bonis operxbus conversionem suam in re, non simulatione demonstrant, hi definitum tempus auditionis [i. e. the second penitential station] implentes turn demum Hdelibus in oratione communicent; postmodum vero licebit episcopo de his aliquid humanius cogitare.* 20 Cfr. St. Cyprian, De Lap sis, c. 17: * Dominus orandus est, Dominus nostra satisfaction placandus est.” INDULGENCES 247 It is asserted by some that in this second period, and during part of the first, the solemn reconciliation of public penitents on Holy Thursday closed with the granting of a plenary indulgence, and that this ceremony, consisting of the imposition of hands and solemn absolution, was performed by the bishop, who, not having himself heard the confessions of the individual penitents,21 could not give the sacramental absolution. In support of this interpretation, first suggested by Eusebius Amort, may be cited the fact that the forgiveness of sins was usually referred to as ai£vai d/wtprtas or a^cctv 8i8dvac, and the reconciliation on Holy Thursday as aTroKaOurrdveiv, whereas admission to public penance was designated by the term irpoaXafipdvciv or &ex€

and the introduction of the so-called penitential redemptions, i. e. the substitution of easier or shorter exercises (especially almsdeeds) for works of penance imposed by the early canons. These substitutes took numerous and different forms. A favorite one, beginning with the latter part of the seventh century, was making a pilgrimage to Rome. According to St Bede (674-735) the visitatio liminum, as it was called, or visit to the tombs of the Apostles, was regarded as a good work of great efficacy.24 Other forms of commutation were fasting, flagellations, and pilgrimages to well-known shrines, as St. Alban’s in England or San Juan de Compostella in Spain.21 The practice of substituting pecuniary alms for a portion of the fast and other severe penitential exercises, originated in Ireland and soon made its way to the continent, where it gave rise to serious abuses. Aside from the practice of penitential redemptions, this period is marked by three facts : the introduction of indulgences for the dead (Paschalis I, John VIII, John XI), the granting of general indulgences by papal Bulls, and a greater emphasis placed upon the power of the popes in the matter of granting indulgences. It goes without saying, however, that penitential redemptions, commutations, and compensations can be regarded as true indulgences only when granted by the Church in lieu of other penances prescribed by the canons.2* 24 Hist. Eccl. Brit., IV, c 23: ten, Vol. V, 3, PP. 464 iqq.; H. J. ” Magnae virtutis oestimabatnr.” Schmitz, * Kanoniscke Kirchenbusse 25 See W. H. Kent in the Catho- und Ablasserteilung,* in the MayKc Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 786. ence Katholik, 1885, I; A. M. 26 Cfr. Binterim, DenktvUrdigkei- Kdniger, Burchard I. von Worms

8. The fourth period in the history of indulgences, from the Council of Clermont (1095) to the Second Council of Lyons (1274), coincides with the crusades, during which the practice assumed a new form. At Clermont, for the first time, participation in a crusade was suggested as a ransom from all penance. The Council decreed as follows: “Whoever, out of pure devotion, and not for the purpose of gaining honor or money, shall go to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God, let that journey be counted in lieu of all penance.* 27 Pope Urban II, who personally attended this council, said in a sermon : * But we, trusting in the mercy of God and the authority of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, remit to the faithful who take up arms against the Saracens and assume the burden of this pilgrimage [to Jerusalem], the unmeasured penalties of their sins. Those who shall die there with a truly contrite heart, may rest assured that they will obtain forgiveness of their sins and the fruit of eternal reward.” 28 Urban’s example was followed by Callistus II (1123), Eugene III (1146), Alexander III (1179), and other popes. At about the same time the Schoolmen, notably St. Thomas Aquinas (+ 1274), turned their attention to und die deutsche Kir c he seiner Zeit (1000-1025), pp. 143 tqq., Munich 1905. 27 Can. 2 : ” Quicumque pro sola devotions, non pro honoris vel pecuniae adeptione ad liber and am Ecclesiam Dei Ierusalem profectus fuerit, iter illud pro omni poenir tentia ei reputetur.” (Hardouin, Cone, VI, 2, 1 718). 