No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 November 2021
Recent scholarship on indulgences has focused on the shared concepts theologians and canonists drew on to explain these remissions and advantageous effects of indulgences on popular piety, the mendicant orders, and the papacy. A closer examination of the work of thirteenth-century canonists reveals an uncertainty about the mechanism by which indulgences worked and concerns that diverged from those of theologians. While the treasury of merit was a popular theological explanation, it was generally ignored by most canonists, who preferred explanations based on jurisdiction, the power of the keys, and suffrages. A key distinction between suffrages, good works done with the intent of spiritually benefitting others, and the treasury of merit is that the former burdens the living while the latter does not, since it draws on merit stored from already completed actions. Since it makes granting indulgences burdensome, the suffrage theory offers a disincentive to granting indiscrete or excessive remissions. Abuse of indulgences underlined the tensions between the authority of God and the church, the penitential and public forums, and the overlapping jurisdictions of prelates. Unlike the suffrage theory of indulgences, the treasury of merit theory offers little incentive for restraint. This may explain its relative absence in the writings of thirteenth-century canonists.
1 Matt. 16:19.
2 The term remissiones, meaning a releasing, relaxation, or lessening of the amount of penance owed, was the most common name for indulgences in the twelfth century, but beginning in the thirteenth century, the word indulgentiae, meaning pardon or grant of leniency, began to be used interchangeably with remissiones to refer to indulgences. See Shaffern, Robert, The Penitent's Treasury: Indulgences in Latin Christendom, 1175–1375 (Scranton, PA, 2007), 45Google Scholar.
3 For more on the early historiography of indulgences, see Shaffern, The Penitent's Treasury, 5–17.
4 Lea, Henry Charles, A History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences in the Latin Church, Volume 3 (Philadelphia, 1896)Google Scholar.
5 Paulus, Nikolaus, Geschichte des Ablasses im Mittelalter: Vom Ursprunge bis zur Mitte des 14. Jahrhunderts (Paderborn, 1922–23)Google Scholar.
6 Poschmann, Bernhard, Der Ablaß im Licht der Bußgeschichte (Bonn, 1948)Google Scholar; and idem, Penance and the Anointing of the Sick (New York, 1951).
7 Shaffern, The Penitent's Treasury. See also idem, “Images, Jurisdiction, and the Treasury of Merit,” Journal of Medieval History 20 (1996): 237–47; idem, “Indulgences and Saintly Devotionalisms in the Middle Ages,” Catholic Historical Review 84 (1998): 643–61; idem, “A New Canonistic Text on Indulgences: De quantitate indulgenciarum of John of Dambach, O.P. (1288–1372),” Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law 25 (1991): 25–46; idem, “The Medieval Theology of Indulgences,” in Promissory Notes on the Treasury of Merits: Indulgences in Late Medieval Europe, ed. R. N. Swanson (Leiden, 2006), 11–36; and idem, “Mendicant Friars and the Legacy of Indulgences,” in Ablasskampagnen des Spätmittelalters: Luthers Thesen von 1517 im Kontext, ed. Andreas Rehberg (Berlin, 2017), 283–94.
8 Swanson, R. N., “Indulgences for Prayers for the Dead in the Diocese of Lincoln in the Early Fourteenth Century,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 52 (2001): 197–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “Intercessory Indulgence: Integrating Pardons with the Cults of Saints in Late Medieval England,” in Saints and Cults in Medieval England, ed. Susan Powell (Donnington, UK, 2017), 41–57; and idem, “The Challenges of Indulgences in the Pre-Reformation Church,” in Ablasskampagnen des Spätmittelalters: Luthers Thesen von 1517 im Kontext, ed. Andreas Rehberg (Berlin, 2017), 3–18.
9 Doublier, Étienne, Ablass, Papsttum und Bettelorden im 13 Jahrhundert (Cologne, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and idem, “Libra Misericordiae le Indulgenze di Bonifacio VIII,” Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 64 (2010): 347–80.
10 Swanson, “The Challenges of Indulgences in the Pre-Reformation Church,” 9.
11 Robert of Flamborough, Liber Poenitentialis: A Critical Edition with Introduction and Notes, ed. Firth, J. J. Francis (Toronto, 1971), 11–12 (prolegomena)Google Scholar.
12 Leonard E. Boyle, “Summae Confessorum,” in Les Genres littéraires dans les sources théologiques et philosophiques médiévales: Définition, critique et exploitation. Actes du Colloque international de Louvain-la Neuve, 25–27 mai 1981 (Louvain-la Neuve, 1982), 227–37, at 235.
13 For example, Shaffern, “The Medieval Theology of Indulgences,” 20–22, speaks of prayers benefiting the dead in Robert de Courson's work and Thomas Aquinas's analogy of suffrages flowing through the mystical body and transitions quite seamlessly into discussions of the treasury of merit, as if the merit of saints and suffrages were the same. Likewise, Shaffern, The Penitent's Treasury (n. 2 above), 97, takes words from Raymond of Peñafort stating that the efficacy of indulgences depends on the number and devotion of those qui suffragantur (see n. 48 below), as referring to the number of bishops and the amount of remission they grant in indulgences, drawing from the treasury of merit, rather than a reference to the number of people bound by bishops to do suffrages for the recipients of indulgences, which as we shall see below, is one of Raymond's theories of how indulgences work. That Raymond means those doing suffrages rather than those issuing indulgences is shown by the fact that he notes that no human can know the number of them. This is clearly not the case with bishops granting indulgences, which are easily countable and usually stored in the church or monastery the indulgence is prompting pilgrims to visit.
14 McLaughlin, Megan, Consorting with Saints: Prayer for the Dead in Early Medieval France (Ithaca, 1994), 183–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 Peter Lombard, Sententiarum libri quatuor 4.45.2, PL 192, col. 948: “Orationibus ergo sanctae Ecclesiae, et sacrificio salutari et eleemosynis quae pro eorum spiritibus offeruntur, non est dubium mortuos adjuvari, ut cum eis misericordius agatur a Domino, quam eorum peccata meruerunt.” Translation from Peter Lombard, The Sentences, Book 4: On the Doctrine of Signs, trans. Giulio Silano (Toronto, 2010), 245. For Peter Lombard's source, see Augustine, Enchiridion ad Laurentium de fide et spe et caritate, ed. E. Evans, in Aurelii Augustini Opera pars 13, CCL 46 (Turnhout, 1969), 108–9.
