Title X: On Those Things Which Are Done by a Prelate Without the Consent of the Chapter

Latin source headnote: An alienation of ecclesiastical property without the approval of the chapter is not valid.

From the Council at Valencia.

A donation, sale, or exchange of ecclesiastical property by bishops will be invalid without the approbation and subscription of the clerics.

Latin source headnote: In a temporal alienation that a prelate makes, the silence of the chapter is held as consent.

Alexander III, to the Bishop of Norwich.

It was contained [in the letters transmitted by you to us that, when a question was disputed before you by our mandate between Master Hubert and Master N. concerning the tithe of W., it was established to you that Emma, Abbess of Saint Mary of Winchester, by common vote and unanimous consent, with the convent furnishing assent, granted that tithe to the aforesaid H., and Ralph, Archdeacon of Winchester, made investiture thereof to him through bread and a book; but Master N. proved before you by suitable witnesses that the aforesaid abbess had previously given the aforesaid tithe to him, the convent not contradicting, before she gave it to the aforesaid H., and that her grant had been confirmed by the diocesan bishop. Hence, because you wished to consult us as to which grant ought rather to be relied upon,] we answer your consultation in this manner: the grant of the tithe first made by the abbess, if it was made with the convent knowing and not contradicting, ought to have firm strength. But if the aforesaid abbess, while the convent was ignorant or contradicting, first granted her tithe to the aforesaid H., and not long afterward gave the same tithe to the same man with the assent of the convent, [since it is established to you that it was given to him,] the second grant ought to prejudice the first.

Latin source headnote: A temporal alienation made without the consent of the chapter is strengthened by its ratification.

The same, to the Bishop of Worcester.

Since some time ago, if we remember correctly, we granted you by our letters that, if John your predecessor conferred the church of Bibury upon the abbot and brothers of Oseney while the chapter of your church protested, it would be lawful for you to revoke it; but, as you assert, we granted [letters directed to you] to the aforesaid brothers, so that you leave the church itself to be possessed peacefully by them, being forgetful of the writing that had been granted to you by us concerning this. Although we granted this to you, nevertheless we earnestly admonish and exhort your prudence that, from regard for God and reverence for blessed Peter and us, if you can in any way without grave detriment to your church, you leave that church to the aforesaid brothers in peace and quiet, because it befits your providence to direct attention to the advantage and advancement of religious places and to hold valid and firm what that predecessor of yours did from zeal for piety. But if perhaps you cannot be induced to leave the same church to them, notwithstanding the letters that the aforesaid brothers obtained concerning this, we wish the writing granted to you thereof to stand in its stability, because it is certain that, by the rigor of law, that grant which it is established was made by that predecessor of yours while the chapter protested is not valid, unless the same chapter afterward held that grant valid.

Latin source headnote: A prelate ought not to institute or remove without the counsel of the chapter, or transact other business of the church. This it says together with the following chapter.

The same, to the Patriarch of Jerusalem.

The prudence of your discretion knows more fully, as we believe, how you and your brothers are one body, in such a way indeed that you are proved to be the head and they the members. Hence it does not become you, omitting the members, to use the counsel of others in the business of your church, since it is not doubtful that this is contrary both to your honor and to the institutions of the holy Fathers. Indeed, it became known to our ears that without the counsel of your brothers you institute and remove abbots and abbesses and other ecclesiastical persons, not considering and attending how it is not doubtful that you transgress the statutes of the sacred canons, since in causes of this kind you are said to use the counsel of clerics and laymen dwelling around you, who are not of the body of that church, rather than that of your brothers. Therefore we forbid this by apostolic authority. (And below:) For we annul by apostolic authority such institutions and removals, if you make any henceforth, and decree that they lack the strength of validity.

Latin source headnote: It is summarized above in the preceding chapter. A prelate ought not to institute or remove without the counsel of the chapter, or transact other business of the church. This it says together with the following chapter.

The same, to the same.