28 ” Afar autem de misericordia Dei et B. Petri et Pauli Apostolorum auctoritate confisi Udelibus Christ ianis, qui contra eos [t. e. Saracenos] arma susceperint, et onus sibi huius peregrinationis assumpserint, immensas pro suis delictis poenitenHas relaxamus. Qui autem ibi in vera poenitentia decesserint, et peccatorum indulgentiam et fructum aeternae mercedis se non dubitent habituros.” (Ibid., p. 1724). INDULGENCES the scientific development of the doctrine of indulgences.29 St. Thomas knows but one plenary indulgence, i. e. that granted for the liberation of the Holy City from the yoke of the Saracens.80 Among partial indulgences he mentions as the greatest one of seven years.81 \yithin the Greek schismatic Church indulgences did not gain nearly as wide a vogue as among the Latins, though we have knowledge of occasional commutations of severe penances into lighter ones which latter mostly took the shape of pecuniary alms for the redemption of prisoners held in captivity by the Turks.82 «) In the course of the fifth and last period ( 1 274-1 916) the practice of indulgences developed into the precise form in which we have it to-day. An important event marking the early part of this period was the proclamation of a jubilee by Boniface VIII. In a Bull beginning with the words, ” Antiquorum habet Ada relatio,” this Pope authorized and confirmed the institution of the jubilee.88 Enormous crowds from all nations 29 £. Theol., Suppl., qu. 25-27. 80 Quodlibet, II, art. 16. 81 Comment, in Sent., IV, dist 20, qu. x, art. 3, sol. 2: “Papa dat indulgentiam, quod qui vadit ad unam ecclesiam, habeat septem annos de indulgentia, cuiusmodi etiam indulgentiae a Beato Gregorio [Magno] in stationibus Romae institutae sunt.’* 82 Cfr.. Gass, Symbolik der griechischen Kirche, p. 287, Berlin 1872. — On the so-called Portiuncula indulgence, reputed to have been granted by Pope Honorius III, see P. A. Kirsch, Der Portiunkula-Ablass, Tubingen, 1907; M. Biehl, O. F. M., in the Cath. Encycl., Vol. XII, pp. 286 sq. ssExtrav. Com., 1. V, tit. 9, c 1: “Antiquorum habet Ada relatio quod accedentibus ad honorabilem basilicam principis Apostolorum de Urbe concessae sunt magnae remissions et indulgentiae peccatorum. Nos igitur … huiusmodi remissiones et indulgentias omnes et singulas ratas et gratas habentes con’ Urmamus.” — Full text of the Bull in Amort, P. I, sect 3. ft flocked to St. Peter’s during the year 1300, among them many aged and sick carried in litters.84 Boniface had decreed that the jubilee indulgence should be renewed every one-hundred years. But Clement VI, on his accession to the chair of St. Reter (1342), being urged by the people to reduce the term to fifty years, complied with the request in his famous Bull ” Unigenitus” Urban VI, in 1389, reduced the interval between one jubilee and the next to thirty-three years. Paul II, by a Bull of April 19, 1470, brought it down to twenty-five. His successor, Sixtus IV, confirmed this decision and furthermore decreed that the special indulgences granted to churches all over the world should be suspended during the jubilee. The Scholastic teaching with regard to the thesaurus ecclesiae** from which indulgences are granted, is for the first time officially mentioned by Clement VI in the Bull “Unigenitus” (1349). Besides the jubilee there were granted, in process of time, many other plenary and partial indulgences which could be gained much more easily. Abuses have unfortunately fastened themselves upon this practice almost from the beginning. They were promptly met by repressive measures on the part of the Church.8* Tetzel’s quarrel with Luther, which occasioned the great revolt of the sixteenth century,87 bore directly on the subject of indulgences; The ensuing controversy caused the Council of Trent to take a decided ! stand against the many abuses that had crept in. Aside j from these abuses, which by no means affected the official 4 84Cfr. A. M. Lepicier, Indul- lie Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 786. . gene e s (English tr.)> pp. 356 sqq. 87 Cfr. N. Paulus, Johann Tetsel, 85 V. infra, No. 3. der Ablassprcdiger, Mayence 1899. 8« Cfr. W. H. Kent in the Catho 

