Title V: On the Postulation of Prelates

Latin source headnote: One who violates an interdict cannot be postulated. This it says in relation to the title; for it contains many other statements which do not pertain to the title.

Innocent III to the Dean and Chapter of Sens.

To these matters in blessed Peter ... (And below:) Indeed, since the church of Sens has always been devoted to the Roman Church, not undeservedly do we share in the suffering of that church and grieve with its sorrows, since it has been bereaved of a pastor who, although noble by birth, was nevertheless, as we believe, nobler in holiness. (And below:) We grieve further that another grief has supervened upon the excessive grief which the church of Sens had conceived at the death of so great a father. For when it had scarcely risen from the funeral office for so mournful a death, and the obsequies of so great a father had scarcely been worthily celebrated, the king himself, unjustly moved, occupied the possessions belonging both to the table of the archbishop and to that of the canons—not as was fitting or as he ought, but as he wished and was able—and also compelled into exile the persons who, by our mandate, had suspended their organs. (And below:)

Since, because of the imminent persecution and the distrust of minds—which zeal sometimes excites in such matters and practice excuses—you could not readily come together in one place and purpose, and an appeal had been made to us by certain persons, at length, not without difficulty, you assembled together and unanimously postulated the Bishop of Auxerre as archbishop. You set forth your postulation through Master R., your precentor, a man learned in both laws, honorable, provident, and discreet, who faithfully prosecuted before us the affair of the promotion undertaken and omitted nothing pertinent; through the abbot of Saint Peter; and also through your letters. You humbly requested that we provide apostolic favor and pious assent to the translation to be made, especially in consideration of the persecution which presses generally upon the Gallican Church and of the necessity which lies particularly upon the church of Sens.

But before the same master had approached the Apostolic See, we had heard from many persons—indeed, it was almost established before us as certain—that the same bishop had not observed the sentence of interdict. The same master did not deny this when questioned by us in our presence and that of our brothers. In excuse of the bishop, he alleged that the bishop was in no way bound to observe the sentence rendered, since it had come to his knowledge neither through our letters, nor through our beloved son P., cardinal-deacon of Santa Maria in Via Lata and then legate of the Apostolic See, who had promulgated that sentence, nor through the mandate or letters of the executor appointed for this purpose; that the king himself had no land of his own in the diocese of Auxerre; and that the same diocese of Auxerre had been placed under interdict for another cause.

[But the messengers of the Archbishop of Reims and of certain others had earlier approached the Apostolic See, putting forward certain frivolous occasions to devise excuses for sins: namely, that the said legate, after an appeal to us had been interposed—to which he had seemed to defer—had rendered the sentence of interdict against the king’s land when already outside the boundaries of the kingdom of the Franks; that he had exceeded the proper measure in executing it; and that his letters had not reached certain of them. But if they had considered the truth more diligently, since they knew that a net is cast in vain before the eyes of winged creatures, just as they could not, so they ought not to have excused themselves in this way, since the excuse is turned rather into an accusation.

For although the cardinal himself had departed from the kingdom of the Franks, he had not yet passed beyond the boundaries of his legation, since he had received from us the solicitude of the legation entrusted to him not only in the kingdom of the Franks but also in the provinces of Vienne, Lyon, and Burgundy. Moreover, he did not issue the said sentence of interdict but rather published it; nor was he its author, but more truly its executor. Hence, since according to canon and civil law it is not lawful to appeal from executors unless perhaps they exceed the proper measure in executing, and since in the letters directed to him concerning this we took care to prohibit the obstacle of appeal, deference was not to be shown to an appeal of this kind. The cardinal certainly did not defer to it, but rather delayed so that he might more conveniently fulfill our mandate elsewhere.

