|
Objection 1: It would seem that an indulgence can sometimes be
granted to one who does not fulfill the required conditions. Because
when a person is unable to perform a certain action his will is taken
for the deed. Now sometimes an indulgence is to be gained by giving an
alms, which a poor man is unable to do, though he would do so
willingly. Therefore he can gain the indulgence.
Objection 2: Further, one man can make satisfaction for another.
Now an indulgence is directed to the remission of punishment, just as
satisfaction is. Therefore one man can gain an indulgence for
another; and so a man can gain an indulgence without doing that for
which the indulgence is given.
On the contrary, If the cause is removed, the effect is removed.
If therefore a person fails to do that for which an indulgence is
granted, and which is the cause of the indulgence, he does not gain
the indulgence.
I answer that, Failing the condition of a grant, no grant ensues.
Hence, as an indulgence is granted on the condition that a person does
or gives a certain thing, if he fails in this, he does not gain the
indulgence.
Reply to Objection 1: This is true of the essential reward, but
not of certain accidental rewards, such as the remission of punishment
and the like.
Reply to Objection 2: A person can by his intention apply his own
action to whomever he lists, and so he can make satisfaction for
whomever he chooses. On the other hand, an indulgence cannot be
applied to someone, except in accordance with the intention of the
grantor. Hence, since he applies it to the doer or giver of a
particular action or thing, the doer cannot transfer this intention to
another. If, however, the indulgence were expressed thus:
"Whosoever does this, or for whomsoever this is done, shall gain so
much indulgence," it would avail the person for whom it is done. Nor
would the person who does this action, give the indulgence to another,
but he who grants the indulgence in this form.
|
|