2$2 INDULGENCES teaching of the -Church, there rhas been .no rhange in her attitude towards indulgences iromthe Apostolic age down to the present day.418 The resume we have given of the history of indulgences from St. Paul to Benedict XV furnishes convincing evidence that the power of granting indulgences has always existed in the Church and was constantly exercised by her representatives, though not always in exactly the same way. 3. The Thesaurus of the Chuuch as the Source of Indulgences. — By the “thesaurus ecclesiae” we understand the sum-tdtal of the superabundant merits of Jesus Christ and His saints, which are stored up in the Church for the purpose of being applied to the faithful by means of indulgences. Though the phrase rrp &rAipnas 6 (hpavpo occurs in the writings of St Chrysostomi89 the fully develQped concept, as defined above,, seems to have originated with Alexander of Hales40 and Albert the Great.41 The underlying idea can be traced to St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, where the redemptive grace of Christ is described as ” abounding unto many.” 42 The thesaurus from which the Church dispenses indulgences consists primarily of the infinite merits of our Lord Himself, and secondarily 88 Cfr. A. Kurz, Die katK Lehre 40 Summa, P. IV, qu. 23, m. 3, vom Ablass vor and nathdem Auf- n. 6. treten Luthers, Paderborn 1900. l Comment, in Sent., IV, tdist 39 Migne, P. G„ L, 571. ao, art. 16. «Cfr. -Rom. V, 15 aqq. and per accidms of the finite merits of the saints, in so far as their satisfactory (not meritorious) value admits of being added to the common treasury.48 ;a) That there exists a treasury of the merits of Christ, over which the Church has control, may be regarded at the very least as a propositio fidei proximo, and, with one exception,44 has never been denied by any Catholic theologian. The proof for this proposition rests on the fact that the redemptive merits of Christ are infinite and therefore inexhaustible. It is from this thesaurus meritorum Christi that the Church draws in the administration of the Sacraments, in the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and also in granting indulgences. This truth is clearly defined and at the same time lucidly explained by Pope Clement W. in his Bull ” Unigenitus ” ( 1349) .4i According to :this definition an indulgence is neither a donation nor a simple remission of temporal punishments, but both 48 Qn the distinction between merit (meritum) and satisfaction tjotisfasiio) see PohlfePrenss, Soteriology, and ed, pp. 55 sq., St Louis 191 6. 44 Francis Mayron, d. 1327. 45 Extrav. Com., 1. Vf tit. 4, c. a: ” Christ us in ara cruets innocens immolatus nan guttam sanguinis modicam, qua tamen propter unionem ad Verbum pro redemption* totius humani generis suffecisset, sed copiose velut quod dam proAuvium noscitur effudisse… . Quantum ergo exinde, ut nec supervacanea, inanis aut superfJua tantae effusionis miseratio redderetur, thesaurum militanti Ecetesiae acquisivit, volens suis thesauriMsre filiis pius pater, ut sic sit infinitus thesaurus hominibus, quo qui usi sunt, Dei amicitiae participes sunt effectL Quern quidem thesaurum non in sudario reposit urn, non in agro absconditum, sed per beatum Petrum coeli clavigerum eiusque successores in terra vicarios commisit UdeKbus salubriter dispensandum, et propriis et rationabilibus causis nunc pro Mali nunc pro partiali remissions poenae temporalis pro peccatis debitae … vers poenitentibus et confesses misericorditer applicandum.” 254 INDULGENCES an absolution and a payment, the latter being drawn from the treasury of the merits of Christ.46 b) That the superabundant merits of the saints, too, flow into the treasury of the Church is the common and certain teaching of Catholic theologians.47 a) Clement VI clearly inculcates this truth in the Bull from which we have just quoted.48 Leo X condemned Luther’s proposition that ” the treasuries of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and the saints.” 49 Pius V, in 1567, censured the teaching of Baius that “our sins are not properly redeemed [with regard to their temporal punishments] by the sufferings of the saints, communicated through indulgences/’ 50 Finally, Pius VI (1794) solemnly rejected the assertion of the Jansenistic Council of Pistoia, that the treasury of the Church owes its existence to the “subtlety of the Scholastics/’ He declared this statement to be ” false, temerarious, and derogatory to the merits of Christ and the saints.” §1 P) The presence of satisfactory merits of the saints in the treasury of the Church is explained 4« On the treasury of the merits of Christ existing in the Catholic Church see Pohle-Preuss, Sot etiology, pp. 60 sqq. 47 The only dissenting voice is that of Durandus {Comment, in Sent., IV, dist 20, q. 3). 