Title XL: On the Meaning of Words

Latin source headnote: “Newly broken land” is land newly brought under cultivation.

Jerome, on Hosea.

“Renew the newly broken land.” Newly broken land is a field now cut for the first time.

Latin source headnote: Under the appellation of father, in a broad signification, all descendants are included.

The same, on Daniel.

“For King Nebuchadnezzar, your father,” that is, great-grandfather, according to the usage of Scripture, which calls grandfathers and those thereafter fathers.

Latin source headnote: He who immediately died is not said to have been born.

The same, in Proverbs.

“For I also was an only-begotten son before my mother.” Why does he call himself only-begotten before his mother, when Scripture testifies that a uterine brother had preceded him, unless because that brother, having immediately been born without a name, departed from life as though he had never existed?

Latin source headnote: The expression “before” does not always imply.

The same, on Matthew.

From what is said, “before they came together,” it does not follow that they afterward came together; rather, Scripture shows that it had not happened.

Latin source headnote: He who is born first is called the firstborn, even if no one follows him.

The same, in the same work.

“Joseph did not know Mary until she bore her firstborn son.” From this passage certain persons most perversely suspect that Mary had other sons also, saying that one is not called firstborn unless he also has brothers, since this is the usage of the divine Scriptures: that they call firstborn not him whom brothers follow, but him who was born first.

Latin source headnote: Words are to be understood not according to how they sound, but according to the mind of the speaker.

Hilary.

The understanding of sayings is to be taken from the causes for speaking, because the thing is not subject to the expression, but the expression to the thing.

Latin source headnote: A fact is not vitiated when it is narrated in a different manner, where the same thing is concluded in substance.

Augustine, on Matthew.

Diversity of narration presents no obstacle where the same things are said, especially since each of the evangelists believes himself to speak in that order in which God willed.

Latin source headnote: We ought to consider the sense, not the words.

Gregory.

Therefore, if perhaps it should happen that you receive my lengthy epistle for translation, I ask that not word be translated from word, but sense from sense, because very often, while the propriety of words is attended to, the sense of the truth is lost.

Latin source headnote: It states who properly is a provost.

Isidore.

Although all who preside are rightly called persons placed over others, usage nevertheless has obtained that those who bear a certain care of priority over others are called provosts.

Latin source headnote: It does not admit a fitting summation.

The same, in the Book of Etymologies.

The forum is the place for conducting lawsuits, so called from speaking, or from King Phoroneus, who first gave law to the Greeks. This place is also called “before the rostra,” from the fact that, when the ships of the Carthaginians had been captured in the Punic War, the beaks were taken away and affixed in the Roman Forum so that they might be the emblem of this victory. The forum, moreover, consists of a cause, a law, and a judgment. A cause is so called from the event from which it comes. For it is the matter and origin of a business, not yet laid open by the examination of discussion; while it is proposed, it is a cause; while it is discussed, it is a judgment [is]; while it is concluded, it is justice. Judgment, moreover, is called as it were a declaration of law, and justice as it were the standing of law. Judgment, moreover, was formerly called inquiry, whence we call both the originators of judgments and those placed over them quaestors or inquirers. A business [however] signifies many things: sometimes the doing of some thing, the contrary of which is leisure; sometimes the action of a cause, which is the quarrel of a lawsuit. And it is called “business” as though “not leisure,” that is, without leisure. A business, moreover, is spoken of in causes, but trading in commerce, where something is given that greater things may be gained. A quarrel is so called as though “a chattering about law,” because those who plead a cause contend at law. A lawsuit, moreover, first took its name from a dispute over a boundary, concerning which Virgil says: “A boundary had been placed so that it might settle the dispute concerning the fields.” A cause consists either of argument or of proof. An argument never gives proof by witnesses, never by documents, but finds the truth by investigation alone, whence also “argument” is so called as though “acutely found.” Proof, however, consists of witnesses and the faith of documents. In every business also these persons are sought: judge, accuser, defendant, and three witnesses. A judge is so called as though one declaring the law to the people, or because he decides according to law. To decide according to law, however, is to judge justly. Therefore, he is not a judge if justice is not in him. The accuser is so called as though a causator, because he calls to a cause the one whom he accuses. The defendant is named from the thing that is sought, because, although he is not conscious of a crime, he is nevertheless called defendant as long as he is summoned into judgment concerning some thing. In antiquity witnesses were called “survivors” because they were brought forth concerning the standing of the cause; now, with part of the name removed, they are called witnesses. Witnesses, however, are considered by condition, nature, and life. By condition: whether free, not a slave. For a slave often suppresses the testimony of the truth through fear of his master. By nature: whether a man, not a woman. For a woman always produces variable and mutable testimony. By life: whether innocent and upright in conduct. For if good life is lacking, he will lack credibility. For justice cannot have commerce with a criminal man. There are [however] two kinds of witnesses: either by stating what they saw, or by bringing forth what they heard. In two ways, moreover, witnesses offend: when they either utter false things or cover true things with silence.