16 McLaughlin, Consorting with Saints, 221 and 226.
17 Peter Lombard, Sententiarum libri quatuor 4.45.2–4, PL 192, cols. 948–50.
18 De pen. D. 1 c. 60, D. 6 c.1, from Atria A. Larson, Gratian's Tractatus de penitentia: A New Latin Edition with English Translation (Washington, D.C., 2016), 48 and 264: “Ille, quem macula grauioris culpe inficit, nisi confessione proprii oris uel ecclesie intercessione suffragante sanari non poterit.” “Adiuuet confitentem orando, elemosinas faciendo, et cetera bona pro eo faciendo . . . sit particeps laboris qui particeps uult fieri gaudii.”
19 Summa aurea, 1830: “Quibus mortuis suffragia ecclesie prosint . . . scilicet missarum, celebrationibus sanctis, orationibus, charorum eleemosynis, et ieiuniis cognatorum.”
20 Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones quodlibetales 2.7.2, ed. Raimondo Spiazzi (Taurini, 1956), online at https://www.corpusthomisticum.org (accessed 8 June 2021): “Alio modo secundum quod per intentionem alicuius actus eius transfertur in alterum; puta, si aliquis pro altero solvat aliquod debitum . . . Primo ergo modo valet opus bonum per modum meriti, cuius radix est caritas; sed secundo modo opus unius valet alteri per modum satisfactionis, prout unus pro altero satisfacere potest, si hoc intendat: et talis valor attenditur in suffragiis, quae ad hoc fiunt, ut per ea homines liberentur a debito poenae.”
21 Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, Commentaria in quatuor libros sententiarum Magistri (Quaracchi, 1889), 4:944: “Obligatio ad poenam minuitur solutione poenae facta ab ipso, vel ab alio . . . suffragia non auferunt a poena nec liberant . . . nec tamen peccatum remaneret impunitum, quia quamvis non puniatur in se, punitur tamen alio modo in aliis.” For more on the complex relationship between suffrages, indulgences, and substitutionary penance in this period, see Gavin Fort, “Suffering Another's Sin: Proxy Penance in the Thirteenth Century,” Journal of Medieval History 44 (2018): 202–30, at 206–7, and McLaughlin, Consorting with Saints (n. 14 above), 221.
22 Shaffern, The Penitent's Treasury (n. 2 above), 81 and 102–6.
23 Shaffern, The Penitent's Treasury (n. 2 above), 84–85 and 103–4.
24 Paulus, Geschichte des Ablasses (n. 5 above), 1:220–22, 225–27, 317–35, and 382–92.
25 Gillmann, Franz, “Zur Ablaßlehre der Früscholastik,” Der Katholik 1 (1913): 365–76Google Scholar.
26 Shaffern, A New Canonistic Text on Indulgences (n. 7 above), 45.
27 Shaffern, The Penitent's Treasury (n. 2 above), 79.
28 Shaffern, “Images, Jurisdiction and the Treasury of Merits” (n. 7 above), 238.
29 For biographical information on these canonists, see Pennington, Kenneth, Medieval and Early Modern Jurists: A Bio-Bibliographical Listing (Cambridge, MA, 2011–20)Google Scholar, https://amesfoundation.law.harvard.edu/BioBibCanonists/HomePage_biobib2.php (accessed 8 June 2021).
30 Shaffern, “The Medieval Theology of Indulgences” (n. 7 above), 36.
31 Alanus Anglicus, Compilationes antiquae decretalium cum glossis, ad X.5.38.4, in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3879, fol. 94v (Quod autem is included in Compilatio Prima as 5.33.3 and later the Decretales): “Quid valeant remissiones tales vetus est querela . . . Quidam dicunt quod valent tantum quoad deum non quoad ecclesiam. Quoad deum, quoniam si quis [sine] mortali decedat non tamen [per]acta condigna penitentia de peccatis de pena purgatorii minus sentient, pro modo remissionis sibi facte, in vita ista ecclesia tamen viventi ob hoc debitam satisfactionem non relaxat. Alii dicunt quod valent quoad ecclesiam . . . ex superhabundanti ecclesia imposuit, et quoad deum, et quoad ecclesiam omnino per tales remissiones remittitur . . . Alii dicunt quod valent tantum ad remissionem illius penitentie que negligenter est omissa.” See also a version of this text with minor differences published in Nikolaus Paulus, Geschichte des Ablasses (n. 5 above), 1:225–26. The text in brackets appears in Paulus's book and not in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3879.
32 Vincentius Hispanus, Apparatus super quinque libros Decretalium Gregorii IX, ad X.5.38.4, in Paris, BnF, Latin 3967, fol. 202r; Bernard of Parma, Decretales D. Gregorii papae IX suae integritati una cum glossis restitutae, ad X.5.38.4 (Rome, 1582), 1865–66; Summa Aurea, 1870–71; and Novella Commentaria, ad X.5.38.4, fol. 124r.
33 Summa Aurea, 1871: “Quidem dicunt quod valent quo ad venalia tamen alii quo ad delicta ignominiae . . . vel minus discrete arbitrata et iniuncta.”
34 Paul of Hungary, “Summa de poenitentia,” in Bibliotheca casiensis (Monte Cassino, 1880), 4:198: “Valeant ad venialia oblivioni tradita . . . valent quo ad mitigationem pene . . . non peregit propter mortis preoccupationem.”
35 Johannes Teutonicus, Constitutiones Concilii quarti Lateranensis, una cum commentariis glossatorum, ad X.5.38.14, ed. Antonio García y García (Rome, 1981), 375: “Ualent ad delicta ignorantie”; Paul of Hungary, “Summa,” 198; and Raymond of Peñafort, Summa Sti. Raymundi de Peniafort Barcinonensis Ord. Praedicator. de Poenitentia et Matrimonio cum glossis Ioannis de Friburgo (Rome, 1603), 494.
36 Monaldus of Capodistria, Summa perutilis atque aurea venerabilis viri fratris Monaldi in utroque iure (Lyons, 1516), fol. 86v: “Valebunt eis, secundum quosdam, si sunt sine mortali peccato, alioquin tunc valebunt eis tantum, secundum quosdam, quando pro contritionem [sic] peccatum fuerit eis remissum.” This is slightly different from indulgences only being valid with respect to venial sins, since it suggests they are valid only for penances of those with only venial sins, while the former suggests one can have mortal and venial sins and have the penances for only the venial ones relaxed by indulgences.