4S” Ad cuius quid em thesauri cumulum beatae Dei genitricis omniumque electorum a primo usque ad ultimum merit a adminlculum praestare noscuntur, de cuius consumptions sen minutione non est aliquatenus formidandum.” {Extrav. Com., 1. v, lit. 9, c. 2). 40 Prop. Luth. Damnat., prop. 17: ” Thesauri Ecclesiae, unde Papa dat indulgentias, non sunt merita Christi et sanctorum.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 757). so ” Per passionem sanctorum in indulgentiis communicatas non proprie redimuntur [quoad poenam temporalem] nostra delicto.” (Derizinger-Bannwart, n. 1060). si Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1541. f by the dogma of the Communion of Saints. All the members of Christ’s mystic body are organically connected with one another and enjoy spiritual benefits in common.52 A natural consequence of this communion is the applicability to others of the satisfactory merits which the saints in Heaven and the righteous still living on earth have gained by their penitential works, but do not need for themselves. There must be a wealth of such accumulated merits. Think of the overflowing satisfactions of our Blessed Lady, who is justly called the Mother of Sorrows, of St. John the Baptist, and many others who practiced austere penance.58 Though all these satisfactions are as nothing compared with the infinite merits of Christ, they nevertheless constitute a fund having its existence in the knowledge and free acceptation of God. This fund must have a purpose, though it is of a purely finite nature and, apart from the merits of Christ, might conceivably in course of time be exhausted.54 4. In Whom the Power to Grant Indulgences Is Vested. — As the granting of indulgences to the living takes place per absolutionem, it is not an act of the potestas ordinis, but of the 52 See Pohle-Preuss, Eschatology, Vol. XII of this series. 68Cfr. St Thomas, Summa Theol., Sup pi. , qu. 25, art. 1: “Ratio autem, quare valere [indulgentiael possint, est unitas corporis mystici, in qua multi in operibus poenitentiae supererogaverunt ad mensuram debitorum suorutn, et multi etiam tribulationes iniustas sustinuerunt patienter, pgr quas multitudo poenarum poterat expiari, si eis deberetur; quorum meritorum tanta est copia quod omnem poenam debltam nunc viventibus excedunt.” 54 On the thesaurus meritorum as the source of indulgences see Cardinal Bellarmine, De Indulgentiis, I, c. 2; Suarez, De Poenitentia, disp. 51; De Lugo, De Poenitentia, disp. 37, sect. 3 sq256 INDULGENCES potestas iurisdictionis. Hence the Pope can* of his own power, grant indulgences to. all. the faithful on earth, whereas a bishop, being the head of only a limited portion of the flock, can grant indulgences only to his immediate subjects and in so far as his power has not been expressly circumscribed by conciliary or papal decrees. a) To grant plenary indulgences is the exclti9ive pre^ rogative of the Supreme Pontiff. Bishops can grant partial indulgences only, and their original power in this regard has been further curtailed by- synodal dfecrees. Thus the Fourth Council’ of the Lateran (1215) ordained that an archbishop within his province* and1 a- bishop within his diocese, can, upon the occasion of the dedication of a church, grant an indulgence of not more than one year, and on other occasions* one not exceeding forty days. Since granting indulgences is an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and has nothing to do with Holy Orders, a pope-elect or bishop-eliect may exercise it validly before his ordination or consecration. Abbots, the generals of religious orders, and parish priests cannot grant indulgences,85 unless specially empowered to db so by the Holy See. This power may be conferred an any cleric. The: Grand. Penitentiary at Rome and: a cardinal deacon may grant indulgences of one hundred days each in their, respective titular churches, and. an Apostolic delegate, even if he is not a priest, may grant indulgences up to seven years and seven quarantines 56 to. the. faithful residing within the limits of his jurisdiction. svCfr. St Thomas, Summa Theoh, ing of this term see Lepicier; InduU Suppl., qu. 26, art 3. gencex, their Origin, Nature, and se On the derivation and mean- Development, p. 283.