Latin source headnote: It states what a pact is and whence it is so called.

The same.

A pact is said to be a writing agreed between parties out of peace, approved by laws and customs; [and] “pact” is so called as though made out of peace.

Latin source headnote: Here Isidore gives the etymology of right as it is found in a thing, not as it is a general name.

The same, in the same work.

Right is so called from possessing by right. For that which is possessed justly is possessed by this right; that justly which well; but that which is possessed badly belongs to another. He possesses badly who either uses his own things badly or presumes upon things belonging to another.

Latin source headnote: Whatever a member of the faithful offers to a church is contained under the name of an oblation, and ought not to be possessed by secular persons.

Paschal II, to the Canons of Saint Martin.

The case of the people of Carpi (And below:) Moreover, first fruits, tithes, and oblations are reckoned especially among the goods of churches alone. But we call oblations whatever things from their own lawful property are offered to the church by the faithful. Therefore, whoever obtains them through a secular hand or power, without doubt strives against God and against the sanctions of the holy Fathers; indeed, both he who receives and he who delivers is judged a robber and a sacrilegious person.

Latin source headnote: A priest alone can confer the sacrament of extreme unction upon a sick person. This is what it says. - § 1. In a leap year the custom of the place ought to be observed concerning the day on which the feast of Saint Matthias is celebrated, provided nevertheless that the vigil is continuous with the feast. This is what it says.

Alexander III.

Your fraternity asked of us whether a priest ought to anoint a sick person when only one cleric is present, and on what day the feast of blessed Matthias ought to be observed in a leap year, especially since certain persons wish to interpose a day between the vigil and the feast, [and whether a woman, etc.; cf. c. 2, On Baptism, IV. 19.] We therefore have deemed that this is to be answered to you: that a priest, when one cleric is present and even alone, can anoint a sick person. § 1. But let the vigil precede the feast of blessed Matthias according to ecclesiastical custom to the extent that it admits no other day between itself and the solemnity, either on account of the leap day or in any other manner; on that vigil, unless it falls on the Lord's day, a fast is to be observed. But whether the feast itself takes place on the preceding or on the following day, which two are reckoned as though one, there is no error, but the custom of the church is to be observed. [But that a woman on account of theft, etc.; cf. c. 2, On Baptism, IV. 19.]

Latin source headnote: By the words “I establish and command,” a definitive sentence can be rendered.

Celestine III.

In those matters that contain ambiguity, recourse is owed to the Apostolic See, to which in truth, as mother and head of all churches, greater and more difficult questions, just as was established by the ancient Fathers and rightly approved by the usages of those employing them, ought everywhere to be referred. For it became known indeed to our apostolate that, when concerning the controversy that existed between Master M. and the lay brothers of the Hospital of Saint Simplician concerning that hospital, in the presence of our venerable brother O., Archbishop of Milan, a question was being litigated, after cognizance of the case the archbishop himself did not use these words in pronouncing the sentence, so as to say according to civil law: “I condemn this party,” or “I absolve this party,” but pronounced thus: “I establish and command,” that henceforth, and the remaining things that are expressly contained in the instrument. Therefore, because, as we learned from the report of our beloved sons Cynthius, Cardinal Priest of Saint Lawrence in Lucina, and John, Cardinal Priest of Saint Prisca, whom we assigned as auditors for this, there was doubt concerning this pronouncement of the sentence: Considering, therefore, that this word “I establish” according to the law signifies a completed thing and is received with effect, not verbally, likewise that according to Gregory that which is commanded is ordered, and that which is ordered must be done and sometimes, if it is not done, carries a penalty; considering nevertheless that, according to the same Gregory, no one ought to consider the words, but the will and intention, since the intention ought not to serve the words, but the words the intention, we interpret in the present article by the counsel of our brothers, the proctors of each party being present, and define that the words of the aforesaid archbishop, pronounced in such form, possess the firmness of a sentence to remain perpetually valid. We therefore confirm by the present page of the Apostolic See the sentence itself, although it has hitherto been impeded by the obstacle of an appeal, and fortify it by the protection of this writing, establishing and commanding by apostolic authority that the aforesaid brothers of that hospital obey its abbot and his grantors in perpetuity as their prelates and lords, just as the archbishop himself commanded.

Latin source headnote: A benefit of a prince ought to be interpreted most broadly.

Innocent III, to the Patriarch of Grado.