Meanwhile it was not for them to interpret our mandate or to challenge the cardinal’s interpretation, since they ought rather to have trusted him. When he departed from us he understood more fully the good pleasure of our will concerning the mandate, and he received our mandate from us, through which the meaning of our mind was more clearly revealed to him. Moreover, in doubt the way of obedience was to be chosen as the safer course rather than at last declining into disobedience, since according to the testimony of the prophet, refusing to acquiesce is the sin of divination and refusing to obey is the crime of idolatry.]

Nor is it sufficient—indeed, it does not avail—for the excuse of the aforesaid Bishop of Auxerre and others like him that they allege that our mandate, and that of the cardinal himself or even of the executor, did not reach them through special letters directed to them or through a special mandate. For the same cardinal solemnly and publicly promulgated the sentence of interdict in the presence of many archbishops and bishops, and that sentence of interdict had already begun to be publicly observed by many in the kingdom of the Franks. Nor, when a constitution is solemnly issued or publicly promulgated, is it necessary to impress knowledge of it upon the ears of individuals through a special mandate or letters. It is sufficient that a person who knows it to have been solemnly issued or publicly promulgated is bound to its observance. Canonical authority likewise teaches, against certain persons who did not observe the Council of Sardica on the ground that they did not have or receive it, that they are not readily granted the faculty of believing this, since the same council had been enacted and received among them in their regions.

Nor does the claim avail that the said king is said to have no land of his own in the diocese of Auxerre, since we commanded that all the king’s land be subjected to interdict, and the cardinal, interpreting our mandate, promulgated the sentence against the land which at that time adhered to the king. But if the bishop’s diocese had been placed under interdict for another cause, he was both more strongly bound and more easily able to observe the sentence of interdict.

It is, however, clearly established from this that the often-mentioned bishop cannot be sufficiently excused: he knew that his metropolitan church had both received and observed the sentence of general interdict. He had therefore been one of those who, deliberating concerning that sentence, decreed by common counsel—although they erred—that they would not observe it. If they had considered more diligently the word of the Apostle Peter concerning Clement, they ought not to have awaited an admonition concerning this, but to have complied prudently and obeyed humbly.

We therefore, who according to the Apostle are ready to avenge every disobedience, have considered the disobedience of the same Bishop of Auxerre, lest obedience should seem to profit the humble nothing if contempt did not harm the contumacious. Since according to the canonical sanctions there are certain faults in which it is a fault to relax punishment, after diligent deliberation concerning this with our brothers, however much we wished to defer to you as sons of obedience, we nevertheless rejected a postulation of this kind as unworthy—not because of the church making the postulation, but because of the person postulated.

Although, because you postulated a man who was not suited to your purpose—since you observed the sentence of interdict but he nevertheless despised observing it—you readily abused the power permitted to you, and for that reason we could not undeservedly deprive you of it, since according to the decree of divine law it is not lawful to put on a garment woven of wool and linen, nevertheless, lest we seem ungrateful for your devotion, from the customary benignity of the Apostolic See we grant that you may provide for yourselves and for the same church through a suitable postulation or a canonical election of a fitting person.

Latin source headnote: One who renews a postulation quashed because of a defect in the person is deprived of the power of electing and postulating.

The same to the Bishop of Ostia, Legate of the Apostolic See.

We regard it as pleasing and acceptable, and greatly commend your fraternity, that you prudently and effectively attended to the promotion of our venerable brother P., formerly Bishop of Cambrai but now Archbishop of Sens. We learned from your letters that you commanded the canons of Sens—whose postulation had been quashed by our authority, although they had fraudulently suppressed the letters of quashing—to proceed concordantly and canonically to an election. You also added that, unless perhaps they concordantly directed their votes to such a person as ought deservedly to obtain your assent, you would afterward do concerning provision for that church what you believed expedient.

When many of them strove once again to renew the postulation quashed by us, while certain others postulated the Bishop of Cambrai as archbishop, you understood that those who wished in some manner to revoke our quashing had lost the privilege of electing, because they rashly abused the power granted to them from the benignity of the Apostolic See. For that reason, the license of electing or postulating had devolved upon the others, who, although fewer in number, were, so far as this matter was concerned, sounder in counsel. At their insistence, relying upon apostolic authority, you provided the aforesaid Bishop of Cambrai as their pastor and appointed him to the governance of the church of Sens.

