LEST THE KEYS BE SCORNED: THE IMPLICATIONS OF INDULGENCES FOR THE CHURCH HIERARCHY AND THIRTEENTH-CENTURY CANONISTS’ RESISTANCE TO THE TREASURY OF MERIT

IF 0.4 2区 历史学 0 MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES
Ethan Leong Yee
{"title":"LEST THE KEYS BE SCORNED: THE IMPLICATIONS OF INDULGENCES FOR THE CHURCH HIERARCHY AND THIRTEENTH-CENTURY CANONISTS’ RESISTANCE TO THE TREASURY OF MERIT","authors":"Ethan Leong Yee","doi":"10.1017/tdo.2021.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":44907,"journal":{"name":"TRADITIO-STUDIES IN ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL HISTORY THOUGHT AND RELIGION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TRADITIO-STUDIES IN ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL HISTORY THOUGHT AND RELIGION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/tdo.2021.11","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.
唯恐钥匙遭到蔑视:放纵对教会等级制度的影响和19世纪圣人对功绩宝库的抵制
最近关于放纵的学术研究集中在神学家和圣徒们用来解释这些宽容的共同概念上,以及放纵对大众虔诚、托钵令和教皇职位的有利影响。仔细研究十三世纪的经典主义者的工作,就会发现宽容的作用机制存在不确定性,以及与神学家不同的担忧。虽然功绩库是一种流行的神学解释,但它通常被大多数圣徒忽视,他们更喜欢基于管辖权、钥匙的权力和权利的解释。权利、为精神上造福他人而做的好事和功德宝库之间的一个关键区别是,前者给生活带来负担,而后者则没有,因为它利用了从已经完成的行动中储存的功德。由于选举权理论使给予宽容成为负担,因此它抑制了给予轻率或过度的宽容。滥用放纵突显了上帝与教会的权威、忏悔和公共论坛之间的紧张关系,以及牧师管辖权的重叠。与放纵的选举权理论不同,功绩库理论几乎没有激励约束。这也许可以解释它在十三世纪圣人著作中相对缺席的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The TRADITIO Network has now been furnishing information about all facets of traditional Roman Catholicism, answering questions both privately and publicly, for over 13 years now, longer than any other traditional site on the Internet. When we started, even the Vatican site didn"t exist! We wish that we could show you all of the personal letters we have received from troubled souls who have found here clear, traditional, and honest answers to their questions, free of organizational bias. Thousands of these have reverted or converted to the traditional Roman Catholic Faith as a result.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信