We recall that we formerly wrote to you that if the beloved son the archpriest and the canons of Padua, to whom we directed our writings concerning this, did not confer upon the beloved son Master G., canon of Padua, without any delay, the prebend which is conferred from the common property only upon residents, and manual benefices from the common revenues, just as upon one of the others, you were to take care to compel them to this, appeal ceasing. But because, as was reported to our apostolate, certain persons attempt to interpret our mandate otherwise than is fitting, since benefits of princes are to be interpreted most broadly, wishing to remove doubt from our mandate, not to reserve the scruple of a question, so that you may execute what we command more diligently and freely, we have deemed that our understanding in this matter is to be disclosed to you: namely, that we enjoined the prebend which is conferred from the common property only upon residents in food and clothing to be conferred fully upon Master G. himself, just as upon one of the other residents. Therefore, by apostolic writings we command your fraternity that, attending to no malicious interpretation in the business itself, you endeavor diligently to execute, after the obstacle of any contradiction and appeal has been removed, what we command you concerning the aforesaid master.

Latin source headnote: An interdict is called general when it is rendered not only against a province, but against a town or castle.

The same, to the Bishop of Coimbra and the other Bishops constituted in the Kingdom of Portugal.

Since in your parts, sins requiring it, it often happens that various places are placed under interdict, we have learned that among you it is called into doubt when an interdict ought to be called general or particular. For those who merited being adorned with a privilege by the Roman Church—namely, that when a general interdict of the land has been imposed, it is lawful for them, with the doors closed, bells not rung, excommunicated and interdicted persons excluded, and in a subdued voice, to celebrate divine offices—assert that they are not constrained by a particular interdict, saying that interdict alone to be general when a kingdom, or at least a whole province, is subjected to interdict. On account of this, justice is more often destroyed and the sentences of prelates are held in contempt, since they celebrate divine offices in other provinces under interdict and, while the organs of others are suspended, they themselves, with bells rung and doors open, indiscriminately receive any persons whatever to divine offices. But since nothing is expressly said in the privileges about a kingdom or province, we will that under the name of land not only a kingdom or province be understood, but also a town and castle, so that in these too that which is said concerning a general interdict has place: namely, that when a town or castle is subjected to a general interdict, the form of the privilege written above ought to be observed. [Given at the Lateran, the seventh day before the Ides of February, 1199.]

Latin source headnote: A privilege against a custom opposing the common law is to be interpreted broadly. This is what it says according to the understanding of the ancient abbot, and it is a notable case according to this understanding.

The same, to the Bishop of Auxerre.

Since by the kindness of the Apostolic See it was granted to you that the ordering of the property of clerics dying intestate should remain freely in your power and disposition, wishing to remove every occasion of scandal that has sometimes arisen between you and your people concerning two matters, you wished to consult us, first, whether the appellation of the word “clerics” extends as much to canons as to non-canons; second, whether those who commit their last will to the will and disposition of another, ordering or determining nothing at all by themselves about what ought to be conferred upon what place or person, are said to die intestate. Therefore, to the first Consultation of yours we respond in this manner: that the appellation of clerics comprehends not only others but also canons. Concerning the second, etc. (cf. c. 13, On Testaments, III. 26.) [Given at the Lateran, 1202.]

Latin source headnote: One swearing to obey the prelate and the church is bound to obey not the diocesan clergy, but the chapter of the cathedral church.

The same, to the Provost and Chapter of Piacenza.

Since the clerics of Piacenza furnish an oath under this form of words: “I, such a one, from this hour henceforth shall be faithful and obedient to the holy church of Piacenza and to my lord, the Bishop of Piacenza,” you wished to consult us by your letters whether the clergy of the whole diocese or only the chapter of the cathedral church ought to be understood. We therefore respond to your discretion by the present page in this manner: that by the word “church of Piacenza” in the form of the oath written above, the clergy of the whole diocese ought not to be understood; and if the chapter of the cathedral church is understood, nevertheless he who furnishes an oath of this kind is principally obligated to the bishop as to the head. [Given at Ferentino, the sixth day before the Nones of July, 1203.]

Latin source headnote: Under the appellation of ecclesiastical censure are comprehended excommunication, suspension, and interdict.

The same, to the Prior of Saint Fridianus at Lucca.

To one asking what ought to be understood by ecclesiastical censure when we place a clause of this kind in our letters, we respond that by it not only a sentence of interdict, but also of suspension and excommunication can be understood, unless the discerning judge, having investigated the circumstances of things and persons, renders that which he shall see to be more expedient.

Latin source headnote: In privileges concerning tithes of newly broken lands not to be paid, that is called newly broken land of whose cultivation there is no memory, and which previously brought forth little or no fruit.

The same, to the Bishop of Zaragoza.