We therefore hold this the more pleasing and ratified insofar as, in his promotion, you proceeded by our mandate and good pleasure. We have released him from solicitude for the church of Cambrai so that he may more freely exercise care of the metropolitan church of Sens, confirming by apostolic authority what was done by you at our mandate.

Latin source headnote: A postulation by which a private or lesser advantage is preferred to the common or greater advantage, or which is made by less than a third part of a college, ought not to be admitted.

The same to the Clergy of the Church of Ravenna.

When William, your archbishop of good memory, had entered upon the way of all flesh, you intimated his death to us through your letters. We commanded you to elect canonically as your pastor a suitable person who would persist in devotion to us. Afterward, when, having received our letters, you treated concerning the election of a pontiff to be substituted, your votes were divided in different directions. For certain of you postulated our beloved son S., cardinal-priest of the title of Saint Praxedes, while certain others postulated our venerable brother the Bishop of Imola.

When the parties had presented their postulations to us through their messengers, those who had postulated the aforesaid cardinal alleged that more than two-thirds of you had agreed upon him. The other party, however, alleged that the more worthy persons had postulated the Bishop of Imola, and that both canonical form and the tenor of the compromise had been observed in his postulation, since, as a suffragan of the church of Ravenna, he had been postulated from its own body. For it had been committed by compromise that they should elect a suitable person from the body of the church or archbishopric of Ravenna. The other party asserted that this was frivolous, since, even if such a condition had been added, the aforesaid person could nevertheless be postulated from the college of the Roman See on account of its privilege, since the members of the head ought not to be regarded as foreign to the members of the body.

We therefore, having heard what had been proposed on each side concerning the facts and what had further been alleged concerning the law, deliberated with our brothers and also took care that fuller argument be made for each party. We considered that the presence of that cardinal would be more useful not only to the Roman Church but also to the universal Church at the Apostolic See than at the church of Ravenna, and that in an emergency of this kind it was of greater merit to go before the army of Jesus Christ in aid of the Holy Land than to assume the burden of the pastoral office. Hence, not undeservedly preferring the common advantage to the particular and the greater to the lesser, we did not consider that the aforesaid cardinal should be granted to your postulation.

Considering on the other side that the aforesaid Bishop of Imola had been postulated by less than a third part, and that the Apostolic See has not been accustomed to receive postulations of this kind amid so great a division and contradiction—since even when someone is postulated unanimously by others, it is moved to admit their postulation not so much by justice as by grace—we did not consider that his postulation should be admitted.

We therefore admonish and earnestly exhort your discretion, and command by apostolic writings, that within one month after receiving the present writings, together with those who are known to have a voice in the election, you take care to agree concordantly, through a canonical election, postulation, or nomination, upon a suitable person who will persist in devotion to the Roman Church, and that you present your election, postulation, or nomination to the Apostolic See through suitable messengers. Let those messengers come prepared so that, if perhaps—which God forbid—your act must be rejected as justice requires, they may receive the man whom we shall provide for you as pastor. Otherwise, since we desire to provide for that church with greater solicitude, we shall by no means omit to take care to assign it a suitable pastor by apostolic authority.

Latin source headnote: An archbishop is postulated as archbishop. And once a postulation has been presented to the Pope, those making the postulation cannot withdraw from it, but the judgment of the superior must be awaited. This it says in relation to the title.

The same to the Provost and Chapter of Esztergom.

When William, your archbishop of good memory, had entered upon the way of all flesh, you unanimously directed your votes toward postulating from us our venerable brother the Archbishop of Kalocsa, and you obtained royal assent concerning this. The suffragans of the church of Esztergom, namely the Bishop of Pécs and certain others, took care to oppose your postulation, asserting that it had been attempted in contempt of them, although they had the right of electing with you. Your messengers alleged on the opposing side that the assent of the suffragans had many times been sought as a matter of favor concerning the appointment of a pontiff for you, but that they denied you [both counsel and assistance].

