Question Twelve
Whether the pope can remit, wholly or in part, the punishments of those who are in Purgatory
It is asked whether the pope, from the plenitude of the key of jurisdiction, can through indulgences remit wholly or in part the punishments of those who are actually in Purgatory.
To this it first appears that a negative answer should be given, and first as follows. No one can grant an indulgence except to one whom he can judge, as is said in On Penance and Remission, chapter Quod autem. For no one can judge anyone unless that person is of his forum. But those who are dead are not of the forum of the Church. Therefore the pope cannot act upon them.
And consequently the pope, with respect to that state of souls, does not have the power to loose wholly or in part the obligation to the punishment of Purgatory.
Likewise it is said in cause 24, question 2, canon Legatur, and below, section His auctoritatibus: “We can loose or bind the living, not the dead”; and in Matthew 16: “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.”
But souls, once their bodies have been laid aside, immediately cease to be upon earth and of the forum of the Church militant. Therefore the pope does not have power over them.
To the contrary stands the practice of the Roman Pontiff, who must not be believed in this matter to wish to mock the faithful by granting indulgences for the departed which he could not grant.
I answer this question under two conclusions, in accordance with two opinions—namely, those of certain theologians and of certain canonists who think contrarily in this matter.
For virtually all the theologians, with whom certain canonists also agree, affirm that the indulgences of pontiffs avail not only the living but also the departed in Purgatory.
This conclusion is proved as follows. According to Master Alexander of Hales and Lord Bonaventure in Book III, God, the Father of mercies, provides for all according to his most orderly disposition and his most merciful loving-kindness. But the right ordering of charity, by which one can be helped by another, is required most of all concerning one who cannot help himself. Therefore, if God has provided for human beings in this world who need help that aid should be conferred through an indulgence of the Church, since those in Purgatory also need help and cannot help themselves, it appears that indulgences can especially benefit them.
For the explanation of this conclusion, it must be noted with Saint Thomas, in Book IV, distinction 45, that an indulgence can benefit someone in two ways: in one way principally, and in another way secondarily.
It benefits principally the one who receives the indulgence—namely, the person who does that for which it is given, as when someone visits the thresholds of the Apostles or does something of this kind. Hence, since the dead cannot do any of these things by themselves indulgences cannot avail them directly.
Secondarily and indirectly, however, they benefit the person for whom someone performs that which is the cause of the indulgence. This can sometimes occur and sometimes cannot occur, according to the differing form of the indulgence.
For if the form of the indulgence is of this kind: “Whoever does this or that shall have such-and-such an indulgence,” the one who does this cannot transfer the fruit of the indulgence to another, because it does not belong to him to apply to anyone the intention of the Church through which the common suffrages upon which indulgences depend are communicated.
But if the indulgence is made under this form: “Whoever does this or that for himself, or for his father, or for any other person joined to him who is detained in Purgatory, shall have such-and-such an indulgence,” such a person shall have the indulgence not only for himself while living but also for the dead person. For there is no reason why the Pontiff could transfer the common merits upon which indulgences rest to the living but not to the dead.
These are Thomas’s words. From them it is manifestly evident that, indirectly and in the aforesaid manner, indulgences can benefit those existing in Purgatory if the form of the indulgence contains this in accordance with the intention of the giver.
He says pointedly, “in accordance with the intention of the giver,” because, as Lord Peter of Palude says, certain persons say that solely from the intention of the person performing that for which the indulgence was given, the indulgence can be transferred to the person who is in Purgatory. This is not true unless the form used by the grantor contains this, because just as an indulgence does not extend beyond an amount not expressed, so neither does it thus pass beyond the person specified.
The intention of the dispenser therefore effects this, because, just as the goods of the living are communicated to them, so also is the treasure of the dead. Lord Archdeacon holds the same, who, upon cause 24, question 2, chapter 1, holds against the text that the pope can act beneath the earth insofar as the Church militant is concerned.
The one who dispenses indulgences to the departed, however, as Lord Pope Innocent says in chapter Quod autem, On Penance and Remission, is the pope alone.
And these theologians answer the arguments of the canonists which were made at the beginning of this little question.
