1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, "Repent" (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
2. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
3. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.
4. The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
5. The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.
6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.
7. God remits guilt to no one unless at the same time he humbles him in all things and makes him submissive to the vicar, the priest.
8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to the canons themselves, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
10. Those priests act ignorantly and wickedly who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penalties for purgatory.
21. Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences.
22. As a matter of fact, the pope remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to canon law, they should have paid in this life.
23. If remission of all penalties whatsoever could be granted to anyone at all, certainly it would be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to very few.
24. For this reason most people are necessarily deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty.
27. They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.
28. It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone.
31. The man who actually buys indulgences is as rare as he who is really penitent; indeed, he is exceedingly rare.
32. Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.
35. They who teach that contrition is not necessary on the part of those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessional privileges preach unchristian doctrine.
41. Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love.
42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy.
43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.
47. Christians are to be taught that they buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded.
48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.
49. Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them.
51. Christians are to be taught that the pope would and should wish to give of his own money, even though he had to sell the basilica of St. Peter, to many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences cajole money.
71. Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be anathema and accursed.
81. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult even for learned men to rescue the reverence which is due the pope from slander or from the shrewd questions of the laity.
82. Such as: "Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church? The former reason would be most just; the latter is most trivial.
86. Again, "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus [a famous Roman], build this one basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?"
What does it look like?
Whenever you approach a primary source, you need to consider its appearance. Is it a work of art? A hastily scribbled diary entry? A beautifully constructed manuscript? These details can help you understand the source and the conditions under which it was created.
Who wrote it? Why?
Someone took the time to create this thing. Why? What purpose does it serve?
How does the author communicate ideas?
If it is a written source, consider the use of language and structure. For example, a chart full of names and numbers could mean that the creator was attempting to track information, while a paragraph structure is used to explain ideas or provide evidence. Remember, too, to consider the language itself: look for imagery, tone, and style.
What are the big ideas?
What is this primary source really about? What does the author want to communicate?
What ideas are left out?
Given what you know about the topic, are there any relevant ideas that are not reflected in the document?
Whose perspective does it reflect?
Understanding the perspective of the author is essential. You might discover, for example, that the primary source reflects the values of aristocracy, and thus attempts to justify their wealth. Another primary source might question aristocratic wealth by focusing on the plight of the the lower classes.
Whose perspectives are omitted/questioned/challenged?
Because the primary source reflects someone’s perspective, other perspectives are usually omitted. Thus, part of the historian’s task is to identify whose interests are not represented in a primary source.
It is often helpful to think of the primary source as a response to something. Whose ideas are being re-affirmed/challenged by this document? This can also help you understand how this primary source fits into a larger context.
Which questions can this source help me answer? Which can it not?
Remember that, like detectives, we are conducting an investigation; thus, the conclusions we reach must logically follow from the evidence. We cannot make generalizations or assumptions. Identifying those questions that can or cannot be answered will help you better understand the case!