When the messengers had appeared in our presence and the adversaries had proposed certain other matters against the procedure of your postulation—which we remember that we expressed more fully in earlier letters—because the matters proposed were not established before us, we considered that provision should be made as follows. If, while the suffragans persisted in their opposition, you wished to press your postulation, you were to come to the Apostolic See by suitable proctors sufficiently instructed concerning all matters by the then next Septuagesima, so that, with each party present, we might establish what justice advised. But if they ceased from their opposition and you persisted in your purpose, you were to send suitable persons into our presence within the aforesaid term who would make us more certain concerning the pertinent matters. But if, while the aforesaid bishops opposed you, you should happen to distrust your right, lest you undergo labor and grief in vain, you were canonically to provide another suitable person for yourselves as pastor.

But when [H.], King of Hungary of illustrious memory, had entered upon the way of all flesh, certain of you rashly withdrew from your postulation, which you had presented to us in common, while others persisted in it and appealed to the Apostolic See; and those withdrawing postulated the aforesaid Bishop of Pécs as archbishop. None of the suffragans assented to their votes except the Bishop of Nitra alone. And although our dearest son in Christ A., illustrious King of Hungary—then duke and governor of the kingdom of Hungary in the name of King L., his nephew, whose guardianship and the care of the kingdom had been committed to him by his brother—sent to us the first fruits of his prayers on behalf of the aforesaid postulation of the Archbishop of Kalocsa, he afterward humbly petitioned us by his letters that the Bishop of Pécs be transferred to the metropolitan church of Esztergom.

We therefore did not consider that the latter postulation should be admitted, as justice required, because we found that it had been rashly celebrated after appeals had been interposed, amid great disagreement not only among the suffragans but also among the canons of the church of Esztergom, contrary to the form of our mandate, and with regular order omitted. Instead, we commanded you to take care, within one month after receiving our letters, to proceed to provide yourselves a suitable pastor through canonical election or concordant postulation, after seeking the assent of the suffragans if by ancient and approved custom it was required. Otherwise, from that time onward, lest pastoral care be lacking any longer to the Lord’s flock, we ourselves would provide for the widowed church according to the duty of our office, from the fullness of apostolic power.

But before our letters reached you, relying upon the earlier mandate, you recalled to concord the suffragans who were present in the kingdom, with the exception of the aforesaid Bishop of Pécs. Thus the bishops of Vác, Veszprém, and Győr—for the present, and saving their right for the future, which they were setting aside because of the affliction and necessity of the church of Esztergom—humbly petitioned us for the translation of the Archbishop of Kalocsa. The aforesaid Bishop of Nitra wrote that, if it did not please us to admit the election made concerning the Bishop of Pécs, he humbly entreated us for the postulation of the other man without prejudice to his right.

After this, when our mandate had been received, those who had agreed upon the Archbishop of Kalocsa did not, as was proposed before us, wish to withdraw from his postulation, but renewed it. Certain of the canons who had declined to the other party returned to them. With the letters of the aforesaid king and the suffragans, they sent our beloved sons A., master of the schools, M. the treasurer, A. the archdeacon, and F. and N., canons of Esztergom, to the Apostolic See to seek the grace of dispensation concerning their postulation.

The others, who had postulated the Bishop of Pécs, assembled together, as was proposed before us on their behalf, and summoned the other canons to the chapter, wishing to proceed within the appointed term to a concordant postulation or canonical election according to the apostolic mandate. But when the others were unwilling to assemble, they understood that the free faculty of electing remained with them alone, because the rest neglected to prosecute their right; and, although an appeal had been made by the others that this not be done, they postulated the aforesaid Bishop of Pécs anew.