37 Johannes Teutonicus, Decretum cum glossa ordinaria, ad C. 13, q. 2, c. 23 (Lyon, 1497), fol. 175r: “Si propter oblationem unius denarii tollitur quarta pars peccatorum mortalium vel venialium, per oblationem secundi denarii tollitur tantum in proportione non tantum in quantitate et semper aliquid remanet licet omne argentum effunderetur.”
38 Huguccio, Summa decretorum, ad De pen. D. 1, c. 88, in Paris, BnF, Latin 3892, fol. 329v: “Ubi ergo sunt illi qui dicunt quod remissiones . . . non valent nisi ad revelandas negligentias . . . Christus dixit in evangelio si cui peccata remiseritis remittentur ei . . . ut evidenter et quecumque solveritis super terram erunt soluta et in celo . . . plane et firmiter credendum est quod remissiones que fiunt a prelatis ecclesie . . . valent.” Similarly, Novella Commentaria, ad X.5.38.4, fol. 124r.
39 For more on Quod autem (X.5.38.4) and the canon on indulgences from the Fourth Lateran, Cum ex eo (X.5.28.14), see Étienne Doublier, “«Claues ecclesie contempnuntur et penitentialis satisfactio eneruatur»: La regolamentazione della prassi indulgenziale nelle costituzioni 60 e 62 del IV Concilio Lateranense,” in Il Lateranense IV le ragioni di un concilio: Atti del LIII Convegno storico internazionale, Todi, 9–12 ottobre 2016 (Spoleto, 2017), 449–72.
40 Alanus Anglicus, Compilationes antiquae, ad X.5.38.4, in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3879, fol. 94v: “Sic igitur si episcopus iniungit alicui septennem penitentiam et ut possit redimere non concedit . . . quo ad ecclesiam non diminuit.” Similarly, see Huguccio, Summa decretorum, ad De pen. D. 1, c. 88, in Paris, BnF, Latin 3892, fol. 329v, where he interprets judge as priest, rather than bishop: “Penitentie ecclesiastice omnes arbitrarie sunt, idest in arbitrio sacerdotum ponite, ut possit eas artare, vel protellare”; Vincentius Hispanus, Apparatus, ad X.5.38.4, in Paris, BnF, Latin 3967, fol. 202r; and Bernard of Parma, Decretales, ad X.5.38.4, 1865–66, who notes simply, “Illis tantum prosunt, qui remittenti vel indulgenti subsunt.”
41 Innocent IV, Apparatus in quinque libros Decretalium, ad X.5.38.4 (Frankfurt, 1570), 544r: “Videtur quod indulgentiae non valeant illis, qui sunt in purgatorio, quia iam non habent iudicem in terra, sed Dei iudicio relicti sunt . . . si tamen Papa facit, non negemus, quin valeant in defunctis.”
42 Summa aurea, 1873–74; Novella Commentaria, ad X.5.38.4, fol. 123v; and Raymond of Peñafort, Summa de poenitentia, 494–95.
43 Shaffern, “The Medieval Theology of Indulgences” (n. 7 above), 34; and idem, “Learned Discussions of Indulgences for the Dead in the Middle Ages,” Church History 61 (1992): 367–81, at 375. Shaffern interprets Innocent as confusing indulgences with suffrages, but Innocent in fact does make the distinction. His point is that indulgences are jurisdictional grants to the living and therefore are not valid for the dead except as suffrages. But he notes that perhaps as suffrages they have more weight than other good deeds because these particular deeds are encouraged by prelates in indulgences.
44 John of Erfurt, Die Summa Confessorum des Johannes von Erfurt, ed. and trans. Norbert Brieskorn (Frankfurt, 1980), 898: “Intelligitur de poenitentia iniuncta a deo . . . de illa poenitentia relaxat episcopus.” This is different from the above-stated theory that indulgences only are valid with respect only to God and not the church, because that theory essentially makes the penitential effect only take place after death. John's explanation is that bishops, by virtue of jurisdiction, grant indulgences to the living that can continue to have effect after death because they remit the real penance as calculated by God, not merely penance imposed by a confessor.
45 Guillaume de Rennes, “Glossae,” in Raymond of Peñafort, Summa de poenitentia, 495. Concerning whether a pope's plenary crusade indulgences free from purgatory, if the crusader tries but fails to fulfill his vow, “recurrendum est tamen ad formam indulgentiae et intentionem Papae . . . cum habeat plenitudinem potestatis . . . latissime interpretanda est huiusmodi indulgentia generalis.” John of Freiburg, Summa confessorum reverendi patris Joannis de Friburgo Ordinis Predicatorum (Paris, 1519), fol. 206r, is even more explicit: “Indulgentie possunt per papam extendi ad eos qui sunt in purgatorio, ut cum hoc in litteris remissionis ponitur.” See also Henry of Merseburg, Summa Henrici Mersebergensis, in Jena, Thüringer Universitäts und Landesbibliothek, Bibliotheca Electoralis, MS El. q. 11., fol. 120v (El.q.11): “Qui dum vixerunt hoc meruerunt, et in caritate decesserunt.”; Labia sacerdotis, in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 28216, fol. 87r; Second Recension of Summa Henrici Mersebergensis, in Berkeley, UC Berkeley, Robbins Collection, MS 75, fol. 81v (hereafter Robbins 75); John of Erfurt, Summa, 896; and Peter Quesnel, Directorium iuris in foro conscientiae et iudiciali, in Paris, BnF, MS Latin 8934, fol. 34v. This suggests they thought of indulgences as working through suffrages, since this quote reflects Peter Lombard's Sentences, which states that suffrages only benefit those who merit it in life. See Peter Lombard, Sententiarum libri quatuor (n. 15 above), 4.45.2, 948.
46 Raymond of Peñafort, Summa de poenitentia (n. 35 above), 494–95: “Verum alia sententia est fauorabilis, et magis communis, et illam approbo, videlicet quod valeant sicut sonant. Cum enim Papa sit vocatus in plenitudinem potestatis, inferiores autem prelati in partem solicitudinis . . . durum esset contra tantam potestatem clauium disputare.”
47 Godfrey of Trano, Summa super titulis Decretalium (Lyon, 1519), fol. 240v: “Ego tamen simpliciter intelligo sicut sonat . . . absolutus est quem ecclesia absoluit.”; Summa aurea, 1871; Novella Commentaria, ad X.5.38.4, fol. 124r; Henry of Merseburg, Summa, El.q.11, fol. 120r; and Summa Henrici, Robbins 75, fol. 81r.