Your fraternity asked of us what ought to be understood by the word “newly broken land.” Although some have said that newly broken land is land cut, which lies fallow for a year, while others assert that land brought under cultivation from a forest after the trees have been uprooted is said to become newly broken land, each of which interpretations is gathered from the civil laws, We therefore respond to your inquiry in this manner: that we believe the intention of our predecessors, when they granted to pious places an indulgence concerning newly broken lands, to have been that they understood by newly broken land a field newly brought under cultivation, concerning which there exists no memory that it had ever been cultivated. But neither do we believe that an indulgence was granted to them concerning every such newly broken land, but only concerning that one whose tithe a religious convent can retain without grave detriment to the parochial church, since there is often such uncultivated land from which the parochial church receives great revenues by reason of tithes. [Given at Viterbo, the eleventh day before the Kalends of September, in the tenth year, 1207.]

Latin source headnote: If a church subject to a bishop is united to another, or is committed to it to be governed, with the right of the mother church preserved, by “mother church” the cathedral, and not the Roman Church, is understood.

The same, to Abbot F. and B., Monks of Alcobaça.

We learned, from our venerable brother the Bishop of Coimbra complaining, that, when the brothers of the Holy Cross recently received under their protection the monastery of Argar, which had been accustomed from ancient times to exhibit episcopal rights to his predecessors, now, after one of their canons had been made prior there without his consent, on the occasion of a certain privilege obtained from Pope C. of good memory, our predecessor, with the truth suppressed, it denies that it should exhibit due obedience to that bishop, taking from this the occasion that by “mother church” it understands not the cathedral but the Roman Church. But because it is not our intention that the rights of our brothers in our times [unduly] be diminished, we have deemed that the case itself should be committed to you. Therefore, by apostolic writings we command that, if nothing else occurs to you on account of which the said prior ought not to answer to the diocesan bishop, you compel him by ecclesiastical censure to furnish that obedience to him just as his predecessors furnished it to the predecessors of the bishop, notwithstanding the privilege obtained by surreption to the prejudice of the Church of Coimbra. For we will that by “mother church” the cathedral church be understood, not the Roman Church. [But if not all, etc. Given at Rome, the third day before the Kalends of June, 1198.]

Latin source headnote: One excommunicated or interdicted for contumacy or a doubtful offense is absolved after security has been furnished that he will stand by the law. But if he was excommunicated or interdicted for a manifest offense, then he ought first to make satisfaction before he is absolved. And that is called manifest which is established through confession, lawful proof, or the evidence of the thing. This is what it says, together with the following chapter.

The same, to the Abbot of Saint Geneviève, and the Dean and Chancellor of Paris.

