Dist. 20, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 3
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/20/q/bon-sent-IV-d20-p2-a1-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *From whom the relaxation of satisfaction can be made.*

Thirdly it is asked, from whom the relaxation can be made. And it seems that it can be made by any priest whatever:

1. Because relaxations are made by the power of the keys; and every priest has the keys: therefore it seems that every priest can make relaxations. If you say that it is not by the power of the keys, but from the treasury of the Church; yet every priest has the treasury of his own parish, just as a bishop has that of his own province: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, those who preside over colleges have the keys for loosing and binding in both forums and have the treasury of supererogation, like the prelates of religious orders: therefore it seems that they can.

3. Likewise, it seems that any man whatever can: because anyone of free condition is master of his own goods and merits: therefore he can grant his own merits to another; and while he grants them to him, his own penance is diminished and relaxed: therefore it seems that anyone can do this.

4. Likewise, spiritual goods are of greater communicability than temporal ones; but if something is given to someone, from the fact that it is fully given, he can grant it to another: therefore it seems by equal reasoning, indeed by stronger, that he to whom relaxations have been given can give them to another.

**On the contrary:**
1. It is more to make indulgences than to impose penances; but to impose penances belongs to no one but a priest alone: therefore he cannot give indulgences, unless he be a priest.

2. Likewise, no one knows whether he has more merits than suffice for himself, indeed he does not know whether he has sufficient merits: therefore no one can relax anything of the penalty from his own resources by conferring some indulgence from them: therefore it does not belong to anyone to make indulgences except to the prelates of the Church.

3. Likewise, it is greater to grant indulgences than to excommunicate or to reconcile to the Church; but the first belongs to prelates alone, as was proved earlier: therefore much more strongly to make indulgences.

It is asked therefore: since one bishop cannot absolve nor bind the subjects of another, neither in the penitential forum nor in the judicial forum; how is it that he can make indulgences in another's diocese, as we see done daily?

> **Conclusion.** To dispense relaxations or indulgences belongs to bishops and the Supreme Pontiff alone.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as was touched upon in the preceding problem, relaxations or indulgences are made from the merits of supererogation, which are in the Church, which indeed are like her spiritual treasury. But it does not belong to everyone to dispense these merits of supererogation, but to bishops only; and therefore to make relaxations belongs to bishops alone.

But the reason why the treasury of the Church is committed to bishops alone to be dispensed is that the Church has this treasury from her espousal with Christ, who is her husband and spouse, and to whom she generates sons and daughters, that is, the perfect and the imperfect, for whose education Christ wills these goods to be preserved. And since in the Law it was touched upon that *he who takes the wife of his brother, in order to raise up seed to his dead brother,* ought to succeed to the goods that pertain to the education of the children, according to what is indicated in the fourth chapter of Ruth; to those alone belongs this treasury to be dispensed, who are spouses of the Church. But such are the bishops, who are spouses and have the power of generating sons and daughters, that is, the perfect and the imperfect, and among these the Supreme Pontiff, who is the spouse and rector of the whole universal Church. Therefore all bishops who have offspring can make indulgences, and the Supreme Pontiff especially among all, because to him belongs the dispensation of the whole spiritual treasury, inasmuch as he has the care of the whole Church and all her sons. Hence all are his sons, and he is the father of all.

It must therefore be granted that to make indulgences is not only not conceded to the laity, but not even to priests nor to lesser prelates, such as abbots or priors.

*To 1.* To that which is objected on the contrary, the response is already clear: because the whole ground of the power of making indulgences is not the *key,* but there is required the power of the *key with jurisdiction* and the *authority* of dispensing the treasury, which ordinarily belongs to bishops alone. For by *commission* any priest can give an indulgence on behalf of the bishop, as is clear in the case of simple preachers.

*To 2.* To that which is objected concerning those who preside over colleges; it must be said that such, who preside over subjects, have some authority over the goods of their college, yet not with respect to the merit of Christ, which he gave to the Church and her spouses to be dispensed; therefore they do not have plenary authority with respect to the treasury of the Church, and therefore they can only *communicate the goods of their college;* yet they cannot *relax,* because they do not know whether they superabound, since they do not have full power over this. And I call "full power" in a broad sense, insofar as it signifies a fullness of sufficiency, in which manner it is in the bishops for this act, not insofar as it signifies a *fullness of superexcellence;* for thus it is in the Supreme Pontiff alone, namely the fullness of power and authority.

*To 3 and 4.* To that which is objected, that any man can grant his own goods to another; it must be said that *relaxation* signifies more than *communication;* for it signifies a certain *authority,* by reason of which one is said to bestow an indulgence on this person; and therefore, although anyone having charity can communicate his own goods, yet not everyone can relax, but only he who has authority granted to him for this. — Likewise, *communication* differs from *relaxation,* because *relaxation* is made concerning past evils through the merits of Christ or of the Church, which have preceded; but *communication* properly regards a future good, not only a past one. And although one can give to someone what is not yet given nor determined to anyone, such as one Mass which he sings for some dead person; yet, if he has sung it for his own sins, or has given it to another, he cannot by his own authority *commute it.* Hence it is that he who receives relaxations for himself cannot give to another; because, if the Church pays his debt before God, it does not on that account give power that he should pay for another; and if God has remitted his debt, he cannot on that account remit to another what is owed to God. — Nor is that argument valid concerning material communication; because someone is entirely free in possessing temporal things, whoever is of free condition, and if he possesses freely, he can freely give to another; but he who is a servant cannot without the authority of his master; but all our things are Christ's and all spiritual merits, and we are his servants: and therefore we cannot transfer or give to another, unless authority be given by Christ. And thus what follows is clear.

To that which is asked lastly, whether a bishop can make indulgences in another's diocese; some say that just as he can bind and loose in another's diocese by the consent of the diocesan, so also make a relaxation; and thus two powers concur into one; and they can do as much, if they are many, as if one alone. — But then it would seem to be nothing other than a deception, if this were so. Therefore it must be said that, since relaxation signifies a communication of the treasury and further an authority, a bishop can in *another's* diocese *communicate his own goods* to the subjects of another, the goods, I say, of his own diocese; but to his *own* subjects he can *relax* or grant indulgence. Hence these relaxations to one's *own subjects* are true *relaxations,* if it happens that subjects go to obtain the indulgence which the bishop makes there; but with respect to others they are rather *communications* than *relaxations* — in the manner in which abbots, priors, and ministers communicate the goods of their college — unless perhaps this be by the consent and will of their own bishop. And this is said in the [title] On Penances and Remissions: « As to what you have consulted », and below: « Since no one can be bound or absolved by a judge not his own, we judge remissions to profit only those to whom their own judges have granted them ».