For the test; even the papal power in regard to indulgences is not unlimited and; arbitrary,, but under pain of invalidity must be exercised for some j 11st cause (causa iusta—pia, ntiianabilis), x& which, however, the grantor is the sole judge; Thef reason is evident. The Church of Christ is not the mistress, but. merely the dispenser of the treasures entrusted to her by her Divine Founder. A just cause, for the granting of an indulgence would be the honor of God or the welfare of the Church. Some theologians, e. g. Suarez57 and De Lugo**8 say that an indulgence, to be valid> must be granted for a; reason that is; not merely just (causa iusta)\ but in diie proportion to the size of. the indulgence granted; (causa propartianata) . fa) Those; who are. empowered to grant indulgences must* moreover, insist on certain conditions* (1) The first of these conditions, is that the recipient be in the state ofc grace: at least at the time when he perforata the last of the prescribed exercises. This is the general teaching of theologians, though some hold that the good, works prescribed for the gaining of an indulgence: must all be performed in the. state of; grace. It stands to reason that no temporal: punishments can be remitted while the: sini itself remains unf orgiveni Hence the stnang^emphaaia laid upon the formula * vere contritis vel confessis* in most pontifical Bulls. (?) The second condition necessary for the gaining of an indulgence is the conscientious performance of the prescribed good works (fasting, prayer, almsdeeds, confession, communion). These are required not* of course, as a cause, but merely as a condition for the gaining of the indulgence.59 Only in exceptional cases can an in•T De Poenit., disp. 54, sect 3. majority of theologians, including 58 D* Poenit., disp. 27, art 8. St Thomas (Suppl., qu. 25, art 2). ••This is the teaching of the

dulgence be gained without the performance of good works. Such a case would be, for instance, if a dying man, who had done much for the Church, were to receive from the Pope a personal indulgence in articulo mortis. (3) A third requisite is the intention of really gaining the indulgence. Supernatural favors are never forced upon any adult person, but must be voluntarily accepted. Such voluntary acceptance need not, however, be made in the form of an actual intention. A virtual, nay a habitual, intention is quite sufficient Besides these three conditions, generally demanded by theologians, Cajetan and Tournely insist on a fourth, namely, true penitential zeal. One who neglects to do penance himself, but relies on the good works of others, cannot, they claim, obtain the benefit of an indulgence. This demand may exercise a salutary influence on some lukewarm Catholics, but as its necessity cannot be proved, it is rejected by the majority of theologians. The common teaching is that indulgences have precisely the influence that is given them by their grantor, and require no other conditions than the necessary jurisdiction on the part of the grantor, charity on the part of the beneficiary, and a just and pious cause.60 The lukewarmness and indolence of which Cajetan and Tournely complain must be combatted by other means.61 eoCfr. St Thomas, S. Theol., ecipientis caritas et ex parte causae Suppl., qu. 25, art a: ” Indulgen- pi etas.” tiae eimpliciter tantum valent, quan- 61 Cfr. Suarez, De Poenit., diap. turn praedicantur, dummodo ex parte s*» sect 9. dantis sit auctotitas et ex parte su 

Article 3: Indulgences for the Dead

INDULGENCES FOR THE DEAD I. State of the Question. — Indulgences for the dead require a separate treatment because, unlike indulgences for the living, they are not granted in the form of a judicial absolution, owing to the fact that the poor souls in purgatory are no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the Church. But if this is so, how can the Pope authoritatively grant indulgences to the dead ? We shall briefly explain this apparent contradiction. Jurisdiction may be understood either in a wide or in a narrow sense, according as it means merely the right to guide others or to rule subjects. In the strict sense the Church can exercise her power of jurisdiction only over those who are her subjects through Baptism. The jurisdiction she has over catechumens and pagans is confined to preaching the word of God and exercising a certain guidance over them.1 It is only in this wider sense of the term that the power of the keys can be said to extend to the poor souls in purgatory. The Church simply offers to God from the treasury of merits at her command an equivalent satisfaction with the request to remit any remaining punishments to the extent of the indulgence offered. This is called the application of an indulgence by way of suffrage {per modutn suffragii). The poor souls receive these indulgences not directly, but indirectly, through the 1 Cfr. Matt XXVIII, 19.