On behalf of the beloved daughter in Christ, the noble woman the Countess of Blois, those sent to our presence sought that a hearing be exhibited to her, so that we might hear the injuries that the Church of Chartres inflicts upon her and her people; to them, and to the beloved son S. de Bero, canon of Chartres, who stood for that church, we gave as auditor the beloved son R., cardinal priest of the title of Saint Anastasia. In his presence the envoys of the countess Alleged that, when the provost of the countess of La Ferté in the town of Nolis had seized a certain robber who had committed theft, and justice had thereupon been done, the robber was demanded from the bailiffs of the countess by the chapter of Chartres after justice had been done, because they said that he had been captured in their land; the bailiffs asserting to the contrary that he had been captured in land in which the same countess has the right to capture robbers and other malefactors, because her husband, before he assumed the sign of the cross, was in possession of that right, so that in the place in which the chapter itself said that the robber had been captured, he possessed jurisdiction of this kind; which they were prepared to prove. But when the countess offered security concerning this that she would obey the law, the canons of Chartres nevertheless caused her land to be placed under interdict, which they were unwilling to relax unless amends were first paid. Thereafter our venerable brother the Bishop of Chartres, having been requested concerning this and diligently admonished by letters of his metropolitan that he absolve the land of the countess in such manner as by law he could and ought, refused to do this, having been prohibited by the aforesaid chapter. For they said that this was contained in the privileges of the Church of Chartres: that it was lawful for no one to grant the benefit of absolution without fitting satisfaction to persons excommunicated or expressly interdicted on behalf of the canons of Chartres. But the envoys of the countess, seeing that after security had been given they could not be absolved as they ought, appealed to the hearing of the metropolitan concerning this as well as other cases litigated between the countess and the chapter, placing both the countess herself and her land and bailiffs under his protection. [Meanwhile the Dean of Châteaudun addressed the provost of the countess at Châteaudun so that he would take care to return or restore on security the property of a certain man that he had seized. When he was prepared to restore it on security, the dean, after first inspecting certain letters that he had received on behalf of the chapter of Chartres, was unwilling that the provost himself restore that property on security, but that he return it absolutely. The provost, unwilling to do this lest the right of the countess perish in this matter, prohibited the dean from proceeding further and sent forth a voice of appeal to the hearing of the metropolitan, placing the land of the countess and her bailiffs under his protection and fixing a day for the appeal. But on the next day the dean, just as he had addressed the provost, addressed the castellan of Châteaudun, who, after giving him a similar response, appealed, promising with the provost himself concerning this to stand by the mandate of the church. But the dean, asserting that he had received a mandate from the chapter, placed that castle under interdict in the evening. Therefore, when the parties had been cited by the metropolitan and constituted in his presence, the proctor of the aforesaid countess, complaining on her behalf, alleged that the chapter of Chartres so aggrieved her, although she had not been cited or requested in anything, that it repeatedly placed her land under interdict for any cause whatever without requesting her in any way. He also complained that, when she herself or her bailiffs were cited in the cases of the chapter to answer before the ordinary judge, they were now compelled to answer in the chapter; and that, when the castle of La Ferté had been unjustly placed under interdict, they were unwilling to receive from her the sufficient security to obey the law that she offered, although she was also prepared to prove that she had exercised her own right. They complained further that Châteaudun had been interdicted after the appeal, and she offered suitable proof that in seizing the aforesaid property the countess had exercised her own right, namely that right in whose possession her husband was at the time when he assumed the cross. Furthermore, when certain witnesses had been received concerning this at Paris by the metropolitan, and the proctor of the countess insistently sought that he absolve the land after sufficient security had been received, the proctor of the chapter said to the contrary that it was lawful neither for the metropolitan nor another to absolve the land, alleging the tenor of the aforesaid privilege and wishing to produce witnesses concerning this, just as the countess had produced them. Therefore, another day having been assigned to the parties at Noliacum so that they might produce witnesses and exhibit the privilege,] The metropolitan, when the parties were present on the appointed day, having diligently inspected the privilege, received witnesses on each side. After they had been examined by an official of the metropolitan and another day assigned to the parties, the proctor of the countess insistently sought that the depositions received be published, offering abundantly sufficient security to obey the law, so that the sentence of interdict might be relaxed. But the proctor of the chapter alleged to the contrary that by reason of the aforesaid privilege the land could neither be nor ought to be absolved by him unless amends had first been made to the chapter, interpreting that expression contained in the privilege, namely “fitting satisfaction,” as amends. Therefore, after litigation at length concerning a clause of this kind, the aforesaid metropolitan pronounced interlocutorily that he wished to reserve an exposition of this kind to apostolic examination, and concerning this assigned a day to the parties. [Nevertheless, by reason of the aforesaid appeal, he wished to take cognizance by himself or by his official whether those castles had been interdicted unjustly or lawfully. Therefore, when the proctor of the aforesaid countess pressed that, after security had been received and the depositions published, the sentence of interdict be relaxed, the aforesaid Simon, with the proctor of the chapter, sought delays so that they might produce other witnesses to prove that what they had done was just. When these had been granted to him, the proctor of the countess, pressing on the day assigned to the parties concerning this, as he had done more often, sought that the depositions be published and the sentence of interdict relaxed, after security had been received. But the proctor of the chapter, having been asked whether he wished to show through proof before the officials of the aforesaid metropolitan that what the chapter had done concerning this was just, constantly asserted both that he wished to prove nothing and that he would not hear the depositions of the adverse party; but he appealed lest they absolve the land, fixing as the term of his appeal the octave of blessed Martin most recently past. The officials, indeed, attending that an appeal of this kind was not to be deferred to, after receiving security up to one hundred marks to obey the law, absolved the aforesaid land. Therefore the aforesaid Simon, since he did not have the letters of procuration, after assigning as sureties the beloved sons the Abbot of Saint John de Valeta and Thomas, Archdeacon of Dreux, to be condemned in the penalty of one hundred marks if the chapter were unwilling to hold ratified what he himself should do, alleged to the contrary, asserting that, when the aforesaid castles had been interdicted on behalf of the chapter of Chartres, it had been alleged before the metropolitan on behalf of that chapter that by reason of that clause, which is expressed above, he could not and ought not to absolve the land interdicted on their behalf; on account of which he reserved the interpretation of that clause to apostolic examination, but, wishing to take cognizance whether the interdict had been rendered justly or unjustly, assigned a day to the parties. But when the same metropolitan was on the point of coming to the Apostolic See, Master I., his official, whom he had deputed as auditor over the business brought before him, was challenged as suspect by the proctor of the chapter on account of manifest causes which he did not believe to be unknown to the metropolitan himself; but the metropolitan did not remove him altogether from the case, but rather joined to him the Archdeacon of Autun, no mention then having been made of joining another, the parties being present and the archdeacon present and furnishing consent through silence. But afterward the same metropolitan, in place of the archdeacon, as was said by the other party, joined Geoffrey, canon of Sens, if the archdeacon could not be present. Whence the proctor of the chapter, seeing the aforesaid master, who had been challenged, and the said Geoffrey, whom he did not know to have been joined in place of the archdeacon, sitting to take cognizance of the case, asserted that in the absence of the archdeacon he was not bound to answer or make allegations, and contradicted those wishing to proceed without him, interposing a voice of appeal to the Apostolic See. And since it was not lawfully established that Geoffrey had been substituted in place of the archdeacon—through whom the suspicion of Master I. also would not have been suppressed—nor was it canonically manifest that the archdeacon could not be present, those men, namely Master I. and the said Geoffrey, in contempt of the appeal, relaxed the sentence of interdict after receiving security, contrary to the tenor of the privilege of the Church of Chartres and to the prejudice of the interpretation for which the assigned day was pending. Whence the same Simon said that whatever had been done by them concerning this ought to be revoked as void. But the proctors of the aforesaid countess sought that it be opened to them through apostolic interpretation what fitting satisfaction is or how it is to be understood, since on the occasion of this word the canons of Chartres place the land of that countess under interdict when and how they will, and are unwilling that the sentence be relaxed until amends proceed. Moreover, although the countess herself is present in the town that they wish to place under interdict, she is nevertheless neither summoned by them nor lawfully cited; rather, when it pleases them, they summon the provost or one of the bailiffs, saying to him: “Either you will do thus, or we will place the land under a sentence of interdict.” And when it is alleged to them on behalf of the countess that what they seek pertains to the jurisdiction of the countess, and they offer to stand by the mandate of the church, they nevertheless interdict the land. And if at any time someone on behalf of the countess is cited by the ordinary judge concerning this on account of the complaint of the chapter, they do not permit him to answer except in the chapter of Chartres. Whence the proctors themselves sought that justice be exhibited to the countess concerning these grievances and others. We therefore, having diligently heard these and other things that were alleged before the cardinal himself, because it was not established for us whether the appeal was lawful, command your discretion by apostolic writings that, after the parties have been convoked and witnesses received on each side, since the production of witnesses has not yet been renounced on either side, you take care sufficiently to examine the case itself and, with the obstacle of appeal removed, terminate it with a canonical end. But if the chapter is unwilling to hold the act of Simon ratified, by our authority, with the obstacle of appeal removed, you are to condemn the aforesaid sureties to the penalty named and cause what you shall establish to be firmly observed through ecclesiastical censure, reducing to a void whatever was wrongly attempted against the countess herself on behalf of the chapter after her envoys undertook the journey to come to the Apostolic See.] But for understanding the clause of the privilege mentioned, we believe a distinction is to be made whether a sentence of interdict or excommunication was rendered against someone for contumacy alone, namely because, when cited, he was unwilling to stand by the law, or also for an offense, namely because, when commanded, he was unwilling to amend the wrongful act. In the first case we believe that fitting satisfaction is made for a sentence of this kind to be relaxed if sufficient security to stand by the law is first given; but in the second case, if the offense is manifest, we do not believe that fitting satisfaction is made for the sentence to be relaxed unless sufficient amends are first furnished. But if the offense is doubtful, we believe that competent security for obeying the mandate of the church suffices for relaxing the same sentence. [But if, etc. Given at Rome on the Kalends of April, in the eighth year, 1205.]

