Title XI: On Those Things Which Are Done by the Greater Part of the Chapter

Latin source headnote: In ecclesiastical corporate bodies, what is done by the greater part regularly prevails, unless the lesser part reasonably contradicts. This it says.

From the Lateran Council.

Since in all churches that which has appeared good to the more numerous and sounder brothers ought to be observed without delay, it is exceedingly grave and most worthy of reproof that in certain churches a few sometimes, not so much from reason as from their own will, impede the ordering of the many [and more prudent] and do not permit an ecclesiastical ordering to proceed. Therefore, by the present decree we establish that, unless something has been reasonably objected and shown by the fewer and inferior, that which has been established by the greater and sounder part of the chapter shall always prevail, appeal being removed, and shall obtain its effect. Nor shall our constitution be impeded if perhaps someone says that he is bound by an oath to preserve the custom of his church; for those things that come against the utility of the church and the statutes of the holy Fathers are to be called not oaths but rather perjuries. But if anyone has presumed to swear to customs of this kind, which are neither supported by reason nor consonant with the sacred statutes, let him be excluded from reception of the Lord's body until he has done worthy penance.

Latin source headnote: A canon does not interdict a church; rather, the bishop with the chapter ought to do this.

Celestine III, to the Bishop of Clermont.

The diligence of your probity asked of us what you ought to observe and establish by the authority of an apostolic response concerning the fact that certain of the canons or even the least ones, on any occasion assumed, subject your church to interdict without your assent and that of the other canons, either because a pension owed to the church is not rendered, as is customary, or because sometimes some cleric or parishioner has committed an offense, through which the service of that church perishes and no small scandal is generated among the people. Concerning this we answer your fraternity in this manner, as we recall that we have answered in similar consultations: namely, that you ought not to observe an interdict placed upon any church by one or some of your canons without your assent and that of your other brothers, unless such an excess and one so grave has occurred that the church ought rightly to be silent, nor permit that an interdict under pretext of an occasion of this kind be observed by others, unless your consent and that of the other canons has acceded. But if anyone has offended in these matters, let him be subject to ecclesiastical coercion, since sins ought to hold their authors, nor is punishment to be extended further than the offense has been found in the transgressor.

Latin source headnote: The common ordering of a church ought not to be impeded by the contradiction and appeal of one who has no interest. This it says with regard to the title.

Innocent III, to the Provost of Augsburg.

From the mouth of the one sitting upon the throne proceeded a two-edged sword. This is the sword of Solomon, which cuts on either side, rendering to each what is his own. We therefore, who, although unworthy, by divine favor hold the place of the true Solomon, prudently draw this sword when we determine, through justice, questions lawfully debated in our hearing. For to this end the perplexity of emerging questions and the difficult knots of causes are referred to the Apostolic See: so that, when their merits have been disclosed by the assertion of the parties, a sentence may proceed from the Apostolic See bringing doubtful things into certainty and producing obscure things into the light, so that, once the dissension of the litigants has been quieted, justice may protect and follow its author. Hence it was that, when T. and our beloved son B., a canon of Augsburg, approached our presence on account of the question disputed between you concerning the provostship of the church of Augsburg, we appointed as your auditors our venerable brother [Octavian,] Bishop of Ostia, and our beloved son Gratian, cardinal deacon of Saints Cosmas and Damian. In their presence it was proposed on behalf of B. himself that, when our beloved son E., Provost of Augsburg, had been elected Bishop of Brescia, he requested the Augsburg chapter not to elect another as provost for themselves before his election was confirmed. And when they had assented to his requests, and that elect, having obtained confirmation of his election through his metropolitan and coming to Tivoli, had been invested with the regalia, B., the knight, his father, approaching the Apostolic See, obtained from C. of good memory, our predecessor, letters to be sent to our beloved sons the dean and chapter of Augsburg that, within the space of one month and with the obstacle of appeal removed, they elect and assume that man as Provost of Augsburg; a golden ring was sent to him as a sign of investiture, and certain executors of the apostolic mandate were appointed. But when the aforesaid dean and chapter heard that C., their former provost, had been elected and confirmed as Bishop of Brescia, although they had received the said letters, nevertheless, in contempt of them, after a term had first been assigned within which they ought to answer concerning the apostolic mandate, they elected H., then Dean of Augsburg, as provost. [But lest his election be confirmed, the same B. appealed to the hearing of the Apostolic See. And although afterward various and manifold letters emanated from the Apostolic See concerning this on behalf of the said H., in which silence appeared to be imposed upon him, nevertheless this ought not to have been binding, because, absent and not summoned, he could not be condemned; and he nevertheless afterward contradicted the said H. concerning that provostship as much as he could, which he proved through witnesses. He also obtained apostolic letters by which it was commanded that he be inducted into possession of the provostship, notwithstanding any letters obtained from the Apostolic See before or afterward. Hence, when that man entered upon the way of all flesh and the dean and chapter of Augsburg wished to proceed to an election of a provost, he appealed to the Apostolic See lest this be done. But, not at all deferring to the appeal, after excluding certain canons and not summoning certain others, they elected you as their provost. Therefore he petitioned that your election, not made concordantly by all the canons but attempted after an appeal was interposed to us, be annulled, and that he be confirmed as provost, since he had first been invested with the provostship by our said predecessor, which he wished to prove through the ring transmitted to him by that predecessor.

