Arguments against indulgences.
Arguments against indulgences.
§ 133. We say that these indulgences: (I) depend upon false hypotheses, and there are many of them, such as the merits of saints; works of supererogation; satisfactions still due for temporal punishment after the remission of fault; the fires of purgatory which those who truly believe in Christ and have been reconciled to God must still fear after death; a special treasury stored away in Rome in the churches of blessed Peter and blessed Paul the apostles, of blessed John Lateran, and of blessed Mary; the total and absolute power of the Roman pontiff on earth and in purgatory; etc.
** In bulls of earlier times, people would be summoned to the dwellings of the apostles, but as time passed, this treasury was imagined to have been found in the rest of the churches also. With what argument or evidence do they prove that the power of merits has been placed in those four named temples in Rome, since most of the saints did not even see Rome? Christ did not deposit the treasury of indulgences which He earned for us with His death at Rome, but rather He commanded repentance and forgiveness of sins to be preached among all nations (Luke 24:47). He did not establish only one steward or dispenser of these indulgences but rather gave an equal command to all the apostles: “Whosesoever sins you forgive,” etc. [John 20:23]. He did not give them a golden hammer but the hammer of the Law (Jer. 23:29) and the Keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19). **
As concerns the satisfaction of Christ Himself which they assign to this treasury, we acknowledge with a grateful heart and declare that the forgiveness of sins obtained by Christ’s precious blood is an inestimable and infinite treasure credited to the church, from which it dispenses true indulgences acceptable before God to the truly repentant who believe in Christ. The Roman pontiff does an injustice to this true and utterly complete satisfaction of Christ: since he adds the satisfactions of the saints to it, since he assumes for himself alone the dispensation of it, since he is unafraid to sell this heavenly treasury for money through an intolerable simony.
** In addition, indulgences lack any foundation in Scripture. But now, whatever the heavenly Father told Him, Christ has revealed this to His apostles (John 15:15). Paul revealed “the whole counsel of God” to the Ephesians (Acts 20:27). On this basis, the treasury of the church, which they call inexhaustible, would have been revealed. **
(II) These indulgences fight against Holy Scripture in many ways, to which the following bear witness. (1) “There is one Mediator between God and men, namely, Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 2:5), who is “the propitiation for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2), who “trod the winepress alone” (Isa. 63:3).
** Outside of Him there is no savior (Isa. 43:25), and there is salvation in none other (Acts 4:12). **
(2) Scripture testifies that the saints’ works are imperfect and stained by many weaknesses (Isa. 64:6). For this reason they, too, need the forgiveness of sins (Ps. 32:[5–]6) since no one is innocent before God (Exod. 34:7). Consequently, the saints cannot make satisfaction even for their own sins, much less for the sins of others; they cannot fulfill God’s Law perfectly, nor can they perform works of supererogation.
** All the saints are compelled to confess that they are “justified before God by the grace of Christ” (Acts 15:11). They all are compelled to pray: “Forgive us our debts” (Matt. 6:12). They are all compelled to pray that God’s judgment be turned aside (Ps. 143:2). **
For this reason, a clear difference between Christ’s suffering and the sufferings of the saints is established in Heb. 12:24: “Christ, the Mediator of a new covenant, speaks better things than Abel’s blood speaks,” namely, because the unpolluted blood of the martyrs demands vengeance, but Christ’s spotless blood gains pardon for sins. Leo (Letter 83): “The just have received crowns; they did not give them. Examples of patience but not gifts of righteousness were born from the strength of the faithful. Indeed, their deaths were singular, but no one has paid the debt of another with his own end.”
(3) From His free mercy, for the sake of Christ’s unique merit, God forgives both fault and punishment to those who believe in Him (Matt. 18:27), so that He no longer wants to remember our sins (Jer. 31:34), so that in this way grace abounds over sin (Rom. 5:20).
(4) Spiritual goods come to us freely. For this reason they cannot and should not be bought and sold (Matt. 10:8; Acts 8:20), for this is “peddling the Word of the Lord” [2 Cor. 2:17] and “by covetousness with feigned words making merchandise” [2 Pet. 2:3]. See the penitentiary tax in the book which contains the reasons for rejecting the Council of Trent [Caus. recusati concilii Tridentini].