intercession of the living. A living Christian must first gain an indulgence for himself before he can make use of the privilege of applying it to the poor souls. 2. The Church Has the Power to Grant Indulgences for the DSad: — Though not an article of faith, it is certain that the Pbpe, as supreme steward of the treasury of the Church; has the power to grant indulgences which are applicable to the poor souls by the intercession of the living. It is no longer possible to base this teaching on the Bull in which Sixtus IV condemns the proposition of Peter of Osma : * Papa non potest indulgere alicui ztiro poenam purgatorii* 2 The word viro is a misprint1 for vivo, as clearly appears from a Quodiibetum of the same writer, in which he combats the assertion that one can obtain remission of the punishment awaiting him in purgatory while still among the living.8* However, in another Bull, dated Nov. 27, 1477, Sixtus IV expressly declkre* that inr diligences can be applied to the poor souls per modum suffragii. Pope Leo X rejected Luthert assertion that indulgences are neither necessary nor useful to the dead or dying.4 When the Jansenistic* Council of- Pistoia repeated this falsehood, it was censured by Pius VI.6 2 Apud Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 8Cft. the Innsbruck ZeOschrifi fUr kath. Theologie, 1909, pp. 599 sqq. Peter, de Osma’s QuodHbetum wai published by M* Pelayo, His*, de las Heterodox os EspaHoles, I, 788 sqq., Madrid 1880. 4 ” Sex generibus hominum indulgentiae nsc sunt necessariae me utiles, videl. mariuis, sen morituris, • infirmis-? etc. (Denriager^Binn- i wart, n. 76ft). j • In eo quod superaddit, luctuo sins adhue ess* quod- chimaerica \ isthasc applicaiio trans ferri volita sit ’ in defunctos: — falsa, temeraria, ’ piamm aurium oWensr»i in Roma- \ nos pontifices et in praxim et sensum universalis Ecclesias iniuriosa, in erINDULGENCES 261 a) The chief reason why indulgences are applicable to the poor souls is that the Communion of Saints comprises the inmate of purgatory as well as the elfect in Heaven and the militant Church on earth. As the faithful can aid the poor soulfe in a. general way by their intercession; so they can help them in particular by means of indulgences applied’ through’ their piou9 suffrages (per modum suffragii)* The poor souls in that case simply participate in the mutual exchange of spiritual benefits to; which all the members of the Com* tnunio sanctorum have a claim. If the individual Christian can aid the poor souls by praying for them, he can aid them still more effectively by applying to them tile indulgences granted by the Church, for in these there is superadded to private suffrage the authority of the Pope, through whom the Church herself intercedes,, not with empty hand*, as in mere prayer, but by presenting to God a full equivalent for the punishments still due, and which somehow or other must be redeemed as a matter of strict justice. b) The question arises: Do< indulgences for the dead attain their purpose with infallible certainty, or do they depend for their effect on the mercy of God? On this subject theologians differ. Dominicus Soto, Suarez, De Lugo, and others maintain that the efficacy of such, indulgences is regulated1 by ” an infallible law.” These authors give two reasons for their belief. The first is that parallel to the divine wish that the living assist the poor souls runs a divine guarantee that any aid they may render totem haereticali not& in Petto de in art. 22 Lutheti,” (DenzingerOsma confixum, iterum damnatum Bannwart, n. 1542).