Latin source headnote: It is summarized in the preceding chapter above; or say: that is called manifest which is established through confession, lawful proof, or the evidence of the thing.

The same, to the Countess of Blois.

Since formerly on behalf of the canons of Chartres a certain chapter was alleged against you, which they said was contained in the privileges of their church—namely, that it is lawful for no one to grant the benefit of absolution, without fitting satisfaction, to persons excommunicated or expressly interdicted on behalf of the canons of Chartres—[because it was brought into question what fitting satisfaction would be, we recall that, for understanding that clause, we made a distinction whether a sentence of interdict or excommunication had been promulgated against someone for contumacy alone, namely because when cited he was unwilling to stand by the law, or also for an offense, namely because when commanded he was unwilling to amend the wrongful act; believing in the first case that fitting satisfaction was made for a sentence of this kind to be relaxed if sufficient security to stand by the law were furnished; but in the second, if the offense were manifest, saying that fitting satisfaction was by no means made for the sentence to be relaxed unless sufficient amends were first exhibited; and if perhaps it were doubtful, deeming it sufficient for relaxing the same sentence if fitting security for obeying the mandate were furnished.] But because, while we loosen a handle, we are not yet said to have bound, on account of the fact that, when those same canons allege, as you assert, that offense to be manifest, it appears manifest not to the judge nor to another but to themselves alone, a greater scruple of a question arose from that expression, namely “manifest”; inclining to your humble prayers, we write back that we understand that offense to be manifest which has become known either through confession or lawful proof, or [even] by the evidence of the thing, which can be concealed by no evasion. [Given at the Lateran, the eighth day before the Kalends of June, in the tenth year, 1207.]