48 Raymond of Peñafort, Summa de poenitentia (n. 35 above), 495–96: “Nec scio, nec credo aliquem mortalem scire, nisi esset alicui diuinitus inspiratum . . . maioritas et minoritas remissionis paenitentiae attenditur secundum tria, scilicet secundum maiorem et minorem deuotionem ipsius paenitentis, et ipsorum qui suffragantur, et secundum maiorem et minorem numerum eorundem suffragantium, cum igitur nullus possit scire mensuram, vel numerum talium, nec per consequens potest scire remissionis mensuram.” Shaffern, The Penitent's Treasury (n. 2 above), 97, refers to the same passage only to note that Raymond thought the level of contrition was linked to the amount of remission received, but does not focus on the entire point of the argument, that the actual amount is unknown to everyone except God.
49 Guillaume de Rennes, “Glossae,” 496: “Non potest esse certum de facili danti, vtrum dederit secundum facultates suas.”
50 Guillaume de Rennes, “Glossae,” 495–96: “Quomodo ergo valent huiusmodi remissiones sicut sonant, vt dictum est supra? Videtur Magister contrarius sibi ipsi.”
51 Summa aurea, 1871; Novella Commentaria, ad X.5.38.4, fol. 124r; and John of Freiburg, Summa (n. 45 above), fol. 205r.
52 Guillaume de Rennes, “Glossae,” 496: “Tamen remissiones non praeiudicant diuinae iustitiae, quando cuiuslibet peccatum sufficienter puniatur, vel hic, vel in purgatorio.”
53 Innocent IV, Apparatus (n. 41 above), ad X.5.38.4, 543v: “Deus, qui omnia moderatur in numero pondere et mensura, vltra metam in ecclesia a praelato impositam, de gratia dabit alij plus, alij minus.”
54 Paul of Hungary, “Summa” (n. 34 above), 198: “Valent tanquam quodlibet bonum, tamen amplius propter au[c]toritatem ecclesie.”
55 Summa aurea, 1872: “Quamuis enim de necessitate non teneatur hic facere poenitentiam iniunctam, quia per remissiones huiusmodi, etsi indiscrete fiant, satisfactiones tamen poenitentie enervantur . . . tamen quia nescit vtrum sacerdos iniunxerit ei poenitentiam quam tamen debuisset . . . et id quod non est purgatum in hac vita, debeat purgari in purgatorio, fatuus est et simplex, qui ibidem huiusmodi indulgentias non reseruat . . . grauior sit ibi poenitentia vnius diei quam hic centum.”
56 Vincentius Hispanus, Apparatus (n. 32 above), ad X.5.38.4 in Paris, BnF, Latin 3967, fol. 202r: “Non tenetur iam ex necessitate ieiunare sed ex honestate, et si contempnit mortaliter peccat”; Bernard of Parma, Decretales (n. 32 above), ad 5.38.4, 1866; Paul of Hungary, “Summa” (n. 34 above), 198; Raymond of Peñafort, Summa de poenitentia (n. 35 above), 497; Guillaume de Rennes, “Glossae” (n. 45 above), 496; John of Freiburg, Summa (n. 45 above), fol. 205r; Labia Sacerdotis (n. 45 above), in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 28216, fols. 87r–87v; Summa Henrici (n. 45 above), Robbins 75, fol. 82v; John of Erfurt, Summa (n. 44 above), 897; Huguccio, Summa decretorum (n. 38 above), ad De pen. D. 1, c. 88, in Paris, BnF, Latin 3892, fol. 329v, notes that one does not receive an indulgence with the attitude of exchanging money for less penance, but instead of accepting an invitation to do whatever good work is required in the indulgence. He does not go as far as to say one should still do the penance that is relaxed.
57 The following mention the theory in passing without contradicting it: Alanus Anglicus, Compilationes antiquae (n. 31 above), ad X.5.38.4, in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3879, fol. 94v; Vincentius Hispanus, Apparatus (n. 32 above), ad X.5.38.4, in Paris, BnF, Latin 3967, fol. 202r; and Bernard of Parma, Decretales (n. 32 above), ad X.5.38.4, 1865. The others, on the other hand, seem to endorse or assume this theory is true. Summa aurea, 1867 and 1871–72, uses it as a warning against excessive remissions, “licet oneret se si incaute hoc faciat,” and an explanation for why indulgences benefit the giver of alms, “quia obligat eum qui facit remissionem, secundum Raymundum.” See also Paul of Hungary, “Summa” (n. 34 above), 198; Raymond of Peñafort, Summa de poenitentia (n. 35 above), 495–96: “Obligat eum . . . vt suffragetur ei”; Guillaume de Rennes, “Glossa” (n. 45 above), 496; John of Freiburg, Summa (n. 45 above), fol. 205r; Henry of Merseburg, Summa (n. 45 above), El.q.11, fol. 120r; Summa Henrici (n. 45 above), Robbins 75, fol. 81r; and Monaldus of Capodistria, Summa (n. 36 above), fol. 87r.
58 Henry of Merseburg, Summa (n. 45 above), El.q.11, fol. 120r: “Hoc propter duo, scilicet propter devotam erogationem, et quia obligat eum qui facit remissionem, immo et totam ecclesiam, ut ei suffragetur.” Henry is likely drawing from Raymond of Peñafort, Summa de poenitentia (n. 35 above), 495.
59 Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones quodlibetales (n. 20 above), 2.7.2.
60 Doublier, “Claues ecclesie contempnuntur” (n. 39 above), 463.
61 Thomas Chobham, Summa confessorum, ed. F. Broomfield (Louvain, 1968), 209: “Et est sensus verborum talis: nos relaxamus vobis decem dies de iniuncta penitentia, id est obligamus nos et ecclesiam nostram ad faciendum pro vobis penitentiam decem dierum.”
62 Paul of Hungary, “Summa” (n. 34 above), 198: “Dicunt quod valent tanquam quidam thesaurus, ut cum alia defecerint et iam mereri non possumus, recipiant nos in eterna tabernacula, ut de villico iniquitatis legitur in evangelio . . . amplectimur et imitamur, quod in veritate valent . . . quia ecclesia obligat se pro illo orare.” This version of the treasury of merit is an odd one, drawing the metaphor from the parable of the shrewd manager who defrauds his master who is relieving him of his duties in order to ingratiate himself with his master's debtors so that he might survive afterwards (Luke 16:1–13).
