does not receive any personally identifiable information from the search bar below.


The difficult and complicated doctrine of indulgences is peculiar to the Roman Church. It was unknown to the Greek and Latin fathers. It was developed by the mediaeval schoolmen, and sanctioned by the Council of Trent (Dec. 4, 1563), yet without a definition and with an express warning against abuses and evil gains. (Schaff, Philip; History of the Christian Church, Vol. VII, ch. 3, sec. 30)


Our books consistently maintain 4-star and better ratings despite the occasional 1- and 2-star ratings from people angry because we have no respect for sacred cows.

When I began to research this topic, I was surprised—perhaps stunned is a better word— that the Roman Catholic Church has not denounced the whole idea long before now.

They have not! The Catholic Encyclopedia still defends the doctrine as accurate.

It may seem strange that the doctrine of indulgences should have proved such a stumbling-block, and excited so much prejudice and opposition. But the explanation of this may be found in the abuses which unhappily have been associated with what is in itself a salutary practice.

The practice, they say, is salutary. "Salutary" means "producing a beneficial effect". Thus, the doctrine, they say, is a good one. It is only the abuses that were a problem.

In spite of all this, disorders continued and furnished the pretext for attacks directed against the doctrine itself, no less than against the practice of indulgences. Here, as in so many other matters, the love of money was the chief root of the evil: indulgences were employed by mercenary ecclesiastics as a means of pecuniary gain.

Here the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that the only problem with indulgences is that certain clergymen used it for "pecuniary" or monetary gain. Except for these rogue clergymen, the belief that the leftover good works of the saints can be applied to others is regarded as "salutary."

So exactly how does the Roman Catholic Church describe indulgences? (You can read their descriptions yourself in the Catholic Catechism, paragraphs 1471-1479.)

What Is an Indulgence

There are two ideas involved in Roman Catholic teaching on indulgences:

  1. Christians receive "temporal punishment" for sin, even after its guilt and eternal punishment have been forgiven by God. That temporal punishment must be paid either here on earth or in a temporary, after-death holding place called purgatory.
  2. The Roman Catholic Church has a "treasury," composed of the "superabundant merits of Christ and the saints," which the Church, through the exercise of the "power of the keys," can transfer to the benefit of those who are due temporal punishment.

Purgatory, at least, has some historical basis. I am unable to furnish any source from the pre-Nicene (before the Council of Nicea) Christians or from the Scriptures to explain the origin of indulgences.

Superabundant Merits

The idea behind superabundant merits is that Christ and the saints did so many good works that they don't need them all. The merit they have obtained with God that is beyond their need can be transferred to others.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

Since the satisfaction of Christ is infinite, it constitutes an inexhaustible fund which is more than sufficient to cover the indebtedness contracted by sin, Besides, there are the satisfactory works of the Blessed Virgin Mary undiminished by any penalty due to sin, and the virtues, penances, and sufferings of the saints vastly exceeding any temporal punishment which these servants of God might have incurred. ("Indulgences")

Protestants greatly object to this idea as a form of works salvation (besides the issue of the sinlessness of Mary). Personally, I agree that works play a role in going to heaven, but this idea of transferring someone's good works to someone else has no basis that I can find in Scripture or early Christian history. Scripture talks about the righteousness of Christ being applied to those who repent and follow him, but because of faith, not because of charitable giving.

Further, if "the satisfaction of Christ infinite," and it "constitutes an inexhaustible fund," then what need do we have of the "virtues, penances, and sufferings" of the "saints"? Why are we trying to add to infinity?

The Orthodox Churches

The doctrine of indulgences is Roman Catholic dogma only. The Orthodox Churches (the ancient Catholic Churches of the East) reject the teaching. Father Victor Potapov, a Russian Orthodox priest, writes:

It goes without saying that this mediæval teaching on indulgences was completely unknown in the ancient, undivided Church and is unacceptable to us, since it contradicts the whole spirit of Orthodoxy. (Orthodox and Heterodoxy. [Hong Kong: Orthodox Brotherhood of Apostles Saints Peter and Paul, 2010]. PDF. P. 31.)

Obtaining an Indulgence

In the early 16th century, indulgences were being used by the Roman Catholic Church to raise funds for the building of St. Peter's Basilica. Johann Tetzel, a German monk, was particularly adept at raising funds in this manner. To this day, the Roman Catholic Church condemns some of the promises Tetzel made (mostly concerning promising forgiveness without repentance), but they defend indulgences as an appropriate reward for charitable giving, including giving to "the building of churches."

If Tetzel was guilty of unwarranted theological views, if his advocacy of indulgences was culpably imprudent, his moral character ... has been vindicated to the extent of leaving it untainted by any grave moral dereliction. ("Johann Tetzel": Catholic Encyclopedia)

Again, it is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, alms giving would naturally hold a conspicuous place, while men would be induced by the same means to contribute to some pious cause such as the building of churches, the endowment of hospitals, or the organization of a crusade. It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded.("Indulgences"; Catholic Encyclopedia)

Martin Luther did not agree. If the Roman Catholic Church could really remove the suffering from purgatory, he said, then they ought to do it immediately and empty purgatory for free (Thesis 82). Selling forgiveness for money seemed awful to him.

Speaking of history, where did this doctrine come from?

The History of Indulgences

Finding the history of this practice is very difficult. As the Catholic Encyclopedia points out, the word originally meant a kindness or favor.

Thus, during the Middle Ages, when pilgrimages were common and looked upon with favor, various Church authorities can be quoted as saying that indulgences were given in return for pilgrimages. In other words, the Church told people that if they went on a pilgrimage their sins would be forgiven.

However, just because a Church authority said that sins could be forgiven in exchange for a pilgrimage doesn't mean that they believed in the doctrine of superabundant merits of the saints.

So what we're tracking is the change in the meaning of the word indulgence, and that's much harder to track than just finding out when the word began to be used.

I believe it should suffice to say that during the Middle Ages the Church, at least in Europe, had reached such a level of superstition that all sorts of religious activities—like pilgrimages and obtaining relics—were seen as having the power to forgive sins.

That this superstition should have developed in later medieval Christianity into the sale of pieces of paper promising relief from purgatory is no surprise.

Many people do not realize that his objection to indulgences was the sole issue that led to Martin Luther's excommunication by the Roman Catholic Church.

This is an ad written by me, Paul Pavao: I get a commission if you buy Xero shoes, which does not increase your cost. Barefoot running/walking is the best thing for your feet--if we did not walk on cement, asphalt, and gravel. Normal shoes compress your toes and do a lot of the work your lower leg muscles should be doing. Xero shoes are minimalist and let your toes spread and your feet do the work they are supposed to do. More info at the link.

Enjoy this page? Please pay it forward. Here's how...

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

  1. Click on the HTML link code below.
  2. Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Early Church History Newsletter

You will be notified of new articles, and I send teachings based on the pre-Nicene fathers intermittently.

Back issues availabel

When you sign up for my newsletter, your email address will not be shared. We will only use it to send you the newsletter.