Title VII: On the Translation of a Bishop

Latin source headnote: A patriarch who transfers one confirmed as archbishop to an episcopal see is suspended from the confirmation of bishops. Johannes Andreae.

Innocent III to the Patriarch of Antioch.

Since from that general privilege which our Lord granted to blessed Peter and, through him, to the Roman Church, canonical institutes afterward flowed, containing that the greater causes of the Church are to be brought to the Apostolic See; and since through this the translations of bishops, like their depositions, and changes of sees belong by law to the supreme prelate of the Apostolic See, and nothing concerning these matters ought to be altered without his assent: we wonder not a little and are moved that [you], following the example of your predecessor—who is said, by a movement of his own will, to have transferred the Archbishop of Mamistra to Tarsus—transferred L., formerly elect of Apamea, to the church of Tripoli. Nor was it sufficient for you merely to imitate the aforesaid presumption of your predecessor; rather, to our injury you even surpassed his excess and, by a certain new kind of change, made the greater small and in a certain manner diminished the great, presuming to make an archbishop a bishop—or rather, to un-archbishop him—although your said predecessor transferred the aforesaid archbishop from the church of Tarsus to a church of like dignity.

For although the said L. had not yet been consecrated as archbishop, he had nevertheless received the gift of confirmation and had exercised archiepiscopal functions insofar as it was lawful for him, as became known to us through his own account; for, when he had appeared in our presence, he asserted that he had confirmed the Bishop of Valania. Therefore, lest boldness to perpetrate similar acts be furnished to others if so great an excess should be left unpunished, we have decreed that you are to be suspended from the confirmation of bishops until we establish otherwise concerning this, [knowing, etc. Given at the Lateran, on the sixteenth day before the Kalends of April, 1198.]

Latin source headnote: The Pope alone can transfer persons elected and confirmed as bishops.

The same to the Dean and Chapter of Angers.

Between corporeal and spiritual things we have recognized this difference: corporeal things are more easily destroyed than constructed, but spiritual things are more easily constructed than destroyed. Hence, according to the canonical sanctions, a bishop alone can give an honor, but he alone cannot take it away. Bishops also receive the gift of consecration from their metropolitans, but they cannot be condemned except through the Roman Pontiff.

Since, therefore, the spiritual bond is stronger than the carnal, it ought not to be doubted that almighty God reserved for his judgment alone the dissolution of the spiritual marriage that exists between a bishop and a church, for he also reserved for his judgment alone the dissolution of the carnal marriage that exists between a man and a woman, commanding that man not separate those whom God has joined. For a spiritual marriage is dissolved not by human but rather by divine power, when by the authority of the Roman Pontiff—who is established to be the vicar of Jesus Christ—a bishop is removed from a church through translation, deposition, or even resignation. Consequently these three things which we have set forth are reserved to the Roman Pontiff alone, not so much by canonical constitution as by divine institution.

For just as a consecrated bishop ought not leave his church without the license of the Roman Pontiff, so also one elected [and] confirmed cannot, apart from his assent, leave his church, to which he is bound matrimonially. It ought not to be called into doubt that, after canonical election and confirmation, a spiritual marriage is contracted between the persons of the electors and the elect. Episcopal dignity assuredly adds nothing to this, since one endowed with episcopal dignity can nevertheless be the bishop of no church, as happens with one who renounces the burden of the pontificate but not its honor. Hence, since the bond of a bishop to a church is not greater than that of an elect—especially when he has been confirmed—but is entirely the same and not another, the same rule of law obtains in both. Therefore, just as the translation, or even the deposition and resignation, of bishops, so also that of elects after confirmation is, by reason of the spiritual marriage, reserved to the Roman Pontiff alone. Although down to these times what had been provided concerning bishops had not been expressed concerning elects, nevertheless, because of the manifest similarity—or rather identity—it could seem doubtful to no one looking closely, since the same judgment is to be made concerning similar things.

§ 1. Nor could the passage read in the canon concerning an elect support those who understood otherwise: that if through his own negligence he keeps a church widowed for more than six months, he is to receive the gift of consecration neither there nor elsewhere, but rather is to yield to the judgment of his metropolitan. For a church is not understood to be widowed as though it has no spouse, but because, since its spouse has not yet been consecrated, it still remains in certain respects as though deprived of the consolation of a husband; just as, according to the common manner of speaking, that church is called widowed which, although it has a bishop, is nevertheless said to have a useless one.