63 Summa aurea, 1871–72: “Sed minima gutta sanguinis Christi sufficeret ad expiationem omnium peccatorum et redemptionem omnium hominum . . . et filius Dei non solum guttam, sed totum sanguinem fuderit pro peccatoribus, et propterea martyres pro fide, et ecclesia sanguinem suum fuderunt . . . et haec sanguinis effusio est thesaurus in scrinio ecclesiae repositus, cuius claues habet ecclesia, vnde quando vult potest scrinium aperire, et thesaurum suum cui voluerit communicare, remissiones et indulgentias fidelibus faciendo, et sic peccatum non remanent impunitum, quia punitum fuit in filio Dei et martyribus sanctis suis.”
64 John of Erfurt, Summa (n. 44 above), 896, states that Christ gave the church a bridal gift of an inexhaustible treasure, which his representatives, the pope and bishops, can draw from. John of Freiburg, Summa (n. 45 above), fol. 204v, cites the Dominican theologian Peter of Tarantaise (later Pope Innocent V), stating that there is a treasury of merits of the whole church and prelates have the keys and therefore can distribute it for the necessities of the church.
65 Novella Commentaria, ad X.5.38.4, fol. 123v: “Dicunt theologi, quod non occurit ratio, quare non possit ecclesia thesaurum suum communicare mortuis sicut viuis.”
66 Alan of Lille, Alan of Lille: Liber poenitentialis, ed. Jean Longere (Louvaine, 1965), 153: “Minister enim est remissionis. Si vero quaeritur, utrum poenitentiam possit accipere super se, respondemus: potest humiliter dicere: ut Deus misereatur tui, ego hanc poenitentiam pro te suscipio implendam. Utrum autem ille absolvatur? Deus novit.”
67 Alan of Lille, Liber poenitentialis, 174–75: “Quidam enim dicunt hoc licite fieri hoc modo, scilicet, si alicui est injuncta poenitentia triennis, iste praelatus potest ei tertiam partem relaxare . . . alius etiam praelatus potest ei tertiam partem residuae poenitentiae relaxare et sic in infinitum, ut semper et aliquid restet in propria persona peragendum.”
68 Alan of Lille, Liber poenitentialis, 176: “Ecclesia per orationes, jejunia, eleemosynas et alia quaecumque opera salutis hoc in se suscipit paragendum. Suffraganea autem sunt Ecclesiae membra et alter alterius onera potare debet, ut sic adimpleatur lex Christi.”
69 Alan of Lille, Liber poenitentialis, 176–77: “Ecclesia non remittit ei poenam temporalem, sed purgatoriam.”
70 Shaffern, The Penitent's Treasury (n. 2 above), 102–6.
71 Doublier, “Claues ecclesie contempnuntur” (n. 39 above), 463 and 469, notes that theologians had held to a suffrage-based theory of indulgences before adopting the treasury of merit explanation. Both Doublier here and Shaffern, The Penitent's Treasury (n. 2 above), 80–106, present a smooth evolution with much continuity between the idea of indulgences as drawing on suffrages and that of them drawing from a treasury of merits. However, this view does not take into consideration the key difference between these views: the first puts burdens on the living, the second does not.
72 Conciliorum oecumenicorum generaliumque decreta: Editio critica 2, The General Councils of Latin Christendom, part 1, From Constantinople IV to Pavia-Siena (869–1424), ed. Antonio García y García (Turnhout, 2013), 196–97 = X.5.38.14 in Corpus iuris canonici: Pars secunda, Decretalium Collectiones, ed. Emile Friedberg (Leipzig, 1881), 889: “Quia per indiscretas et superfluas indulgentias, quas quidam ecclesiarum prelati facere non verentur, et claves ecclesie contempnuntur et penitentialis satisfactio enervatur, decernimus ut cum dedicatur basilica, non extendatur indulgentia ultra annum, sive ab uno solo sive a pluribus episcopis dedicetur; ac deinde in anniversario dedicationis tempore quadraginta dies de iniunctis penitentiis indulta remissio non excedat . . . cum romanus pontifex, qui plenitudinem optinet potestatis, hoc in talibus moderamen consueverit observare.”
73 Stephan Kuttner, “La réserve papale du droit de canonization,” Revue historique de droit français et étranger 17 (1938): 172–228, at 187–88.
74 Christine Oakland, “The Legacy of Canon 62 in the Diocese of Sens in Northern France (1215–1469),” in The Fourth Lateran Council and the Development of Canon Law and the ius commune, ed. Atria A. Larson and Andrea Massironi (Turnhout, 2018), 187–204, at 188–90.
75 Thomas Lentes, “Counting Piety in the Late Middle Ages,” in Ordering Medieval Society: Perspectives on Intellectual and Practical Modes of Shaping Social Relations, ed. Bernhard Jussen (Philadelphia, 2001), 55–91.
76 Shaffern, The Penitent's Treasury (n. 2 above), 92–93.
77 Oakland, “The Legacy of Canon 62,” 193–95.
78 Innocent IV, Apparatus (n. 41 above), 546r.
79 For more on this term and its meaning for medieval jurists, see John H. Hackett, “State of the Church: A Concept of the Medieval Canonists,” The Jurist 23 (1963): 259–90, at 275 and 290.
80 Kenneth Pennington, Popes and Bishops: The Papal Monarchy in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (Philadelphia, 1984), 177–86.
81 Pennington, Popes and Bishops, 192–93.
82 Vincentius Hispanus, Apparatus (n. 32 above), ad X.5.38.4, in Paris, BnF, Latin 3967, fol. 202r: “Non loquitur de remissionibus que fiunt a domino papa sed ab aliis episcopis.” This was also noted by later jurists: Novella Commentaria, ad X.5.38.4, fol. 123v; and John of Freiburg, Summa (n. 45 above), fol. 205r.
83 Peter Quesnel, Directorium (n. 45 above), in Paris, BnF, Latin 8934, fol. 34v: “Fatus est et simplex qui ibidem huiusmodi indulgencias non reservat . . . De iniuncta penitentia relaxamus secus de generali et universali per quam omnis satisfactio remittitur, que a solo papa fieri consuevit.” This is echoed in Vincentius Hispanus, Apparatus (n. 32 above), ad X.5.38.4, in Paris, BnF, Latin 3967, fol. 202r.
