Is the pope granting an indulgence considered an infallible act?

[pcordero]

Pope Leo X granted indulgences to people who paid money to help repair St. Peter’s Basilica. However, the Council of Trent shortly afterward abolished indulgences that involved the transaction of money. Isn’t the pope supposed to have access to the treasury of indulgences though and therefore be infallible on these kinds of things?

 

[tdgesq]

Pope Leo X granted indulgences to people who paid money to help repair St. Peter’s Basilica. However, the Council of Trent shortly afterward abolished indulgences that involved the transaction of money. Isn’t the pope supposed to have access to the treasury of indulgences though and therefore be infallible on these kinds of things?

Interesting. Do you have a link referencing that? I’m not doubting it happened, I would just like to see the historical context. Regardless, the answer is that the Pope has the power to declare the indulgence, even if it was unwarranted.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The Treasury belongs to the Church, and She can decide upon what terms it is dispensed. The Church has made many such changes over the years, and often will offer temporary indulgences to mark a particular event (such as the Year of Faith). Indulgences can also be local - offered by a Bishop to members of his own Diocese (all Bishops can grant indulgences). My Archdiocese had a major anniversary a few years ago and our Bishop offered an indulgence for anyone who visited the Cathedral (along with the other usual things).

The Church teaches that, if an indulgence is offered and faithfully completed, the participant will receive whatever Grace was offered. This is an infallible teaching.

But the Church does not teach that a particular indulgence, once offered, must always be offered (as I said, some are deliberately temporary, but any indulgence may be withdrawn at any time).

If a particular indulgence is later withdrawn, it does not affect those who have already obtained it, but it is no longer available for future participation.

An indulgence is a gift, not a teaching. Once given, it cannot be taken back, but the gift giver gets to set the rules to receive future gifts.

 

[jmjconder]

The Pope can assign an partial or plenary indulgence to what he deems worthy. The “promise” of the indulgence does not rest on the Holy Father - rather the person seeking it and did they fully follow all the guidelines. Personally I do not believe it is all that easy.

 

[pcordero]

Interesting. Do you have a link referencing that? I’m not doubting it happened, I would just like to see the historical context. Regardless, the answer is that the Pope has the power to declare the indulgence, even if it was unwarranted.

Pope Leo X selling indulgences. pbs.org/empires/martinluther/char_leo.html
It was actually Pope Pius V who officially abolished the sale of indulgences, my mistake. britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/286800/indulgence (in the bottom paragraph).

 

[Usagi]

Has your question been answered?

As others have said, the Church’s ability to offer indulgences is an infallible truth, but any particular indulgence or category of indulgence can be extended or withdrawn at any time without affecting that truth.

Even now, the Pope could choose to extend an indulgence for monetary donations to a worthy cause, but because of the past abuses that is generally considered unwise and, as you noticed, all previous indulgences of that sort were withdrawn.

Usagi

 

[bzkoss236]

The existence of and the Church’s ability to give indulgences is an infallible part of our faith, but what constitutes an indulgence is a matter of discipline. Disciplines can change and are not “infallible” because they are not truths, they are actions that point to truths or reference truths (How Mass is done does both). So, the Church can declare or undeclare what can be done to gain an indulgence freely.

Per my understanding, the monetary indulgences (which wasn’t “selling” indulgences, but giving money to the Church) was abolished, at least for a time, because people were abusing it thinking they could essentially buy their way into heaven. But indulgences won’t do anything if the one acting on them doesn’t have the correct intention in gaining an indulgence. So, it was because of the abuses that they were done away with (at least for a time, because I believe giving money to charity can be used to gain an indulgence).

 

[porthos11]

Pope Leo X granted indulgences to people who paid money to help repair St. Peter’s Basilica. However, the Council of Trent shortly afterward abolished indulgences that involved the transaction of money. Isn’t the pope supposed to have access to the treasury of indulgences though and therefore be infallible on these kinds of things?

The doctrine of indulgences is infallible, but the works attached are purely by authority of the keys.

If at a time in history, the Pope or another competent authority granted indulgences towards the financial contribution for a worthy cause (e.g. St. Peter’s Basilica), that would have been a valid grant until such time it was withdrawn. To which works are attached indulgences is a matter of authority, not infallibility.

 

[ezeekl]

Pope Leo X granted indulgences to people who paid money to help repair St. Peter’s Basilica. However, the Council of Trent shortly afterward abolished indulgences that involved the transaction of money. Isn’t the pope supposed to have access to the treasury of indulgences though and therefore be infallible on these kinds of things?

First, that is an over simplification of the indulgence. Second, the Council of Trent did not abolish indulgences or granting indulgences for the giving of money. Alms giving to the poor or to other worthy causes was always considered what St. Paul calls in Corinthians, “works of gold, silver and precious stones”. What Trent sought to abolish were the abuses that had crept in. The Council called for moderation and abolishment of all evil gains in the granting of indulgences. Such evil gains were akin to “sales commissions” that the likes of John Tetzel obtained.

The complete canon of the Council on indulgences is as follows:

"DECREE CONCERNING INDULGENCES.

Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of [Page 278] by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honourable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, It ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,–whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,–be wholly abolished. But as regards the other abuses which have proceeded from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from what soever other source, since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the said abuses are committed, they cannot conveniently be specially prohibited; It commands all bishops, diligently to collect, each in his own church, all abuses of this nature, and to report them in the first provincial Synod; that, after having been reviewed by the opinions of the other bishops also, they may forthwith be referred to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence that which may be expedient for the universal Church will be ordained; that this the gift of holy Indulgences may be dispensed to all the faithful, piously, holily, and incorruptly."

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

So… can the authority to bind and loose be misused? Can the giving of indulgences be misused?

Is an indulgence offered unjustly pleasing to God? Sure, the Church intercedes for the person with the merits of the saints and Christ, but what’s the point if it is interceding for the wrong reasons? Does God just shrug His shoulders and give that person less punishment in purgatory simply because it was from the Church, despite being given for the wrong reasons?

 

[porthos11]

So… can the authority to bind and loose be misused? Can the giving of indulgences be misused?

Is an indulgence offered unjustly pleasing to God? Sure, the Church intercedes for the person with the merits of the saints and Christ, but what’s the point if it is interceding for the wrong reasons? Does God just shrug His shoulders and give that person less punishment in purgatory simply because it was from the Church, despite being given for the wrong reasons?

By definition, there can be no indulgence offered unjustly; that’s just a contradiction in terms. An indulgenced work must be worthy, as was the monetary contribution for the building of St. Peter’s. That in itself was a good and pious work and could never be unjust.

Now if an unscrupulous collector were to say, overcharge over the recommended donation so that he could keep a “commission”, then that’s an abuse, but it does not detract from the worthiness of the original work, which is to contribute to the building of the basilica. As for as God is concerned, the Church bound a worthy monetary contribution to an indulgence and the contributor did this in good faith (which of course presumes the other requirements, contrition, confession and Communion) so he can be nothing but pleased with that. The unscrupulous collector would be a different story. The abuse was not the collection of money for the basilica, rather, it was that some would actually keep some of the money for themselves.