Title XXX: On Useful or Useless Confirmation

Latin source headnote: An inferior judge cannot take cognizance of a matter knowingly confirmed by the Pope unless the confirmation did not hold, as because it was surreptitious or concerned a litigious matter. This it says together with the following chapter.

Alexander III, to the Bishop of Exeter.

If anyone has impetrated from the Apostolic See confirmation of a litigious matter, the judge can no less take cognizance of the cause and terminate it with its due end. But if he peacefully possessed the thing at the time when he obtained confirmation concerning it, it is not safe or lawful for a judge to decide or define a question that afterward arose without a mandate of the Apostolic See.

Latin source headnote: It says the same thing.

The same, to the Bishop of Worcester.

But concerning confirmations of the Roman Pontiffs, we will you to hold that judgment is in no way to be made contrary to them unless a new mandate of the Apostolic See proceeds or it is certain that the confirmations themselves were elicited through suggestion of falsehood.

Latin source headnote: Letters of confirmation concerning a sentence from which an appeal had been taken are not valid if the appellee maliciously anticipated the appellant; otherwise they remain pending until cognizance is taken of the appeal.

Celestine III.

A. of good memory, formerly your canon, who closed his last day at the Apostolic See, took care to consult us concerning certain things that we have determined necessarily to intimate to you according to the tenor of our response. He however proposed that a sentence through false instruments had been pronounced by delegated judges, which indeed were believed to be genuine, and within ten days the person against whom sentence had been given, noticing the falsity of the instruments, appealed from that sentence; nevertheless, the judges no less commanded that the sentence be put into execution. But the appellant, immediately entering upon the journey to the Apostolic See, impetrated letters concerning retracting the sentence; his adversary, however, cunningly anticipating him, had obtained a rescript confirming the promulgated sentence, in which nevertheless no mention was made of the appeal that had been made. And therefore you asked which letters should generate prejudice against which. We respond, therefore, that the later ought to generate prejudice against the former.

Indeed, from this first consultation there arose a second question exhibited in our auditorium, which stands thus: if in the same letters—namely, the later—this clause were placed, “notwithstanding any letters of confirmation of the rendered sentence, let the cause be heard and terminated with its due end,” whether the former letters ought thus to be revoked. To this we say that through the last the first would be utterly revoked. But if it were said, as is more frequently accustomed to be placed in apostolic letters, “no letters prejudicing truth and justice,” or under another form of words, provided that nothing were said expressly concerning the letters of confirmation, we say that the first ought to have their force until fuller cognizance is had of the iniquitous or false sentence. Third, etc. (Cf. c. 5, On Proofs, II. 19.)

Latin source headnote: Renewal of a privilege does not grant a new right, nor does it confirm an old one; but it preserves whatever right belonged. More briefly it can be summarized thus: renewal of a privilege does not induce confirmation of the right contained in it.

Innocent III, to the Dean of Paderborn.

When the beloved daughter in Christ the abbess and sisters of the Church of Gardeven. wished their privileges to be renewed because of the dangers of the roads, we determined that it should be enjoined upon four bishops and as many abbots that they should inspect them diligently and, faithfully transcribing their tenor, remit them to us under their seals, and they, obeying the apostolic mandate, subtly inspected the privileges of Agapitus and John of happy memory, our predecessors, presented to them, and faithfully transmitted their tenor to us under their seals. Our venerable brother G., Archbishop of Reims, also, then Bishop of Palestrina, discharging the office of legation in those regions, caused the tenor of those privileges to be presented to our sight under his own seal. But we, giving due faith both to the legate, who caused them to be presented to our sight under his own seal, and to the investigators themselves, although we did not see why the same privileges ought not to be renewed, nevertheless, because C., canon of the greater church, and I., canon of Holy Cross, [of Hildesheim, established in our presence,] proposed that the Church of Hildesheim had been in possession of the subjection of that monastery for one hundred years and more, we determined that the privileges themselves were not then to be renewed.

Hence we commanded judges that, approaching together a suitable place and citing those who were to be summoned, they should inquire more diligently into the truth concerning these things, and, proceeding up to definitive sentence, should faithfully send to the Apostolic See all the acts written under testimony of their letters, fixing for the parties a competent term at which they should present themselves to our sight to receive sentence. But they, wishing to execute the apostolic mandate, cited the parties to their presence, from whom the party of the Church of Hildesheim appealed to the Apostolic See, on account of which those judges were unable to proceed in the cause. But recently, when the parties were established in our presence, the aforesaid abbess again petitioned that we ought to renew the privileges of her church, especially since in the presence of the delegated judges the party of the Church of Hildesheim took no care to show or prove anything that derogated in any respect from the monastery or its privileges. But in opposition it was solicitously petitioned that we deign to commit the cause itself to discreet men who should receive the witnesses whom that party proposed to introduce against the privileges of the monastery and to prove lawful prescription.

We therefore, more diligently considering that it was established by civil law with provident deliberation that, when danger concerning witnesses is feared, lest the truth be concealed and opportunity for proving be removed by fortuitous events, even without joinder of issue infirm witnesses and others concerning whom fear exists from some reasonable cause shall be admitted to testimony, being moved by the likeness of the same equity, determined that the aforesaid privileges should be renewed as though already consumed by excessive age, since they had been written not on parchment but on papyrus. We will that no new right be acquired by the monastery from a renewal of this kind, but that its ancient right, if it has any, be preserved through renewal of the privilege.