them will be effective. The second is that whenever the Church by exercising the power of the keys, reaches (at least indirectly) into the world beyond, she cannot fail in her purpose so long as there exists a subject fit and ready to receive her favors. Other theologians hold with Cardinal Cajetan that, while we may presume that God in a general way is willing to accept indulgences for the dead, we have no certainty that He does so in any single case because the divine counsels and decrees are hidden from our knowledge. The advocates of this theory say that only in this way is it possible to explain why the Church permits more than one plenary indulgence to be applied to the same soul.6 It is probably safe to assume, however, that every indulgence for the dead attains its purpose infallibly, provided the soul to which it is applied does not offer an obstacle (obex). If one wishes to apply a plenary indulgence to the poor souls, must he perform the good works upon which that indulgence is conditioned in the state of sanctifying grace ? Some theologians answer this question in the negative. They claim that sanctifying grace is not necessary unless one of the requisites demanded for the validity of the indulgence is confession or an act of perfect contrition. Suarez, whose view is favored by De Augustinis7 and Pesch,8 holds that any Catholic can gain indulgences for the poor souls in purgatory by simply complying with the prescribed conditions, even though he himself be in * the state of mortal sin. The state of sin, these writers argue, prevents an indulgence from taking effect only when it exists in the beneficiary, who in this case is not « Cfr. Decret. Congreg. Indulgent., 8 Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. VII, 3rd d. 28 lulii 1820. ed., p. 248. 7De Re Sacrament., Vol. II, 2nd ed., p. 339.

the living man who gains the indulgence, but the poor soul for whom he gains it, and the poor souls are undoubtedly in the state of grace. This shallow view, as De Lugo rightly calls it,9 was the one advocated by Tetzel, which gave rise to the famous couplet, As soon as the gold in the casket rings, The rescued soul to heaven springs. 10 It is justly rejected by the majority of theologians. For, in the first place, it is based on a false assumption, vis.: that the Church applies indulgences for the dead directly through the living, thus reducing the living intermediary to a sort of spiritual machine, whereas it is an undeniable fact that indulgences can profit the poor souls only in an indirect way.11 And secondly, the human intermediary plays the part of an intercessor, and as such must comply with the conditions which are required for gaining an indulgence for the living; consequently he must be in the state of sanctifying grace.12 Readings : — Bellarmine, De Indulgentiis. — Passerini, De InduU gentiis, Rome 1672.— Chr. Lupus, De Peccat. et Satisfact. Indulgentiis, Louvain 1726.— Eusebius Amort, De Origine, Progressu, Valore ac Fructu Indulgentiarutn, Augsburg 1735.— Idem, De Indulgentiis in Genere et Specie, 1751. — Collet, De Indulgentiis et de Iubilaeis, in Migne’s Theol. Cursus Complet. (Vol. XVII).— Al. Bendel, Der kirchliche Ablass, Rottweil 1847.— J. H. Schoofs, Die Lehre vom kirchlichen Ablass, Minister 1857. — V. Grone, Der Ablass, seine Geschichte und Bedeutung in der Heilsokonotnie, Ratisbon 1863. — J. Hirscher, Die kirchliche Lehre vom Ablass, 6th ed., Tubingen 1865. — B. Melata, Manuale de Indulgentiis, Rome 1892. — C. Weiss, 5*. Thomae Aquinatis de Satisfaction et Indulgentia Doctrina, Graz 1896. — Mocchegiani a Monsano, Collectio Indulgentiarutn Theologice, Canonice et Historice 9 De Poenit., disp. 27, sect 5, n. 11 See No. 1, supra. — Cfr. St. 75. Thomas, Suppl., qu. 71, art xo. 10 Cfr. H. G. Ganss in the Cath- 12 Cfr. Palmieri, De Poenit., p. otic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, p. 540. 482.