The more exalted the dignity in which, by the Lord's gift, you are preeminent, the more it becomes and behooves you to have such diligence and gravity in all things that you may appear to perform everything without stain and reproach, and laudably administer the office of solicitude enjoined upon you. But we have heard, whereat we marveled, just as [also] we could rightly [thereat] marvel, that in grants and confirmations, omitting the canons of your church, you sometimes—indeed, often—seek the counsel of clerics and laymen dwelling around you who are not of the body of that church, and in those grants and confirmations you proceed according to their counsel and will; and also in privileges, which is wholly unbecoming to your honor, for greater authority and certainty you cause the names of your brothers who were absent to be subscribed as though they had been present. Therefore, because it does not become your prudence to set aside in the business of the church committed to you the counsel of your brothers, with whom you are proved to exist as one [body,] by apostolic writings we command your fraternity that, in grants and confirmations and the other business of your church, you seek your brothers and transact and treat the same business with their counsel, or that of the sounder part, and establish the things that are to be established, correct errors, and scatter and root out the things that are to be rooted out. Nor are you in any way to permit the names of absent brothers to be inscribed, because such instruments are invalid and false, and on that account you could rightly fear a charge of forgery. For we decree that all privileges in which the names of absent brothers were subscribed without their knowledge or while they were absent, or shall henceforth be written, are invalid, and we judge that they have no strength of validity.

Latin source headnote: If a collegiate church has the presentation, the prelate shall present with the consent of the chapter or of its greater part, unless by custom or privilege it belongs to the prelate alone.

Celestine III.

That is known to be [the dignity of the Apostolic See, granted to it by the Lord himself in blessed Peter, that, where some point of doubt arises, it is referred to its oracle, and what it establishes should be answered ought to be received and observed by all without any hesitation.] It has indeed been proposed to us on your behalf that, since in your province it often happens that, to churches in which colleges are known to have the right of presentation, their abbots, either personally or through their letters, present suitable persons to the diocesan bishops, and after those presented have been afterward received, sometimes before institution and sometimes after, monks or colleges of another order contradict and protest; concerning these things you seek to be certified by an open answer whether an institution already made or still to be made ought to be impeded on this account. To these things we answer you in this manner: namely, that in the presentations of such prelates it ought to be understood that they are made with the assent of their colleges, without which they obtain no manner of validity. Hence, if it is established that the consent of the convent, or of its greater and sounder part, was not present, it is fitting that institutions of this kind be annulled, unless some of them prove by ancient and approved custom or granted liberty that the consent of the college committed to them ought not to be sought in collations of churches or benefices. [Given at the Lateran.]

Latin source headnote: A donation that a layman makes to a church, with the consent of the diocesan alone, of tithes that he has held from another church in fief from of old, that is, before the Lateran Council, is valid.

Innocent III, to the Archpriest and Master of the Schools of Bourges.

Since the Apostolic See, over which, although unworthy, we preside, is set above all churches throughout the world not by human but by divine institution, it is just and fitting that doubtful questions concerning diverse points of law be referred to it as mistress and mother, so that it which establishes laws may also distinguish those same laws, lest things that are seen to be diverse appear to be opposed. Indeed, as we have received from your letters, when on the one side the Chapter of Saint Stephen and the Chapter of Selles, and on the other the monks of La Place, had submitted to your arbitration concerning a certain tithe that they sought from those monks, and you, after summoning the parties, had taken cognizance of the cause, the said monks alleged that donation of that tithe had been made to them by a certain knight and confirmed with the consent of our venerable brother the Archbishop of Bourges, the diocesan, acceding; and that they were fortified by the authority of Jerome, who, writing to Damasus, says: “If things that are known to be of divine right have at any time been wrongfully detained by laymen and have passed to the use of monks, with the bishop of the place nevertheless furnishing them consent, they will stand for them supported by perpetual validity.” To the contrary, the opposing party alleged that the consent of the bishop without the consent of the clergy was insufficient, by the authority of Pope Leo, who says: “Let no bishop dare to donate, exchange, or sell anything from the property of the church, unless perhaps he should do one of these things so as to provide for something better, and with the consent and deliberation of all the clergy choose that which is not doubtful to be profitable to the church.” But because, doubting concerning these authorities, you wished to consult us, humbly inquiring whether, when a tithe is held by a layman, if it is conferred upon a church, the consent of the bishop without the consent of the clergy suffices to confirm the donation, we answer your devotion in this manner: the layman who detains the tithe is to be admonished to restore it to the church to which it belongs. But if perhaps he cannot be induced and assigns it, with the consent of the diocesan, to another church—especially to a religious convent—the donation itself will stand supported by perpetual validity. For the aforesaid authorities, although diverse, are nevertheless not opposed, since it is one thing to alienate what is possessed by a church and another to recall to ecclesiastical use what is detained by a layman. In alienation, according to the decree of Pope Leo, the consent of the bishop without the consent of the clerics does not suffice. But in recalling, according to the writing of Jerome, the consent of the bishop suffices, since by each the utility of the church is consulted. For in the Lateran Council it is also forbidden that any religious person receive churches and tithes from the hands of laymen without the consent of the bishops, by which it is indirectly given to be understood that the consent of the bishop suffices for it to be lawful for a church to receive tithes from the hands of laymen. But we understand this concerning those tithes that have been granted to laymen perpetually in fief. [Given at Rome, etc., on the Nones of July, in the first year of our pontificate. 1198.]