Latin source headnote: The words of privileges ought to be understood so that they assert something and no ambiguity remains; and therefore the words “according to” and “in accordance with” appear to have been added causally, not conditionally. This is what it says, according to Panormitanus.

The same, to the Bishop and Cantor of Arras.

When the abbot of Saint Silvanus at Auchy had formerly entered the way of all flesh, and the monks of that place had elected as abbot a certain person from the bosom of that church, but had been unable in any way to obtain confirmation of that election from the Bishop of Thérouanne of good memory, they sought it from the Apostolic See through their proctor. But the proctor of the monastery of Saint Bertin proposed to the contrary that, since according to approved custom and privileges of the Roman Pontiffs the abbots of Auchy ought always to be taken from the monastery of Saint Bertin, an election of this kind was deservedly to be disapproved, as attempted against long-standing custom and against a privilege of the Apostolic See, and the monks of Auchy ought by law to be compelled to elect for themselves as abbot a suitable person from the monastery of Saint Bertin. (And below:) We therefore, having diligently inspected the depositions of witnesses produced before judges delegated by us, found it to be sufficiently proved that for forty years and less the monks of Auchy had elected for themselves an abbot from the monastery of Saint Bertin, in such manner that within the span of the time written above seven persons were taken from the aforesaid community as abbots of Auchy. (And below:) And when on a certain occasion they had elected Guarin, a monk of Auchy, his election could have no force until, after profession had been made at the monastery of Saint Bertin, after some time, namely when it pleased the abbot and convent of that place, he was taken as abbot of Auchy. From the privileges of the Roman Pontiffs granted to the monastery of Saint Bertin it could also be argued evidently that the abbot of Auchy was to be elected from the college of Saint Bertin. For in a privilege of Pope Paschal of happy memory, our predecessor, a chapter of this kind appears inserted: “We grant that the substitution of the abbot among the monks of Saint Silvanus at Auchy shall always remain in your disposition in accordance with the custom of past time,” to whose words Pope Innocent of good memory, our predecessor, adhered completely. In a privilege of Pope Calixtus II, a chapter of this kind is also found: “Moreover, in accordance with the decree of Pope Paschal, our lord predecessor of holy memory, by apostolic authority we decree that the substitution of the abbot among those of Auchy be made from nowhere other than your monastery.” But to this the opposing party responded that, even if it were proved evidently through the depositions of witnesses that within the aforesaid span of time the abbot of Auchy had always been taken from the monastery of Saint Bertin, nevertheless no prejudice was thereby prepared for the monks of Auchy, since this was done from no necessity, but from free will. (And below:) But it could not be said that from this some custom had been introduced as though by a contradictory judgment, since in the election of the aforesaid Guarin the proceeding is known to have taken place in such a manner outside judgment for the sake of peace. (And below:) Moreover, since Pope Paschal deemed that the substitution of the abbot of Saint Silvanus should be granted to the monastery of Saint Bertin in accordance with the custom of past time, and proof is not made concerning the custom of past time or usage, no prejudice concerning this could be generated for the monastery of Auchy by his privilege and similar ones. To this it was answered to the contrary that this determination, “according to the custom of past time,” can be understood both causally and conditionally, and can be referred as much to a personal as to an impersonal verb. For if it determines the impersonal verb, it is understood conditionally, and such is the sense: “We grant that the substitution of the abbot of Saint Silvanus at the monastery of Auchy shall always consist in your disposition, according to the custom of past time,” that is, if the custom of past time was such. But if it determines the personal verb, it ought to be understood causally, so that the sense is: “We grant according to the custom of past time,” that is, because the custom of past time so obtained, that the substitution namely of the abbot of Saint Silvanus at Auchy shall always consist in your disposition. But this sense appears more correct, because, since a privilege is a private law, and a law ought not to be obscure or captious but certain and manifest, and it would not be private unless it granted something specially, those words assuredly are to be so understood that the matter at issue can be valid rather than perish; especially since the aforesaid Pope C., who succeeded that Paschal as his nearest neighbor, using more equitable words, removed that determination completely so that ambiguity might be removed, and changed what was said in the grant of Paschal—namely, that the substitution of the abbot of Saint Silvanus among those of Auchy should always exist in the disposition of the abbot and brothers of Saint Bertin—decreeing that the substitution of that abbot was to be made from nowhere other than the monastery of Saint Bertin, so that the election could on one side indeed be reduced to the common law. The subsequent custom, which is said to be the best interpreter of laws, also declares that these same words are to be interpreted in this manner. Therefore, having diligently heard these and other things pertaining to the same case, and having understood them perspicaciously, by the counsel of our brothers, we adjudged a dignity of this kind to the monastery of Saint Bertin: that whenever an election of an abbot is imminent in the monastery of Auchy, the monks of Auchy are to elect for themselves as abbot a suitable person from the community of Saint Bertin; namely in such manner that the monastery itself ought to enjoy this prerogative of honor for so long as regular observance flourishes there, so that suitable persons who can be taken as abbot are found in it. [Therefore, the election, etc. Given at the Lateran, the second day before the Kalends of May, in the twelfth year of our pontificate, 1209.]