84 For more on various theological and practical debates regarding plenary indulgences for pilgrimage to the Portiuncula and Peter John Olivi's response, see Fortunato Iozzelli, “Pietro di Giovanni Olivi e l'indulgenza della Porziuncola,” in Il Perdono di Assisi e le indulgenze plenarie: Atti dell'incontro di studio in occasione dell'VIII Centenario dell'Indulgenza della Porziuncola (1216–2016) S. Maria degli Angeli, 15–16 luglio 2016, ed. Stefano Brufani (Spoleto, 2017), 117–44. Of note is the objection made by opponents of the indulgence that obtaining such an easy remission of all penance is the greatest incentive to sin. The potential for papal excesses in indulgences was clearly on the minds of many.
85 Innocent IV, Apparatus (n. 41 above), ad X.5.38.14, 546r: “Hanc restrictionem facere potuit Papa, quia minores praelati omnes habent hanc potestatem ab eo, et ipse a solo Deo . . . Item potuit ratione principatus et iurisdictionis, quam habet super omnes . . . Et hoc facit ex iusta causa, quia hac potestate abutebantur.” See also Novella Commentaria, ad X.5.38.14, fol. 129v; and Guido de Baysio, Apparatus super sexto decretalium, ad VI°.5.10.3, in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3888, fol. 112v. Guillaume de Rennes, “Glossae” (n. 45 above), 492, notes that Christ instituted the power in Peter first, then through Peter to the other apostles, so that the unity of the church would be manifest: “Vt vnitatem manifestaret, vnitatis eiusdem originem, ab vno Petro incipientem, sua auctoritate disposuit.”
86 Guido de Baysio, Apparatus, ad VI°.5.10.3, in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3888, fol. 112v: “Nam talis potestas non datur ad abusum . . . privari meretur . . . ex hec se non privat potestate quo ad veritatem, sed privare videtur.”
87 Gratian, Decretum, C. 11, q. 3, c. 60, in Corpus iuris canonici: Pars Prima, ed. Emile Friedberg (Leipzig, 1879), accessed online through https://geschichte.digitale-sammlungen.de//decretum-gratiani/online/angebot (accessed 8 June 2021): “Ipse ligandi atque soluendi se potestate priuat qui hanc pro suis uoluntatibus, et non pro subditorum moribus exercet.”
88 Étienne Doublier, “Die Päpste und der Siegeszug des Ablasses im 13. Jahrhundert,” in Die Päpste: Amt und Herrschaft in Antike, Mittelalter und Renaissance, ed. Bernd Schneidmüller et al. (Regensburg, 2016), 341–55, at 354–55.
89 Bernard of Parma, Decretales (n. 32 above), ad X.5.38.14, 1874–75: “Credo quod teneat, licet ibi faciant contra mandatum istud, quia non adiicit hic quod si secus fecerint, decernimus non valere.”
90 Vincentius Hispanus, Apparatus (n. 32 above), ad X.5.38.14, in Paris, BnF, Latin 3967, fol. 202v: “Sepius dat denarium numquid sepius habebit xl dies, et credo quod sic dum durat tempus vel dies remissionis prefixus.” Similarly, Abbas Antiquus, Lectura aurea domini Abbatis antiqui, super quinque libris Decretalium, ad X.5.38.14 (Strasbourg, 1511), fol. 217v.
91 Henry of Barbeu, Apparatus summae Henrici, in Jena, Thüringer Universitäts und Landesbibliothek, Bibliotheca Electoralis, MS El. q. 11, fol. 200r; Baldwin of Brandenburg, Additiones fratri Baldwini, in Jena, Thüringer Universitäts und Landesbibliothek, Bibliotheca Electoralis, MS El. q. 11, fol. 120v; Labia sacerdotis (n. 45 above), in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 28216, fol. 87r; Summa Henrici (n. 45 above), Robbins 75, fol. 82r; Monaldus of Capodistria, Summa (n. 36 above), fol. 87r; John of Erfurt, Summa (n. 44 above), 898; and Peter Quesnel, Directorium (n. 45 above), in Paris, BnF, Latin 8934, fol. 34r.
92 Liber Sextus, 5.10.3, in Friedberg, Corpus iuris canonici: Pars secunda (n. 72 above), 1093: “Indulgentiae, quae ab uno vel pluribus episcopis in ecclesiarum dedicationibus vel aliis quibuscunque casibus conceduntur, vires non obtinent, si statutum excesserint concilii generalis.”
93 Peter Quesnel, Directorium (n. 45 above), in Paris, BnF, Latin 8934, fol. 34r: “Sed quid si episcopus vel archiepiscopus concedit indulgentiam ultra predicta numquid saltem valebit pro numero dierum quo numero vel quibus dierum potest dare episcopus? . . . sic.”
94 Shaffern, “A New Canonistic Text on Indulgences” (n. 7 above), 39.
95 Summa aurea, 1869: “Si centum sint episcopi, nolumus tamen quod quilibet annum det, sed omnes simul annum tamen diuidant sicut placet, vt sic in hoc casu tamen possit vnus solus quantum centum . . . Non prodest indulgentia, nisi subditis . . . sic diuersi subditi diuersorum episcoporum annum tamen, vel 40 dies tamen reportant, et non vltra . . . Multa fieri non debent, que tamen facta tenent.” Similarly, Guido de Baysio, Apparatus (n. 85 above), ad VI°.5.10.3, in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3888, fol. 112v.
96 Johannes Monachus, Ioannis monachi picardi cardinalis ac vicecancellarii apostolici in sextum librum decretalium dilucida commentaria glossa aurea nuncupate: additionibus clarissimi I.C. Philippi Probi Biturci, ad VI°.5.10.3 (Venice, 1585), fol. 363v: “quos vidi facere fraudem dicto Concilio . . . in nullo valere.”
97 Guillaume de Rennes, “Glossae” (n. 45 above), 497: “Papa tamen generalem Ecclesiam ceteri vero Episcopi particulares Ecclesias suas obligare possunt ad orandum pro talibus.”
98 X.5.38.15 in Friedberg, Corpus iuris canonici: Pars secunda (n. 72 above), 889: “Nos igitur fraternitati tuae breviter respondemus, quod per provinciam tuam libere potes huiusmodi concedere literas, ita tamen, quod statutum generalis concilii non excedas.” The original context of this decretal is lost. The recipient of the letter was the Abbot of Preaux, but Friedberg rejects this as false since the text suggests an archbishop as the intended recipient. Abbots do not have provinces.