To the first, they answer that those who are in Purgatory are in some manner upon earth. For Purgatory is in one manner a way and in another manner a terminus. It is a terminus with respect to confirmation, because they can sin no more. But with respect to correction or the purgation by which they are corrected or purged, they are on the way and in passage toward the homeland, as Master Alexander of Hales says.
To the second, it must be said that the Pontiff cannot act directly and principally upon those existing in Purgatory, but he can act secondarily and indirectly, as has been said.
To the third, it must be said, according to Albert upon Matthew 15, that those existing in Purgatory are in some respect upon earth because, while they lived, they merited that even after death indulgences could avail them toward a swifter liberation.
There is another famous opinion, held by certain canonists together with certain theologians, who say that pontifical indulgences do not avail the departed in Purgatory. For they say that, although the power of Christ’s vicar is great and immense, it is nevertheless not infinite but finite, extending itself only to the forum of the Church militant. And therefore, since the dead have ceased to be of the forum of the Church militant, they conclude, as the more probable position, that the pope cannot by ordinary power mitigate wholly or in part their punishments in Purgatory, but can obtain this only by prayers and by the merits of a holy life, as can the rest of the faithful.
They prove this conclusion by several reasons.
First, as follows: no one can be bound by one who is not his judge, in On Penance and Remission, chapter Quod autem. But the pope is not the judge of the departed, cause 24, question 1, canon Quodcumque ligaveris. Therefore, and so forth.
Second, they argue as follows: an equal cannot have dominion over an equal in On Election, chapter Innotuit; therefore, a fortiori, neither can an inferior have dominion over a superior. But the pope is inferior to God, although upon earth he represents God, in On the Translation of a Bishop, chapters Inter corporalia and Quanto. But God has assessed for each soul its punishment in Purgatory. Revelation 18: “As much as she has glorified herself and lived in delights, so much torment and mourning give to her.” Therefore such a soul cannot through the pope, who is inferior to God, be recalled from the sentence of God.
This is confirmed as follows. The pope is the Vicar of Christ, as is held in the aforesaid chapter Quanto and in chapter Pastoralis, at the end, On a Matter Adjudged. But a vicar cannot violate the law of his lord or act against his statute, as the lord jurists allege in law Si hominem, Digest, On the Manumission of Vindicta, and law Formam, Code, On the Office of the Praetorian Prefect of the East; and this is designated in chapter 2 and chapter De his, On Majority and Obedience, Book VI. Therefore the pope will not be able to act against the statute of God, who assesses punishment in Purgatory.
Likewise, they argue as follows: those who cannot do that which the indulgences express do not obtain the indulgences. But the dead cannot do it, because the bulls say, “To those who are truly penitent and have confessed,” which the dead cannot do, just as they cannot receive the other sacraments. Therefore, and so forth.
Likewise, an indulgence is acquired by way of merit. But the dead are outside the state of meriting. Therefore, and so forth.
They also corroborate this opinion of theirs with the three arguments made at the beginning of this little question.
Lord Francis of Meyronnes, of the Order of Minors, defends this opinion in his lectures upon the Decretals, as does Lord Henry of Hesse, a German, master of Paris, of the Order of Preachers, in his lectures upon Genesis.
These are two famous opinions which are opposed to one another and which in some fashion weaken and diminish the jurisdiction or authority of pontiffs and delay the faithful from offering suffrages for the dead. Therefore, lest anyone from perplexity and doubt concerning them should restrict and confine the power of the Pontiff and turn the faithful away from suffrages for the dead I shall, God assisting, first reconcile the theologians and jurists under a certain distinction made by theologians and jurists—always preserving Catholic and better judgment—and then I shall append how each of their opinions speaks truth and is opposed neither to the Pontiff nor to suffrages for the departed. From this, finally, the replies to the arguments of both sides can be elicited and obtained.
For this purpose it must be known and carefully noted that Lord Bonaventure, in Book IV, distinction 22, and Lord Alexander of Hales, in the Summa, say that an indulgence can be considered in two ways: in one way by way of suffrage and assistance, and in another way by way of judgment.