When the messengers of each party had therefore reached the Apostolic See, those who had come on behalf of the Bishop of Pécs alleged that their party had proceeded according to the apostolic mandate. They said that the disagreement or contradiction of those who, despising the form of our mandate, had neither canonically elected anyone nor concordantly postulated after receiving it did not obstruct them. Hence their postulation ought to be regarded as concordant, since the others, as despisers of the apostolic command, had deprived themselves of the right of electing and postulating when they were unwilling either to postulate or to elect—indeed, even to assemble in chapter.

To these matters it could be answered on the opposing side that those who had postulated the Archbishop of Kalocsa followed the form given to them by our letters. For, relying upon the earlier postulation, they had, according to the tenor of our earlier letters, made concordant what had previously been discordant when they recalled the suffragans to concord. Nor did the disagreement of those who postulated another obstruct them, since you had all previously agreed together upon the postulation of the aforesaid archbishop, had asked us through common messengers to confirm your consent recorded in letters and strengthened by your own subscriptions, and we had received your postulation to be adjudicated if the suffragans should perhaps persist in opposition, or to be approved if they consented or even yielded.

For if, after a postulation is strengthened by the subscriptions of those postulating and presented to the Roman Pontiff for approval, those postulating could withdraw from it, they would frequently mock us and our judgment would seem to depend upon their will. It could also be added that the other party had not observed the apostolic mandate, since it had celebrated neither a concordant postulation nor a canonical election, when amid greater opposition than before—not only from the canons but also from the suffragans, with the king himself favoring the adverse party—it postulated the aforesaid Bishop of Pécs.

Having therefore heard these and other matters proposed on each side and held diligent deliberation concerning them with our brothers, we understood that, even if neither postulation should be approved, provision for the church of Esztergom would henceforth pertain to us according to the tenor of the later rescript. But because we did not have full knowledge of the persons of that kingdom, and therefore could not with a safe conscience fittingly provide for that church in another person originating from the kingdom of Hungary, and because we were unwilling to set a foreigner over it, although it seemed more regular and honorable for a suffragan to ascend to his own metropolitan see than for an archbishop to be transferred from one metropolitan see to another, we nevertheless chose the preferable course.

Accordingly, we absolve that archbishop—upon whom all those whose consent is required in the election or postulation of a pastor had agreed, although at different times—from the bond by which he was bound to the church of Kalocsa; we transfer him to the metropolitan church of Esztergom and grant him permission to pass to it, intending to send him the pallium for the title and use of that church. [We therefore admonish, etc. Given at Rome, on the second day before the Nones of October, 1205.]

Latin source headnote: A postulation against which proceedings are brought on the ground of contempt can be rejected without prejudice to anyone; it can nevertheless be admitted by special grace. This it says.

The same to the Chapter of Esztergom.

The postulation which you celebrated [concerning the transfer of our venerable brother I., Archbishop of Kalocsa, to the metropolitan church of Esztergom is wholly opposed by our venerable brothers the suffragans of that metropolitan see, namely C., Bishop of Pécs, B., Bishop of Vác, R., Bishop of Veszprém, and I., Bishop of Nitra. They intimated to us through their letters that, when V., your archbishop of good memory, had entered upon the way of all flesh, without consulting them you held diligent counsel among yourselves, sent certain of your fellow canons into the presence of our dearest son in Christ, the illustrious King of the Hungarians, and expressly named the person whom you wished to be set over you.

After no long delay, when the same bishops had solemnly assembled on the feast of blessed King Stephen to treat with unanimous deliberation concerning the election of the church of Esztergom, you were asked by those bishops whom you wished to have set over and appointed to that see. You answered that you would dare to elect no one unless he possessed the king’s full favor, and immediately took care to name the aforesaid Archbishop of Kalocsa, adding that the suffragans had no right in the election of the archbishop. The suffragans answered that, from the first establishment of Christianity in the kingdom of Hungary until those times, no one had been elected to the see of Esztergom unless the suffragans elected together with the canons according to canonical custom and approved custom. They also said that it ought first to be inquired whether a useful and suitable person could be found from the body of that church, asserting that in it there were many honorable, discreet, and learned men who could more fittingly preside over that church.