Nor ought what follows concerning yielding, and was established as a penalty, be drawn into a favor, so that, just as an elect is cast down by the judgment of his metropolitan, he may likewise be transferred to another church—especially since even the aforesaid resignation or casting down does not occur without the authority of the Roman Pontiff, who granted to metropolitans by that canon that they could do these things. Hence, if he had wished the same thing to be done concerning translation as he had said concerning resignation, he could also have expressed it concerning translation. What has not been sanctioned by a decree of the holy Fathers is not to be presumed through superstitious inventions, especially since that which is not found to have been granted is sometimes understood to have been prohibited.

§ 2. Indeed, because the Archbishop of Tours presumed, apart from the authority of the Apostolic See, to transfer the elect of Avranches—afterward confirmed by his metropolitan—to your church and to consecrate him as bishop, and because our venerable brother the Archbishop of Rouen also, without our mandate, released him and granted him license to pass over, the Archbishop of Bourges, according to the tenor of our mandate, suspended the aforesaid archbishops, who ought at least to have consulted the Apostolic See concerning this new matter that had arisen, especially since according to the canonical sanctions the greater ecclesiastical causes are to be referred to the Apostolic See, from the consecration and confirmation of pontiffs alike, and suspended the bishop from the exercise of the pontifical office.

And although the same Archbishops of Tours and Rouen, as the greater persons, transgressed more in the aforesaid matters, while the aforesaid bishop transgressed less, inasmuch as he followed the error of those greater persons, nevertheless, having learned through the letters and messengers of those archbishops of their spontaneous confession and devout supplication, we granted pardon for their error, because they sinned not from malignity but from simplicity.

And because the aforesaid bishop, who had both sinned less and, as appears from the foregoing, had been chastised more severely, approached the Apostolic See, though of his own free will yet not without many labors and expenses, humbly and devoutly acknowledging his guilt, seeking mercy and not demanding judgment, we held a common deliberation with our brothers concerning his deed. Looking closely, we saw that, although the gift of consecration had been bestowed upon him, it had made him the pontiff neither of the first church nor of the second: of the first, because he had not been consecrated for it; and of the second, because, while the former bond endured, he could not canonically be consecrated for it, since he was still conjugally bound to the other.

Nevertheless, prudently attending to the fact that both the urgent necessity and the evident utility of your church—since you could not agree upon another suitable person—required the favor of dispensation, after absolving him entirely, from the plenitude of power, both from the bond of the former church and from the penalty of suspension, we decreed, from the benignity of the Apostolic See, that it should be granted to him that, since the former assent has endured until now, as was intimated to us through the letters of the persons of your church, he is to strive to govern the church of Angers as its proper pontiff, to the glory and praise of God’s name, to the honor and exaltation of that church, and to the salvation and utility of himself and of both the clergy and people committed to him, so that, with divine grace preceding and following, he may wish and be able to profit more than to preside [etc. Given at the Lateran, on the twelfth day before the Kalends of February, 1199.]

Latin source headnote: A bishop who by his own authority transfers himself from his church to another shall lack both.

The same to the Bishop and Peter, Scholasticus of Mainz.

The more sincerely we loved the person of our venerable brother, the former Bishop of Hildesheim, the more confidently we hoped that he would attempt nothing against his mother, the Roman Church, to the prejudice of his order and the detriment of ecclesiastical discipline. But he, as we discovered from the certain assertion of many and likewise learned from the testimony of his own letters directed to us, in which he styled himself Bishop of Würzburg, left the church of Hildesheim, to which he had been joined in marriage by spiritual grace, and by his own authority transferred himself to the church of Würzburg without the authority of the Roman Pontiff, not attending to what the Truth declares in the Gospel: “What God has joined, let man not separate.”

[For] the Lord and Master so retained to himself the power of transferring pontiffs that by a special privilege he bestowed and granted it to blessed Peter alone, his vicar, and through him to his successors, and to us ourselves, who, although unworthy, hold his place on earth. Antiquity bears witness to this, to which the decrees of the Fathers sanctioned that reverence should be shown, and the sanctions of the sacred canons plainly affirm it. For it is not man, but God, who separates those whom the Roman Pontiff—who exercises on earth the office not of a mere man but of the true God—releases, after weighing the necessity or utility of the churches, not by human but rather by divine authority. (And below:)

But lest the perversity of the deed pass as an example to presumptuous persons—a deed which, if it is true, cannot but be notorious—by the authority of almighty God, of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and of ourselves, with the common counsel of our brothers, in the power of the Holy Spirit we strictly command him that, upon seeing our letters, all contradiction and appeal ceasing, he entirely abandon the administration of the church of Würzburg in both spiritual and temporal matters.