If indulgences are considered in the first way, they say that, since souls existing in Purgatory are found suitable and disposed to receive spiritual benefits by reason of the charity in which they exist, therefore, if anyone receives indulgences for the souls of his departed relatives and says, “Most sweet Jesus, the merit which I would have by visiting this church, I ask you through your mercy to grant to the soul of my father, or brother, or wife, or son,” and so forth, for their suffrage and aid, nothing prevents the most loving God from granting this favor to the person praying, if he is in grace—provided that the indulgences were granted in this manner by the authorization of the Pontiff.
But if an indulgence is considered by way of judgment, which properly belongs to the nature of an indulgence, since an indulgence taken in this way signifies a certain commutation into a punishment voluntarily undertaken—something which cannot belong to the departed—it is manifest that indulgences in this sense do not avail the departed and cannot be received for them.
The lord canonists, however, distinguish in this way: certain things do not depend upon jurisdiction but upon some other charitable assistance, such as prayer, almsgiving, sacrifice, and things of this kind; and all such things can benefit the departed, namely by way of suffrage and assistance. In this the Pontiff has power, and in support of this are brought all those texts in cause 24, question 2, canon 1; cause 13, question 2, chapters Tempus and Animae; On Penance, distinction 6, section 1; distinction 7, the final chapter; and cause 23, question 4, canon Haec autem vita.
For there is no reason why the Church could not dispense a treasure of this kind to the departed, especially since through the grace in which they exist they are still members of the mystical body. In support of this also are the comments in chapter A nobis, On the Sentence of Excommunication, by Lord John Andrew upon the words “upon earth,” and the comments by the same man in chapter Quod autem, On Penance and Remission, upon the words “not by his own judge.”
Certain other things, however, simply depend upon forum and jurisdiction, such as the granting of indulgences, which cannot be given except by the ordinaries of places—as by the pope, a legate a latere, an archbishop, or a bishop—as is evident in chapter Accedentibus, On the Excesses of Prelates. These cannot benefit the departed, namely by way of judgment, as has been said.
From these distinctions of the theologians and canonists, therefore, it is evident in my judgment how both opinions possess truth and how their arguments must be answered.
All these things have been gathered from Lord John of Torquemada upon the Decree in the place cited above, Henry of Hesse upon Genesis, and other theologians and pontifical jurists.
Addition
It is certain, and has never been doubted by Catholics, that the Supreme Roman Pontiff has power in Purgatory. I do not say only by way of suffrage, because this also is true, and he has so much more power as he possesses a greater plenitude throughout the whole world than other prelates. But beyond suffrage I say that the pope has jurisdiction in Purgatory, if the words of Christ spoken to Peter in Matthew 16 are rightly considered, especially as Blessed Augustine expounds them in the book of Retractations: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” He intended nothing other than that the gates of Purgatory shall not resist and shall not be closed. The successor of Peter shall possess presidency, jurisdiction, and authority in Purgatory; hence he shall be able to absolve and liberate.
The Gloss also expressly holds that the pope has authority in Purgatory. For after it declared that the Supreme Pontiff can loose a living person who is bound and bind a living person who is loosed, it reproved certain persons who, on the basis of the Council of Constantinople, said that the Pontiff has authority only over the living—as the author also reports in the body of the question—and says formally:
How, then, do certain persons presume to say that these words were spoken only of the living? Do they not know that the judgment of anathema is nothing other than separation?
All doctors of the Church favor this truth. And in this present age very many from the mendicant orders have written against Luther, the heresiarch. Among them was Jerome of Lucca, General of the Servants, in his Solutions to Martin Luther; Michael of Florence, of the same Order, under the title On the Quiddity, Dispenser, and Validity of Indulgences, and on the Power of the Pope; see Ambrose Spiera of Treviso, in the book On the Flowers of Wisdom, sermon 34, consideration 2, first conclusion; and Christopher Marcello of Venice, Archbishop of Corcyra, On the Authority of the Pontiff, Book II, section 2.
Conclude resolutely that the theologians are truer and more pious than the canonists and that you ought rather to follow them.