To these things it was answered on your behalf, son provost, in this manner: that which had been done concerning B. had been obtained before our predecessor held valid the election of the aforesaid E., which was also proved by witnesses; but even if the aforesaid letters had emanated from the Apostolic See after the said elect was confirmed as bishop, nevertheless no right had been acquired by him through this, since he had neither been invested with the provostship nor had the judges executed the apostolic mandate on his behalf. You proved this from the tenor of the letters themselves, in which it was expressly contained that the dean and chapter of Augsburg should elect and assume him as provost within a month, and that the ring was sent to him for receiving investiture. For if he had been invested by the Apostolic See, neither an election of the chapter nor an investiture of the executors would afterward have had any place. You also added that, when the said H. afterward approached the Apostolic See and fully explained to our aforesaid predecessor the manner of his election and the cause of the contradiction of the same B., our said predecessor, notwithstanding the investiture made to B., confirmed H.'s election, asserting that he had been circumvented by a false suggestion in what he had written on behalf of B., since it had not been expressed to him that B. was constituted below the sacred orders; rather, those who petitioned on his behalf had taken care to suggest to him that B. was suitable. And although letters on his behalf were presented to the said Bishops of Freising and Eichstätt and the greater Provost of Speyer, in which they were commanded by virtue of obedience to induct him into corporal possession of the provostship, notwithstanding any letters obtained from the Apostolic See before or afterward, nevertheless our said predecessor rescripted that they had by no means emanated with his knowledge; decreeing them null and void, he annulled anything done by their authority and commanded the same judges to detain the man who had obtained those letters in faithful custody until they should receive from him a mandate as to how they ought to proceed concerning this.

It was furthermore objected against the foregoing that, even if it were established—which was altogether false—that the aforesaid B. had been invested by the Apostolic See and that his investiture had by no means been revoked, nevertheless, because he exhibited to the said H. the reverence owed to a provost, which you proved through witnesses, and received a stipend from him like the other canons, he had renounced his right and was no longer to be heard concerning this. Moreover, when the said H. paid the debt of nature, and the dean and chapter, by the counsel of our venerable brother the Bishop of Augsburg, had established first a space of six weeks, secondly another six weeks, and then three days for celebrating an election of the provost, so that the absent canons might come together for the election, and when, after they had assembled, the election was treated, the same B. did not contradict until he learned that both he and others constituted in minor orders were to be excluded from the election. Indeed, when the dean, intending to investigate the wills of all, asked the assent of our beloved son Walter, a canon of Augsburg, concerning that election, he answered that he would not express his intention in the presence of those who were constituted below the sacred orders, since according to the canonical statutes they could neither be elected nor, according to the custom of the church, have any voice in the election. Hence, when the chapter in common established that they were by no means to be admitted to the election, the said B., hurling insults at the same dean, Ulrich the archdeacon, and Herman the canon, appealed to the Apostolic See, summoning them by the appeal to approach us. And although he departed from the chapter with certain of his canons, nevertheless ten others, more numerous in number and greater in dignity—since only nineteen who had the right in the election had assembled for this—attending that he had no interest, since he had no right in the provostship, elected you, the eleventh, as provost, saving the grace of the Apostolic See, namely, lest they appear to commit anything in contempt of the Apostolic See.

Therefore, since it was established from the foregoing that he had neither been invested by the Apostolic See nor elected or assumed as provost by the chapter or delegated judges; and even if that had been established, it had been sufficiently proved on your behalf that that investiture, if there had been any, was afterward revoked by our aforesaid predecessor; and even if these things had not been proved, it had sufficiently been shown through witnesses that he rendered reverence to the said H.; nor was what had been proved in opposition—that he had always contradicted the aforesaid H.—contrary, since he could have contradicted in words and consented in deeds, especially since, although the witnesses said generally that the said B. always contradicted, nevertheless that generality ought to be restricted to suitable times, lest he be convicted of having spoken falsely if what they said were understood more generally; and since it followed from all these things that he had no interest for the purpose of appealing to the Apostolic See concerning this, you concluded that none of those things that had been done prevented your election from having to be confirmed.]

Therefore, when the said cardinals had faithfully reported to us and our brothers these and all the other things that had been proposed on either side, and the attestations, allegations, and reasons of both parties had been more fully heard and understood, because it was lawfully established that the aforesaid B. was not in any way invested with that provostship, although a mandate had been given that he be invested with it; and even if he had been invested with it, his investiture was annulled by our predecessor once and a second time for a certain reason; and even if it had not been annulled, he appears to have renounced his right through the fact that he often exhibited to the said H. the reverence that is owed to a provost: we, attending that it could not belong to him by law to impede the common ordering of the church through an appeal interposed on that account, and also understanding that you were canonically elected as provost by the greater part both in dignity and in number of those who were established to have the right of electing, by the common counsel of our brothers confirm your election by apostolic authority, imposing silence upon the aforesaid B. concerning that provostship. [Therefore let no one, etc. Given at Rome at Saint Peter's, on the tenth day before the Kalends of July. 1198.]

Latin source headnote: A prelate, with the greater part of the chapter and against the contradiction of the lesser, can establish that every canon is bound to contribute toward the necessary repair of the fabric.

The same.

It was intimated to us on your behalf, brother archbishop, that you held a common deliberation for restoring the fabric of the church of Rouen, with you, brother archbishop, requesting that every canon, equally with you, assign some portion of his revenues to so pious and necessary a work. But because diverse and varying intentions concerning this existed among you, sons and canons, lest so praiseworthy a work be neglected through your dissension, by authority of the present letters we establish that, if any of you should determine to resist the statutes and ordinances concerning this of you, brother archbishop, and of the greater and sounder part of the chapter, the judgment of the majority shall prevail. [Given at Rome at Saint Peter's, on the fifth day before the Ides of June, in the first year of our pontificate. 1198.]