(III) These indulgences conflict with the very hypotheses of the Papists. In fact, if through indulgences what takes place is the fullest indulgence of all sins, “remission from punishment,” as the pope says in his bull for the jubilee for the year 1600 [Bulla jubilaei anno 1600], how, then, will they order those who have received these indulgences to be still in doubt concerning the forgiveness of sins and the grace of God? If the Roman pontiff has absolute, free power to release whatever souls he wishes from purgatory, he who does not free wretched souls from there immediately must truly be utterly harsh, and he who allows them to be tormented longer because of monies to be spent first in the jubilee year must truly be utterly greedy.
** Ambrose (De Naboth.) writes: “O unhappy man who has the power to defend the souls of so many people from death and yet does not have the will to do it!” (He is speaking about the rich man, but one can transfer this to the pope, who sells indulgences so dearly.) In the Hours of the Blessed Virgin Mary for use at Salisbury [Horae B. Mariae Virg. ad usum Sarisbur.], an indulgence of a little less than eleven thousand millennia is offered for the recitation of certain little prayers. Samson of Milan is reported to have collected the sum of 1,200,000 ducats from the sale of the indulgences of Leo X. In his bull for the jubilee year 1600 [Bulla jubilaei anno 1600], the pope promises “the fullest indulgence of all sins, remission, and pardon for those who devoutly visit the four churches on certain days.” But Papist scholars add many restrictions, namely: (1) Indulgences “are not valid for the remission of mortal or venial fault” (Bellarmine, De indulg., bk. 1, ch. 7; and Dr. Förner, Vom Ablasz und Jubeljahr, p. 35). (2) “They are not valid for the remission of eternal punishment and do not benefit those who live in mortal sin and are outside the grace of God.” Why, then, does the pope promise the fullest indulgence of all sins? What else are “sins” than faults? What else are “all sins” than mortal and venial sins? What else is the “fullest indulgence” than the forgiveness of fault and punishment? (3) “They are not valid for the remission of the natural, civil, and divine punishments which are not subject to the Keys of the church.” What, then, are they good for? They respond: “For the remission of temporal punishment which remains after repentance which is to be paid in this life or in purgatory.” The generous promises of the papal bulls about the fullest remission of all sins very wickedly deceive wretched people. They will torment themselves violently in explaining the questions as to how indulgences are applied to the souls of the dead sweating in purgatory. Formerly, people believed—and some still today defend—the idea that papal jurisdiction is unlimited and extends into purgatory so that he can communicate indulgences to souls in purgatory through the means of absolution. (See Godescalc. Holem [Hollen], Sermon 2 for the Second Sunday after Easter; and Bonaventure, [Sent.,] bk. 4, dist. 20, q. 5.) Thus Dr. Theodoricus Morung, canon of Würzburg, Bamberg, and Eichstätt, was declared a heretic in 1489 because he was unwilling to concede this. (See the appendix to Fascic. temp., published by Johann Pistorius before his apostasy, Frankfurt, 1584.) Some of the Jesuits are even inclined toward this. In regard to this, see the debate held on indulgences in 1600 [Disputat. anno 1600. de indulgentiis habitam], in which thesis 52 reads: “Even though the opinion of those is probable, who assert that the power of bishops to grant indulgences to the dead has already been restricted and removed, nevertheless the opinion of those who deny this is equally probable. It is also probable that, when the pope uses all his power, he can bestow so many and such great indulgences upon the dead that all souls will evacuate purgatory and fly off to heaven.” In his Censura, Petrus Stevartius declares that this disputation is “elegant, learned, and in harmony with orthodox truth.” Yet all other Papist writers together claim that “the pope’s jurisdiction as the great dispenser of indulgences does not extend to purgatory” (Bellarmine, De indulgent., 1, ch. 14; Förner, Vom Jubeljahr, p. 207). How, then, can the pope communicate anything from that imagined treasury to souls in purgatory? No one can absolve or condemn those who are not subject to his own jurisdiction. They respond: “This does not happen by means of absolution but by means of suffrage [per modum suffragii], by helping.” But where is this means of suffrage set forth in Scripture or in the fathers? (See Heilbrunner, Papatus, p. 134, for how they describe the means of suffrage.) **
If Christ’s satisfaction is of infinite price and value, why do they add the satisfaction of the saints to it? If the saints have already received the fullest compensation for their works and sufferings, how can anyone apply their satisfactions to others? If the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s merit through faith is a figment of Luther’s imagination which introduces putative justice, what is the audacity with which they claim that the works and sufferings of saints (under which title they also mean the self-chosen service of monks) can be applied to others? If the satisfaction which the confessor imposes is so very useful because “it forces one away from sinning, leads people to eradicate the inclinations to sin, and is conducive to pacifying God’s wrath” (as Bellarmine writes in just these words, De poenit., bk. 4, ch. 5), then surely indulgences must be harmful, since they are the remissions of those satisfactions, according to the definition of Toletus (De instruct. sacerd., bk. 6, ch. 22). If the Roman pontiff can send full indulgences to those who are absent, why does he order people to make a pilgrimage to Rome at such great expense?