If, however, which we do not believe, he does not take care humbly to observe this suspension of ours and presumes to usurp what has been forbidden to him, we decree that he is bound by the bond of excommunication. We also command all the clerics and laymen of the diocese of Würzburg, under threat of anathema, that, notwithstanding an oath of fidelity, they withdraw from him all obedience, which he has usurped for himself contrary to the sacred canons, not attending to what the Apostle says: “Let no one assume the honor for himself, but he who is called by God, as Aaron was.”

Moreover, because the canons of the church of Würzburg conferred their votes upon him wholly unlawfully, wishing, as is fitting, that they be punished in that in which they sinned, we suspend them from the power of electing on this occasion. If, contrary to the prohibition of the Apostolic See, they proceed to the nomination of anyone, we decree that what is done by them is void and empty.

And because he most improperly abandoned the aforesaid church of Hildesheim, to which he had been bound and from which, according to the Apostle, he ought not seek release, we more strictly prohibit him, in the power of the Holy Spirit, from returning to it hereafter. For according to the canonical traditions, one who transfers himself to a greater people ought to be driven from the chair of another and to lack his own, so that he may preside neither over those whom he spurned through pride nor over those whom he coveted through avarice. [We also, etc. Given at Spoleto, on the twelfth day before the Kalends of September, 1198.]

Latin source headnote: The Pope alone transfers bishops, and an indulgence granted by him concerning such a translation is to be observed according to the letter.

The same to the Bishop of Brandenburg and the Scholasticus of Mainz.

Although to such an extent [the authority of the Apostolic See is regarded that nothing in all the affairs of the churches may reasonably be ordered apart from its authority, inasmuch as it either issued the canons through which the form of the ecclesiastical constitution is expressed or approved them when issued by others, making its own by reception and approval what perhaps appeared to belong to another by invention or issuance;] nevertheless, it has reserved certain things to itself in a certain special and singular manner, so that apart from its special authority they neither ought lawfully to be done nor can be attempted with effect.

Among these things, the translations of bishops in particular have been committed to its power alone, not so much by canonical constitution as by divine institution. Just as man cannot dissolve the bond of a lawful marriage which exists between husband and wife, the Lord saying in the Gospel, “What God has joined, let man not separate,” so also the spiritual covenant of marriage which exists between a bishop and [his] church—which is initiated in election, ratified in confirmation, and understood to be consummated in consecration—cannot be dissolved without the authority of him who is the successor of Peter and the vicar of Jesus Christ.

But C., formerly Bishop of Hildesheim, not attending to this, with our license neither sought nor obtained, contrary to the canonical sanctions and to the injury of the Apostolic See—whose assent concerning this was both to be sought and obtained—passed from the church of Hildesheim to the church of Würzburg, not by our authority but by his own temerity; and, intruding himself into its administration, caused himself to be styled Bishop of Würzburg.

Nor does that indulgence of our predecessor Pope Celestine of happy memory, which he is reported to have obtained, excuse his presumption in this matter; rather, it accuses his ambition, inasmuch as it rendered him noted for ambition and did not confer authority to pass to another episcopal church. For it is expressed in that indulgence that, if he should perhaps be called to a greater dignity, it would be lawful for him to assume it, provided that nothing in the canonical statutes stood against him. Hence, although it might perhaps seem to some that by occasion of that indulgence he could pass to a greater dignity, it was nevertheless not lawful for him to pass to an equal one, since a dispensation is more readily customarily made in the case of a greater dignity because of the greater utility.

Moreover, since a postulation, like an election, is customarily examined diligently, and since the tenor of that indulgence appears to reserve not only the examination of the postulation but also that of the person, adding, “provided that nothing appears which stands against you from the canonical institutes,” he ought on no account to have passed over before the postulation had been examined by the person to whom it was to be made. [Although, however, etc. Given at the Lateran, on the seventh day before the Kalends of February, 1200.]