Indulgences not for other living persons

[MarcoPolo]

The Handbook of Indulgences says: No one gaining an indulgence may apply it to other living persons.

So when Father Corapi says stuff like “do penance for each other” what is person A obtaining for person B? Are they interceding for a particular grace or temporal good, but not remission of temporal punishment? Or does the statement bolded above mean once someone has “gained” an indulgence it is his?

 

[LilyM]

The Handbook of Indulgences says: No one gaining an indulgence may apply it to other living persons.

So when Father Corapi says stuff like “do penance for each other” what is person A obtaining for person B? Are they interceding for a particular grace or temporal good, but not remission of temporal punishment? Or does the statement bolded above mean once someone has “gained” an indulgence it is his?

Sounds like the bolded part is correct. A person can obtain indulgences for the souls in purgatory, so to say that an indulgence is the ‘property’ exclusively of the person obtaining it would seem to be untrue.

 

[Shin]

Oh our penances can make up the temporal punishment for others still living, but it is interesting there is a restriction on indulgences being used for that purpose.

I wonder if it’s a question of the Church wishing it done indirectly rather than directly in such cases. I can only speculate.

Thanks for bringing it up.

 

[LilyM]

Oh our penances can make up the temporal punishment for others still living, but it is interesting there is a restriction on indulgences being used for that purpose.

I wonder if it’s a question of the Church wishing it done indirectly rather than directly in such cases. I can only speculate.

Thanks for bringing it up.

Certainly there have been historical abuses, such as rich people paying others to undertake indulgenced acts (pilgrimages and the like) on their behalf while they themsleves were still alive and perfectly able to do them. Perhaps the idea is to discourage this sort of spiritual laziness.

 

[Shin]

I have never read of these abuses. Where did you?

The 1917 Code of Canon law also has this restriction, I do not know how far back it goes.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Marco,

I think the answer might be in the fact that remission of temporal punishment and an indulgence are not the same thing. An indulgence comes from the Church and is added to the remission of temporal punishment already gained by a good act itself.

If the Church doesn’t want to apply the indulgence to another living person, I don’t think that means that the person can’t hope or ask that satisfaction won by a good act be applied by God to another living person. In other words, you couldn’t do his penance for him, but you could ask God to count your penance for him. For instance St. Paul seems to be saying this in Colossians 1:24: Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church.

What do you think, does that sound right?

VC

 

[MarcoPolo]

Marco,

I think the answer might be in the fact that remission of temporal punishment and an indulgence are not the same thing. An indulgence comes from the Church and is added to the remission of temporal punishment already gained by a good act itself.

If the Church doesn’t want to apply the indulgence to another living person, **I don’t think that means that the person can’t hope or ask that satisfaction won by a good act be applied by God to another living person. **In other words, you couldn’t do his penance for him, but you could ask God to count your penance for him. For instance St. Paul seems to be saying this in Colossians 1:24: Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church.

What do you think, does that sound right?

VC

I’m not sure. I would have to see other Church docs, perhaps, on indulgences? It sounds like the Handbook is disagreeing with what I bolded in your quote, but again, I am not sure how to completely understand that sentence in the handbook.

 

[Joe_5859]

Interestingly, this is one of those changes between the first edition of the Catechism (the original French) and the second edition of the Catechism (the normative Latin).

From the 1st edition (emphasis added):

1471 The doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Church are closely linked to the effects of the sacrament of Penance.

What is an indulgence?

“An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints.” [81]

“An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin.” [82] Indulgences may be applied to the living or the dead.

[81] Paul VI, apostolic constitution, Indulgentiarum doctrina, Norm 1.
[82] Indulgentiarum doctrina, Norm 2; Cf. Norm 3.

And from the 2nd edition (emphasis added):

1471 The doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Church are closely linked to the effects of the sacrament of Penance.

What is an indulgence?

“An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints.” [81]

“An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin.” [82] The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead. [83]

[81] Paul VI, apostolic constitution, Indulgentiarum doctrina, Norm 1.
[82] Indulgentiarum doctrina, Norm 2; Cf. Norm 3.
[83] CIC, can. 994. 84 Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1712-1713; (1563): 1820.

Note, the second edition clarifies and even adds a footnote.