99 Vincentius Hispanus, Apparatus (n. 32 above), ad X.5.38.15, in Paris, BnF, Latin 3967, fol. 203r: “Sed quomodo potest eas dare cum non possit comittere causam subdito suffraganei . . . de istis licteris diverse sunt opiniones.”
100 Godfrey of Trano, Summa (n. 47 above), fol. 240v: “Sed metropolitanus potest per totam provinciam suam concedere litteras indulgentie seu remissionis . . . quod est speciale cum alias subiectos suffraganeorm suorum iurisdictionem suam generaliter execere non possit preterquam in viii casibus.”
101 Godfrey of Trano, Summa (n. 47 above), fol. 54v: “per appellationem . . . per consultationem . . . per negligentiam episcopi . . . per discrepationem in officiis . . . per questionem inter episcopum et subiectum ipsius . . . per episcopalis ecclesie vacationem . . . per duorum contentiosam electionem . . . si prisca consuetudo plus ei contulit in antiqua.”
102 Henry of Merseburg, Summa (n. 45 above), El.q.11, fol. 120v: “De quo olim dubitacio fuit, cum alias metropolitanus in diocesi suffraganei sui nec privilegium concedere nec aliud quicquam disponere possit.”
103 Bernard of Parma, Decretales (n. 32 above), ad X.5.38.15, 1875: “Licet archiepiscopus non sit iudex ordinarius omnium de prouincia sua . . . et iurisdictionem contentiosam non habet in sua prouincia, nisi in certis casibus . . . iurisdictionem habet non contentiosam, sed voluntariam.”
104 Digesta 1.16.2, in Corpus iuris civilis, ed. Paul Krueger and Theodor Mommsen (Berolini, 1889), 1:14: “Omnes proconsules statim quam urbem egressi fuerint habent iurisdictionem, sed non contentiosam, sed voluntariam: ut ecce manumitti apud eos possunt tam liberi quam servi et adoptiones fieri.”
105 Alphonse Sylvester Popek, The Rights and Obligations of Metropolitans: A Historical Synopsis and Commentary (Washington D. C., 1947), 5.
106 Summa aurea, 1870: “Subditi intelliguntur archiepiscopi, nedum hi qui habitant in sua diocesi sed in tota sua provincia.”
107 Abbas Antiquus, Lectura aurea (n. 90 above), ad X.5.38.15, fol. 217v; Guillelmus Durantis, Repertorium aureum, ad X.5.38.15 (Rome, 1474), 102r; and Guido de Baysio, Apparatus (n. 85 above), ad VI°.5.10.3, in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3888, fol. 112v.
108 Guillaume de Rennes, “Glossae” (n. 45 above), 498: “Quamuis non sit ordinarius quoad forum contentiosum, nisi in casibus expressis a iure . . . quod autem sit ordinarius ipsius subditi quoad forum paenitentialem, probatur per hoc quod Archiepiscopus per prouinciam suam potest concedere remissionis litteras generales . . . ergo subditi suffraganeorum, quoad hoc sunt subditi Archiepiscopi.”
109 John of Freiburg, Summa (n. 45 above), fol. 199v; and Monaldus of Capodistria, Summa (n. 36 above), fol. 175v.
110 Robert L. Benson, “Bishop, Metropolitan, and Primate: A Study on the Conceptions of Office and Hierarchy in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries,” in Law, Rulership, and Rhetoric: Selected Essays of Robert L Benson, ed. Loren J. Weber, Giles Constable, and Richard H. Rouse (Notre Dame, 2014), 20–36, at 22–23 and 25–31.
111 Popek, The Rights and Obligations of Metropolitans (n. 105 above), 65–88.
112 Pennington, Popes and Bishops (n. 80 above), 78 and 83–88.
113 Popek, The Rights and Obligations of Metropolitans (n. 105 above), 114–16.
114 Bonaventure, Commentaria in quatuor libros sententiarum (n. 21 above), 4:534: “Summus Pontifex, qui est totius universalis Ecclesiae sponsus . . . Ideo omnes episcopi, qui habent prolem, possunt facere indulgentias, et Summus Pontifex praecipue inter omnes.”
115 Joseph Goering, “The Internal Forum and the Literature of Penance and Confession,” Traditio 59 (2004): 175–227, at 175.
116 Goering, “The Internal Forum,” 176.
117 Huguccio, Summa decretorum (n. 38 above), ad De pen. D. 1, c. 88, in Paris, BnF, Latin 3892, fol. 329v: “Ipse enim Christus dixit in evangelio si cui peccata remiseritis remittentur ei . . . et quecumque solveritis supra terram erunt soluta et in celo etc. Item penitentie ecclesiastice omnes arbitrarie sunt idest in arbitrio sacerdotum ponite, ut possit eas artare, vel protellare, inspecta causa . . . plane et firmiter credendum est quod remissiones que fiunt a prelatis ecclesie ut homines invitentur ad aliquod bonum faciendum valent, sed eis tamen qui sub eis sunt et eis quibus sic est imposita penitentia ut possit fieri eis a quocumque sacerdote.”
118 Bernard of Parma, Decretales (n. 32 above), ad X.5.38.4, 1866: “Iudices, id est, episcopi: quia alii inferiores Praelati huiusmodi remissiones facere non possunt . . . Vel dic iudices, id est, proprii sacerdotes cum iniungunt poenitentias suis parochianis, possunt eis concedere, quod tales remissiones sibi prosint, si de bonis suis contulerint praedictis locis: et hoc fauore poenitentiae: vt sic diuersis modis possint liberari a peccatis.” Similarly, Guido de Baysio, Apparatus (n. 85 above), ad VI°.5.10.3, fol. 112v.
119 Innocent IV, Apparatus (n. 41 above), ad X.5.38.4, 544r: “Alij dicunt hoc posse quemlibet facere sacerdotem, nam aliud est libertas generalis indulgentiarum, quod est iurisdictionis, aliud in absolutione poenitentis prouidere diuersos modos liberandi a poenitentijs, quod est tantum officij sacerdotalis.”
120 Benson, “Bishop, Metropolitan, and Primate” (n. 110 above), 23, lays out a threefold system advocated by the twelfth-century summist Rufinus, in which priestly sacramental power (ordo), episcopal sacramental power (consecratio), and jurisdiction (administratio) all serve to distinguish members of the church hierarchy. With regard to indulgences, we see these three in tension. For more on the ambiguity within the system, see R. N. Swanson, “Apostolic Successors: Priests and Priesthood, Bishops and Episcopacy in Medieval Western Europe,” in A Companion to the Priesthood and Holy Orders in the Middle Ages, ed. Greg Peters and C. Colt Anderson (Leiden, 2016), 4–42.