(IV) These indulgences lack the testimony of the early church. Tertullian (De pudic., ch. 22): “If you are a sinner, how will the oil of your little lamp be enough for both of us?” Archbishop Antoninus of Florence (part 1, title 10, ch. 3): “In regard to indulgences, we have nothing expressly from Holy Scripture and not even from the statements of the ancient fathers, but only from those of modern men.” Sylvester Prieras, the adversary of Luther, expressly declared this proposition: “Indulgences did not become known to us by authority of Scripture but by that of the Roman Church and the Roman pontiffs.” Bishop Roffensis (Contra Lutherum, art. 18): “Who now can be surprised that at the beginning of the newborn church there was no use of indulgences?” Alphonsus de Castro (Contra haeres., bk. 8, p. 255): “Among all the matters about which we argue in this book there is none which Holy Scripture has published less openly and about which the ancient writers have said less.” Gregorius de Valentia (De indulgent., ch. 2): “One may be able to object that Gratian and Lombard, who lived four hundred years ago, mentioned nothing about indulgences. I respond. At the time when they lived, they were using a more severe penance. After that cooled down, the use of indulgences grew.” Bellarmine (De poenit., bk. 4, ch. 5): “They used to give Communion to the repentant at the point of death, even if no satisfaction or no full” (ecclesiastical) “satisfaction had preceded. Nevertheless they would be admonished to completely fulfill the penance imposed upon them if they should perhaps continue to live.” (From this one understands that the indulgences of the ancients were the relaxations of the ecclesiastical satisfactions either because of the weakness of nature or at the point of death, conceded without the intervention of any money. At this time nothing was known in regard to the treasury of Roman indulgences and the works of supererogation hidden in them.)
After considering all these things, Bellarmine concludes (De indulg. et jubil., bk. 2, ch. 10): “Indulgences and bulls can be sufficiently defended by the authority of the church, which would not have preached indulgences so constantly and approved them in ecumenical councils unless it was not unaware that this sort of power had been given to it by God.” (Yet Osorius contradicts them, Conciones in public. jubil., vol. 4, p. 285, as does also Salmeron, on 2 Corinthians, ch. 2, vol. 4, p. 285. These boldly claim that indulgences had been conceded since the time of the apostles.)
(V) These indulgences were attacked as soon as they were born. In regard to this point, see Wolf’s Centenarii, the Catalogus testium veritatis, and many other writers. Elizabeth, the German girl renowned for her prophetic spirit, thundered in God’s name against the greed of the Roman Curia in this way: “I tell you that the iniquities of the earth which you are hiding for the sake of silver and gold are rising before me like smoke from a fire. Are not the souls which you are suffocating in eternal fire because of your greed worth more than gold or silver?” etc.
John of Salisbury very often complains in his Polycraticum (especially on p. 296) that “they decorate their tables at Rome with gold and silver and take their pleasures in very vile ways because they are eating the sins of their people; they are clothed therewith and revel in them in many ways.” Three hundred years earlier Abbas Urspergensis sang: “Rejoice, O Rome, our mother, because floods of treasures are opened upon the earth so that rivers and piles of coins flow down to you in great abundance. Rejoice over the iniquity of the children of men because, in compensation for such great evils, they pay to you a price,” etc.