Digesta, Quaracchi 1897.— F. Beringer, S. J., Die ‘Abtiuse, tiir Wesen und Gebrauch, 14th ed, Paderborn 19141 (French tr., -Paris I9Q5)< — A, Kurz, Die koth.Lehre vom Ablass vor und nach dem Auftreten Luther s, Padcrborn 190a— A. M. Lepicier, Les Indulgences, leur Origine, leur Nature, lew Dtoiloppement, 2 vols., Paris 1904 (English tr. under the title Indulgences, Their Origin, Nature, and Development, new and enlarged eiL, .’New York 1906). — A. Gottlob, Ablassentwicklung und Ablassinhalt im 11. Jahrhundert, Stuttgart 1907.— A. M. rKoniger, Ursprung des Ablasses, Munich 1907.— W..H. Kent, art. “Indulgences,” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol VII, pp. 783-788.— Idem, Dr. Lea’s History of Indulgences, in the Dublin Review, July 1897. — Boudinhon, ” Sur YHistoire des Indulgences a propos d’un Livre Ricent [Lea],” in the Revue d’Histoire et de Litt. Relig., Ill, 189&— A. Devtne, C. P., The Sacraments Explained, 3rd ed., Ch. XI, “On Indulgences,” pp. 369-382, London 1905.— Hugh Pope, O.P., The Doctrine of the Catholic Church Touching Indulgences, London 1915.— J. C. Hedley, 0. S. B., The Catholic Doctrine of Indulgences, San Francisco, s. ,a. (The last> mentioned two treatises are Cathdlic Truth Society pamphlets).

INDEX A Absolution, 42, 47, 73, 77, 80, 81, 83, 85 sqq., 96 «W, 146* 172, 218, 222 sq. Alanus ab Insulis, 169. Albertus Magnus, 124, 252. Alcutn, 107. Alexander III, 249. Alexander VH, 174 sqq. Alexander Natalis, 183. Alexander of Hales, i, 146, 252. Almain, 127. Alphonsus, St, 168. Alvarez, 112. Ambrose, St, 48^ 115, 121, ^05, 209. Amor concupiscentiae, 138 sq., 154, 156, 170, 171. Amor mere enarius, 154 sq. Analogy between a criminal court mud the tribunal of Penance, 67 sqq. ; Differences, 70 sq. Ancyra, Council of (314), 38, 246. Anglicans, 23. Antoine, 92, 171. Antony of Cordova, 168. Apostles, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, IS, i6; 65, 70 sq., «42. Apostolic Constitutions, 09, 247. Arcadius, 94. Armachanus, 127. Athanasius, St, 30 sq. Attritio existhnata, 171. Attritio formidolosa, 156. Attrition, 103, 135, 151 sqq. Attrition ism, 169^ 170 sqq. Atzberger, 37. Augustine, St.,. 27, 35 sq.,52 sq., 61, 108, 117 sq., $38, 161, 163, 207, 222, 227. ‘Augustine, St. (of Canterbury), 200. B Baius, 139, 233» 254. Ballerini, 79, 133, l& Banez, 112. Baptism, 17 sq 20, 27, «8, 3<>» 32, 3^ 56> 59, 63, 64, 78, 82, 102, 117, 140, 14ft 169, r78, 191. Baptismus laboriosus, 56, 73, 247. # Bardenhewer, 33 sq. Basil, .St, 35, # sq., 43, 121, 2E0 sq., 221. Baumgarten, P. M., 93* Bayard, 123. Bede, St, 248. Bellarmine, Card., 76. Benedict XI, 117. Benedict XIV, 337. Benedict XV, 25a. Berti, 144, 1691 Billuart, 76, r#, 112, 156, 174, 223. Bolgeni, 138. Bonaventtrre, St, 79, 123, 146. Boniface VIII, 250 sq. Bossuet, ni8. Bourges, Council of (1584), 47. Branoatus de Laurea, 76. C Cajetan, Card., 1, 139, 258^ 262.