Through the same letters they further intimated to us that, since the aforesaid Archbishop of Kalocsa had until those times asserted that the church of Kalocsa was equal to the metropolitan church of Esztergom and had inflicted various and intolerable injuries upon it both in word and deed, they feared not a little that, if he were transferred to the aforesaid metropolitan church, mindful of his own profession and assertion and as though covered with shame lest he seem contrary to himself, he would undertake the advancement of the affairs of the church of Esztergom less effectively. They feared also that he would not cease to oppress those bishops who, according to their duty, had sometimes sternly resisted his words and acts, although according to the canonical sanctions a judge ought not to be given to persons to whom he is suspect.

But our beloved sons, [name omitted], abbot of Bucco, and Master Peter on behalf of the aforesaid king, and also the [name omitted], provost of Pressburg, and the [name omitted], treasurer of your church on your behalf, arguing to the contrary, steadfastly asserted that the things proposed by the bishops were wholly false. They firmly alleged that the bishops had been solemnly summoned by the same provost and others before the common deliberation and had come, and that their assent had many times been sought as a matter of favor. But when they denied you fitting counsel and aid concerning provision for your church, you, wishing to provide for that desolate church, summoned the aforesaid bishops, assembled together, and unanimously directed your votes, in their presence, toward the aforesaid Archbishop of Kalocsa so that you might postulate him from us. You supplicated them to petition us by their letters on behalf of your postulation, which they wholly refused to do.

When the aforesaid messengers asserted that urgent necessity and evident utility required the transfer of that archbishop, it was proposed before us in the same dispute that the said Archbishop of Kalocsa, to the grave prejudice of the church of Esztergom, crowned the son of the aforesaid king as king, although you protested and displayed confirmations of the Apostolic See, since the coronation of the King of Hungary is known to belong not to the church of Kalocsa but to your metropolitan church. Hence he ought to be gravely chastised as an invader of another’s right and a despiser of an apostolic statute. It could also be presumed by probable inference that, since he would not bring a complaint against himself and his own deed, he would leave the right of your church in this matter undefended, through which grave prejudice could be generated against it. To the contrary, however, it was replied that the aforesaid coronation had been celebrated by the whole community without contradiction from anyone and without prejudice to anyone.]

Therefore, although through a postulation of this kind no right has been acquired by anyone, and consequently we could reject the aforesaid postulation without prejudice to anyone, nevertheless, so that we may counsel you by special grace insofar as we can with God, we have considered that provision should be made as follows. If the aforesaid pontiffs persist in their opposition and you continue to press for the obtaining of the postulation, since the foregoing matters have not been established before us, you are to present yourselves before us through suitable proctors sufficiently instructed concerning all matters by the next Septuagesima, so that, with each party present, we may decree what is just. [But if they, etc. Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on the tenth day before the Kalends of December, 1204.]

Latin source headnote: A bishop is not to be elected to another dignity, but is to be postulated.

Honorius III to the Chapter of Cagliari.

Although your votes unanimously concurred in electing our venerable brother the Bishop of Sutri as archbishop of your church, since, being bound to his own church, he does not have free flight without our permission, with the counsel of our brothers we have considered that the election made concerning him should be invalidated as having been attempted less than lawfully against the canons, since by no law could he be elected, but rather ought to have been postulated.

Wishing nevertheless to concur with your desires by benign favor insofar as we can with God, we have considered that it should be enjoined upon our beloved sons the subdeacon and B., our chaplain, legates of the Apostolic See, that they both inquire into your wishes concerning him and diligently examine the merits of the person in our stead, sending him to us with their letters containing the truth, so that, if he is found suitable, with the Lord disposing, both he may be usefully provided for in the church and your church in him.