** The author of the Onus ecclesiae denies that “indulgences for the souls of the dead work to their good and that the benefit of indulgences can free those souls from the flames of purgatory” (ch. 15, § 5), “because Christ gave Peter power over the earth but not under the earth.” “What can the pope accomplish with the dead who have now gone out of his forum and have come to the tribunal of the just God? Nonetheless, under other fictions, the hawkers of indulgences proclaim the absurd scandal that they are eating the sacrifices of the dead when they say that as soon as a coin thrown into the collection plate rattles, the soul for which the coin was imposed flies out. Indeed, it is certain that when the coin rattles in the plate the profit can be increased, but the power of the pope or of the church stands on God’s judgment alone” (§ 15). The same author (ch. 15, § 29):
There are some who assert that indulgences are pious frauds by which foolish people are induced and called forth to visit churches and to do other good works in the hope of pleasing God and that otherwise they would not do them. Come now, by no means or arrangement should lies be told in order to increase the worship of God, especially in the case where the people are stirred to seek after the things of men instead of the things of Jesus Christ. For [in this case] a person is making himself and not God the end purpose in such a good work. For he ultimately intends to remove penance through indulgence and to have a rest for his indolent self rather than to seek glory for God. Similarly, those who preach indulgences are looking for a contribution of coins, not for the salvation of people. For even if money for indulgences is demanded under the pretense of piety—namely, for an expedition against the infidels or for sacred buildings or for some other pious cause—nevertheless the greater part of this money collected from indulgences and jubilee years up to now has been attached to the treasury rather than to Christ, and more has been spent on vanity than on piety.
In the Gravamina which the princes of the empire proposed to the pontifical nuncio in the Diet of Nuremberg in 1522:
The canons of the fathers have decreed that spiritual penance or satisfaction must be imposed on spiritual and manifest sins in such a way as to mean that the salvation of souls is being sought rather than the gain of money. But the judges and officials of the church misunderstand these canons and roughen, aggravate, and increase the aforementioned spiritual penance to the extent that, instead of this, the laity ensure immunity for themselves with their money before they become willing to take on the satisfaction. The laity then are much oppressed while the church officials are much enriched. For example: those who for their own private convenience make gifts both to parties and to judges, which is inconsistent with all laws. **
Nicolaus Kus (priest at Rostock, master and baccalaureate in theology) around 1511 wrote a long book printed in the Saxon tongue under the title De triplici funiculo, which contains an explanation of the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer. In that book he argues many points against the pope, especially these: “Indulgences are a pure deception of the devout and lucre” (just as the far older Thomas, [ST,] part 3, q. 25, art. 5, relates the opinion of some people who said that “indulgences are pious frauds”).
Friedrich Myconius (in his book titled Somnium) reports that his own father often said this, amid the darkness of the papacy: “Papal indulgences are the nets which catch the money of the simple.”
In 1522, in the Diet of Nuremberg, the princes of Germany complained: “Indulgences are being poured out with such a lavish hand that kingdoms are being plundered completely by them—not only of their money but even of their piety.”
** Wessel, who was such a brilliant doctor of theology that he was called “the light of the world,” very harshly reproached other doctors on many points. He testifies that “Albert the Great and Thomas and almost all theologians have rebuked and condemned indulgences,” and [here] he mentions Albert and Thomas, who say precisely this. Wessel also affirms that “among the theologians no certain, consistent, and harmonious opinions about indulgences can be discovered” (Flacius, De dissens. pontif., p. 91). Onus ecclesiae (published at Landshute in 1524 by Joh. Weissenburger): “Indulgences are flying everywhere from Rome and came to Germany ready to take their victims. Everywhere they are set out for sale in the markets of simony. For the papal indulgences today are being published indiscretely and wrongfully,” etc. See the sound judgment of Cassander concerning indulgences (in his Consult.). To the doctrine of indulgences Luther applies the prophet’s statement: “O Lord, I cannot eat human dung” [cf. Ezek. 4:12–15]. **
See also the Centum gravamina nat. German. (grav. 3). Finally, who can number all the public complaints about the Roman Curia?