Latin source headnote: A bishop cannot without the consent of the chapter grant churches to other churches, even if he has the right of patronage in the churches granted.

The same, to the Archdeacon of Metz.

Recently yours to us (And below:) You also added whether it is lawful for a bishop or bishop-elect, together with the archdeacon alone apart from the assent of the greater church, since both the bishop is elected from it and the archdeacon is assumed from it, perpetually to confer vacant baptismal churches upon monasteries or conventual churches to which the right of patronage pertains. The solution of the other question is also clearly gathered from an epistle of Pope Leo, in which it is read to have been established: “Let no bishop dare to donate, exchange, or sell anything from the property of the church, unless perhaps he should do one of these things so as to provide for something better, and by the deliberation and consent of all the clergy choose that which is not doubtful to be profitable to the church.” For a donation, sale, or exchange of ecclesiastical property by bishops will be invalid without the connivance and subscription of the clerics. By this you will know the question proposed in the second place to have been resolved, since it is not doubtful that perpetual grants of churches pertain to alienations.

Latin source headnote: A bishop cannot, with the consent of the patron but without the consent of his chapter, confer parish churches or their revenues upon a monastery.

The same, to the Bishop of Ely.

The diligence of the pastoral office (And below: [cf. c. 28, On the Office of a Delegated Judge, I. 29]) Furthermore, you carefully asked, since parishes were delimited by the authority of Dionysius so that the proceeds of individual parishes might fall to the necessary uses of the church and the stipends of ministers, whether it is lawful for a bishop, without the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or at least without the will of his chapter, to confer upon religious men the revenues of some parish church, the support of a vicar being reserved. And since the statutes of the Lateran Council forbid a new pension to be imposed upon churches or an old one to be increased, you request to be instructed whether a bishop, with the patron consenting, can confer the whole church upon religious places, or confer some portion anew. To this we briefly answer that, saving the canonical constitution concerning the granting of a fiftieth portion to pious places, a bishop can do neither the first nor the second, without the will of his chapter, except by license of the Roman Pontiff. [Furthermore yours, etc. (cf. c. 7, On Donations, III. 27.) Given at Rome at Saint Peter's, on the fourteenth day before the Ides of January. 1204.]

Latin source headnote: The chapters of cathedral churches ought to be summoned and admitted to provincial councils.

Innocent III, to the Archbishop of Sens and His Suffragans.

Although the members of the body of Christ (And below:), the chapters of the cathedral churches of the province of Sens transmitted their complaint to us that the Archbishop of Sens and his suffragans were unwilling to admit their proctors, recently summoned to a provincial council, to its deliberation, although certain things are customarily treated in councils of this kind that are known to pertain to those chapters, for which reason they appealed to our hearing. Indeed, having heard and understood what their messengers wished to propose concerning these things, and likewise the letters that you took care to send us concerning the same business, we had diligent deliberation thereupon with our brothers, and indeed in agreement it appeared to us and to those same brothers of ours that the chapters themselves ought to be invited to councils of this kind, and their messengers admitted to deliberation, especially concerning those things that are known to affect the chapters themselves.