But because the aforesaid monastery is shown through a privilege of our predecessor to belong to the right and property of the Apostolic See, lest the right of the Roman Church remain undefended, we determined that the same abbess should be constituted its proctor, so that, since prescription does not run against the possessions and rights of the Roman Church unless it is of one hundred years, she shall in our place procure concerning this and other things those things that are to be procured before you in judgment. Therefore, unwilling that the status of the same monastery be doubted longer, through which the cause itself would remain further undecided, through apostolic writings we command your discretion that, choosing a safe and suitable place, within the space of six months after receipt of the present letters, you shall receive the witnesses whom the Church of Hildesheim should determine to produce to prove prescription, or the Convent of Gandersheim to show interruption. And if the former proves lawful prescription, as it intends, unless interruption has been proved in opposition, you shall adjudge the subjection of the monastery itself to the aforementioned bishop, annulling the privilege that we caused to be renewed for that monastery; otherwise, imposing perpetual silence upon him concerning this, you shall pronounce that the monastery enjoys perpetual liberty, after our privilege has been returned to it. [But the witnesses, etc. Given at Ferentino, on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of July, in the ninth year, 1206.]

Latin source headnote: A confirmation that a religious impetrated from the Pope concerning a temporal administration or priory is not valid if he concealed that he was a regular. But if he expressed it, the rescript is presumed false, because the Pope is not accustomed to grant it. This it says together with the following chapter.

The same, to the Bishop and Provost of Utica.

It reached our hearing through the signification of the beloved son the provost of the Church of Neman. that certain canons of the Church of Neman., defamed concerning dilapidation or other crimes, labor to obtain from us letters of confirmation concerning their administrations, the condition of their religion and profession having been suppressed. Since, therefore, the Apostolic See is not accustomed personally to confirm anything to regular persons, through apostolic writings we command your discretion that you, supported by our authority, declare invalid and empty the confirmations that you know were thus impetrated by those canons, since they are regulars. [But if not both, etc. Given at the Lateran, on the seventeenth day before the Kalends of July, 1209.]

Latin source headnote: It says the same thing as the immediately preceding chapter above.

The same.

The petition extended to us on your behalf contained that several of the religious who preside over priories or other administrations assert that they have impetrated from us letters of confirmation concerning possession of those priories for as long as they live, on occasion of which they alienate and consume the goods of their priories, asserting that they are subject to you in no respect as regards those priories. Since, therefore, we do not believe that letters of this kind emanated from our chancery, through apostolic writings we command your discretion that you punish as authors of falsity those who exhibit such letters in which priories or administrations are confirmed to them as religious; but if no mention of their religious status is made in them, you shall declare that they are not valid as having been surreptitiously obtained through concealment of the truth. [Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, on the fifth day before the Ides of February, 1205.]

Latin source headnote: A sentence or award rendered by arbiters contrary to the form of law or of the compromise does not hold, although it was confirmed by the Pope in common form.

The same, to the noble man Matthew de Rivariis.

After examining the cause being conducted between you and the knights of Campania concerning the Church of Saint Angelo of Casaperota, after hearing the confessions and understanding the attestations, and also inspecting the instruments and investigating the allegations, we perceived evidently that the arbitral award that the Vicedominus of Sabina was said to have promulgated concerning the same business had been dictated contrary to the form of law and of the compromise. Hence, notwithstanding the confirmation of Pope C. of happy memory, our predecessor, who had confirmed it as it had been providently rendered and received by both parties, we declare it invalid and empty. But the action, etc. (Cf. c. 15, On Judgments, II. 1.) [Given at the Lateran, on the ninth day before the Kalends of April, in the tenth year, 1207.]

Latin source headnote: In a confirmation from certain knowledge, the word “as” is placed causatively; nor does it harm if the word of confirmation precedes the tenor of what was confirmed.

Honorius III, to the illustrious King, the Barons and Knights, and the other men of Cyprus.

Our venerable brother the Archbishop of Nicosia and his suffragans showed us by their transmitted petition that an amicable settlement intervened, through the mediation of our venerable brother the Bishop of Albano, then legate of the Apostolic See, between them on one side and you on the other concerning certain tithes, possessions, and other things, with this expressly added: that as soon as it should happen to be confirmed by apostolic authority, it ought immediately to be put into execution. But although the settlement itself was confirmed by us, and, for greater evidence of the matter, the tenor of the settlement was inserted in the letters of confirmation, you nevertheless refused to observe the settlement itself, advancing a frivolous occasion both from the fact that in our letters the word of confirmation precedes the tenor of the settlement according to the style of the Roman Church, and because that customary clause—namely, “as it was providently made without depravity”—is contained in the same letters. Since, therefore, you ought to insist upon no cavilling refuges of this kind, not merely against God and churches, but not even against private persons, we command that, if truth supports the foregoing, you shall take care to fulfill the same settlement, observing it.

Latin source headnote: A collation of a church made to another by a legate and confirmed by the Pope does not injure the right of the diocesan.

The same, to all Abbots and Prelates and Convents and Clerics established in the Diocese of Constantinople.

Our venerable brother the Patriarch of Constantinople showed us by his complaint that, when certain of you, taking occasion from the fact that our beloved son I., cardinal priest of the title of Santa Prassede, then legate of the Apostolic See, conferred their monasteries in spiritual and temporal things upon certain other churches and clerics, they refuse to obey the patriarch himself and to answer to him concerning patriarchal rights, introducing in aid of their presumption confirmations of such collations impetrated from the Apostolic See. Since, therefore, we will that the rights that are owed to diocesans not be diminished or in any way injured through the aforesaid collations or confirmations, we command your whole body that, notwithstanding an occasion of this kind, you take care humbly to exhibit due reverence and obedience to the patriarch himself and to answer to him fully concerning his just rights, also in spiritual things, unless perhaps some persons show themselves to be fortified by an express privilege of exemption; otherwise, we will that the sentence that the same patriarch shall reasonably render against rebels on this account be firmly observed until worthy satisfaction.

END OF BOOK TWO.