Of course, all this definitely does not mean that our prayers for other living people are not efficacious or have no value. That is certainly not true. It just means that we cannot know that our fallen-away Catholic sibling has the necessary disposition to receive an indulgence. We know that the souls in Purgatory do. It also avoids that pitfall of getting other people to do indulgences on your behalf.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I’m not sure. I would have to see other Church docs, perhaps, on indulgences? It sounds like the Handbook is disagreeing with what I bolded in your quote, but again, I am not sure how to completely understand that sentence in the handbook.

Marco,

Like I mentioned above, there is a difference between an indulgence and satisfaction. One can gain satisfaction without an indulgence. You can do penance and expiate your own temporal punishment without any indulgence.

But some of those acts of penance not only expiate temporal punishment because of the satisfaction you gain but also because you are granted, by the Church, more expiation than your act would gain on its own. That is the indulgence.

The handbook is talking about indulgences only. The church grants them to us while we are alive and applies them (but in a different way, probably – by way of sufferage) to those who have died and are in purgatory. And the Church explicitly does not grant or apply your indulgence to another living person.

But – this doesn’t say that you can’t ask God to apply any satisfaction you win through penance (not through an indulgence) to another person, living or dead. Any merit you get from an act is personal and can only be applied to yourself. But satisfaction can be applied to the souls in purgatory. This “vicarious satisfaction”, I think, can also be applied to those living. See that quote from St. Paul in Colossians above. I think this is what Fr. Corapi means when he says “do penance for each other”.

See St. Thomas (ST III supp, 13, 2):

as regards the payment of the debt, one man can satisfy for another, provided he be in a state of charity, so that his works may avail for satisfaction. Nor is it necessary that he who satisfies for another should undergo a greater punishment than the principal would have to undergo (as some maintain, who argue that a man profits more by his own punishment than by another’s), because punishment derives its power of satisfaction chiefly from charity whereby man bears it. And since greater charity is evidenced by a man satisfying for another than for himself, less punishment is required of him who satisfies for another, than of the principal: wherefore we read in the Lives of theFathers (v, 5) of one who for love of his brother did penance for a sin which his brother had not committed, and that on account of his charity his brother was released from a sin which he had committed.

VC

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Of course, all this definitely does not mean that our prayers for other living people are not efficacious or have no value. That is certainly not true. It just means that we cannot know that our fallen-away Catholic sibling has the necessary disposition to receive an indulgence. We know that the souls in Purgatory do. It also avoids that pitfall of getting other people to do indulgences on your behalf.

Very helpful insight! Our prayers for our fallen away brothers and sisters should be that they gain that necessary disposition. Then hopefully they will go to the trouble of gaining their own indulgences!

That said, it is always a good practice to ask Our Lady to apply the indulgence as she wishes to those who would benefit from it the most. That takes away any worry…

 

[MarcoPolo]

All good and useful posts here. Thanks. It seems to be rooted in the subtle difference between indulgences and penances.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

All good and useful posts here. Thanks. It seems to be rooted in the subtle difference between indulgences and penances.

It is a difference that is often overlooked.

The key is to realize that one can gain satisfaction from an act that happens to be indulgenced even if one doesn’t meet the conditions to gain the indulgence. Remember an indulgence is the satisfaction of another applied on top of the satisfaction you gain on your own.

See Indulgentiarum Doctrina, Chapter 5:

it has been considered fitting that this remission of temporal punishment which the Christian faithful acquire through an action should serve as the measurement for the remission of punishment which *the ecclesiastical authority bountifully adds *by way of partial indulgence.

And in Norm 5 of the same document:

n. 5—The faithful who at least with a contrite heart perform an action to which a partial indulgence is attached obtain, in addition to the remission of temporal punishment acquired by the action itself, an equal remission of punishment through the intervention of the Church.

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Interestingly, this is one of those changes between the first edition of the Catechism (the original French) and the second edition of the Catechism (the normative Latin).

From the 1st edition (emphasis added):
And from the 2nd edition (emphasis added):

Joe,

One of the benefits of that change is greater accuracy, changing “the living” to “themselves”.

But, if I may say so with humility, I still think it could be better worded. As it stands it could be read as indulgences can always be won for oneself or applied to the dead. But there are indulgences that can’t be applied to oneself but rather are only for the dead. But I guess the exception proves the rule!

VC