121 X. 5.31.12, in Friedberg, Corpus iuris canonici: Pars secunda (n. 72 above), 840–41: “Qui manus ad ea, quae sunt episcopalis dignitatis, extendunt, de causis matrimonialibus cognoscendo, iniugendo publicas poenitentias, concedendo etiam indulgentiarum literas, et similia.”
122 Godfrey of Trano, Summa (n. 47 above), 240v: “Et est sciendum quod remissiones privatas in iudiciis animarum sacerdotes facere possunt . . . qualitates autem et tempora penitentiarum committuntur arbitrio sacerdotum.”
123 Summa aurea, 1868: “Priuatas que fiunt in confessionis[sic] quilibet sacerdos habens curam, vel de licentia ipsius quiuis alius . . . facere potest.”
124 Summa aurea, 1867: “Remittit igitur sacerdos satisfactionem de peccatis, vel in totum, vel in partem, quo ad offensionem Dei, et ecclesiae, licet oneret se si incaute hoc faciat.”
125 Summa aurea, 1872: “Si simplex sacerdos poenitentiam limitet, dicens ab omnibus his peccatis . . . absoluimus te, et iniungimus pro poenitentia quod vadas vltra mare, vel quod ieiunes per triennium tibi authoritate Ecclesiae et nostra omnem satisfactionem aliam remittentes . . . non est credendum quod vlterius in purgatorio affligatur, licet presbyter oneret se alioquin . . . Sic licet in foro poenitentiali, et priuato possit sacerdos remissionem facere et in totum, secundum quod dictum est, in publico tamen et solenniter hoc non potest episcopus, cum ipsius potestas circa annum et 40 dies restringatur.”
126 Abbas Antiquus, Lectura aurea (n. 90 above), ad X.5.38.4, fol. 216r: “Quia cum sacerdos vel episcopus iniunxisset in foro penitentiali subdito suo ut ieiunaret . . . dixit ei quod si contingeret aliquem illuc accedere cum litteris indulgentialibus posset illam redimere penitentiam”; and Guillelmus Durantis, Breviarium aureum (Paris, 1513), 181, cited in Paulus, Geschichte des ablasses (n. 5 above), 1:329: “Sacerdos debet dicere . . . concedo tibi quod prosint tibi omnes remissiones a quocunque fierent, alias enim non prodessent.” For similar views, see Labia sacerdotis (n. 45 above), in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 28216, fol. 87r; Summa Henrici (n. 45 above), Robbins 75, fol. 82r; Monaldus of Capodistria, Summa (n. 36 above), fol. 86v; and John of Erfurt, Summa (n. 44 above), 898.
127 Peter Quesnel, Directorium (n. 45 above), in Paris, BnF, Latin 8934, fol. 34r: “Sed licet indulgencie sint restricte que fuerint in publice, non tamen sunt restricte in foro penitentiali quin possit annos et dies prout vult indulgere dum modo discrete faciat sacerdos.”
128 Guido de Baysio, Apparatus (n. 85 above), ad VI°.5.10.3, in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3888, fol. 112v: “Si papa vel episcopus se subiciat sacerdoti non potest sibi remittere de penitentia ipsius sacerdotis.”
129 Conciliorum oecumenicorum generaliumque decreta (n. 72 above), 2.1:178.
130 Atria Larson, “Lateran IV's Decree on Confession, Gratian's De penitentia, Confession to One's Sacerdos proprius: A Re-Evaluation of Omnis utriusque in its Canonistic Context,” Catholic Historical Review 104 (2018): 415–37, at 425–27.
131 Summa aurea, 1770: “Et sic etiam in foro penitentiali factus est Papa minor, et confessor maior.”
132 Gratian, Decretum (n. 87 above), D. 40, c. 12: “Qui bene sederit super cathedram honorem accipit cathedrae; qui male sederit, iniuriam facit cathedrae . . . quomodo appareat aliis maior, sed quomodo omnibus inferior uideatur, quoniam non qui maior fuerit in honore, ille est iustior, sed qui fuerit iustior, ille maior est.”
133 Novella Commentaria, ad X.5.38.4, fol. 123v: “Quod si penitens vult vti remissione non sui iudicis debet hoc facere de licentia vel sui episcopi, vel sui confessoris, si igitur vti vult remissione pape, legati, archiepiscopi, vel episcopi, satis videtur, quod hoc casu id possit sine licentia confessoris specialiter.”
134 Novella Commentaria, ad X.5.38.4, fol. 123v: “Per indulgentias etiam non suorum episcoporum possit penitentiam revelare.”
135 Alan of Lille, Liber poenitentialis (n. 66 above), 175: “Hoc enim subaudit praelatus: quicumque posuerit nummun vel obolum in fabrica hujus ecclesiae, absolutus sit a tertia parte poenitentiae sibi injunctae ad arbitrium sui sacerdotis, qui plenius novit sibi conscientias subditorum . . . Sed juxta solutionis illius sententiam illi videntur decipi, quibus poenitentiae relaxantur.”
136 R. N. Swanson, “Manning the Church: Priests and Bishops,” in The Routledge History of Medieval Christianity: 1050–1500, ed. idem (New York, 2015), 31–44, at 33.
137 R. N. Swanson, “Bishoprics and Parishes,” in The Routledge History of Medieval Christianity, 19–30, at 24.
138 Summa aurea, 1872: “Presbyter oneret se.”
139 Summa aurea, 1872: “Ergo maioritas et minoritas remissionis non attenditur secundum illa quae dixit Ray . . . Fateor tamen quod praelatus indiscrete faciens remissiones huiusmodi se onerat, et quod orationes sanctorum valent peccatori ad gratie impetrationem, nec non et elemosyna, et quodlibet de genere bonorum . . . Nam et per orationem Danielis solutus est populus Israel a captiuitate.” See n. 48 above for Raymond's original statement. I translate sanctorum here as the holy, rather than saints, because the examples Hostiensis gives afterwards, such as Daniel, are of the living, rather than the dead, praying and interceding for others. This makes sense in context, since Hostiensis is talking about prelates interceding on behalf of their subjects.
140 See n. 57, above.
141 See n. 68 above for Alan of Lille's description of suffrages as bearing others’ burdens. For Gratian, see n. 18, above.