Latin source headnote: It states who are called manifest heretics. Second, what tolls, escort fees, and salt dues are interdicted. Third, it is stated how the precept made to a layman—that he answer those complaining of him in the ecclesiastical forum—is understood. This is what it says.

The same, to the Count of Toulouse.

Since doubt arose among certain persons concerning some articles of the mandates made to you by Milo of good memory, our notary, then legate of the Apostolic See, your devotion sought from us who are to be called manifest heretics. Concerning this we have deemed that it should be answered to you that in this case those are understood to be manifest heretics who publicly preach against the catholic faith, or profess or defend their error, or who have been convicted or confessed before their prelates, or have been condemned by sentence by them concerning heretical depravity; their own goods are confiscated and they are punished according to lawful sanctions. Moreover, since the legate mentioned interdicted to you tolls, escort fees, [and] salt dues, we have deemed that it should be declared by apostolic authority that those tolls, salt dues, [and] escort fees are interdicted that do not appear to have been granted by the largess of emperors or kings or of the Lateran Council, or to have been introduced by ancient custom from a time of which no memory exists. (And below:) But since you received in mandate from the legate that you exhibit justice to those complaining of you according to his judgment or that of another legate, an ordinary judge, or [even] a delegated judge, we determine that this is to be understood in such a manner that in every case which by reason of persons or things pertains to the ecclesiastical forum, and concerning all the chapters that were established for preserving peace by the already mentioned legate, or are to be established by apostolic authority, likewise to widows, wards, orphans, and miserable persons, you are bound to answer in an ecclesiastical judgment. [We will moreover, etc.; cf. Comp. IV, c. 1, On Census, IV. 18. Given at the Lateran, the tenth day before the Kalends of February, (?) 1210.]

Latin source headnote: A cleric is delivered to the secular court because he is degraded with the secular power present, to which it is announced that it is to receive him into its forum. This is what it says, as far as § “But concerning that man.” - § 1. This section does not pertain to the title, but according to some it states an act of grace.

The same, to the Bishop of Paris.

We know that it is expedient that we explain more openly that expression which is contained [both] in the ancient canons and in our decree also issued against forgers—namely, that a cleric degraded by an ecclesiastical judge is to be delivered to the secular court to be punished. For since certain of our predecessors, when consulted concerning this, gave different answers, and the opinion of certain persons is approved by more persons, that a cleric who has been degraded on account of this or another grave disgrace, not only damnable but harmful, is consequently attached to the secular forum as one stripped of clerical privilege when he has been cast out from the ecclesiastical forum, his degradation is to be celebrated with the secular power present, and it is to be pronounced to it, when the degradation has been celebrated, that it receive the degraded person into its forum; and thus he is understood to be delivered to the secular court. Nevertheless, the church ought efficaciously to intercede for him that the sentence concerning him be moderated short of danger of death. § 1. But concerning that criminal forger whom you caused to be captured at our mandate, we have deemed that you should be counseled to confine him in perpetual prison to do penance, to be sustained on the bread of sorrow and water of distress, so that he may bewail the things committed and not further commit things to be bewailed. [Given at the Lateran, the fourteenth day before the Kalends of March, in the eleventh year of our pontificate, 1209.]

Latin source headnote: If the Pope grants to a defendant, who on account of the absence of the plaintiff cannot recover possession, that the lapse of a year not prejudice him, this indulgence is understood according to the common law.

Honorius III, to the Archbishop of Tours.

The beloved son James Barba, proctor of the Church of Saint Mark of Venice, having formerly humbly supplicated us that, since he was prepared to exhibit to you the fullness of justice concerning the Church of Saint Mark of Tyre and other things about which a question was moved between you and the Venetians and the vicar of the Venetians, we cause the possession of that church—which by Pope I. of happy memory, our predecessor, was assigned to you for the sake of custody—to be restored to him, Because, while you were then absent for a necessary cause, the possession delivered to you for the sake of custody could not be restored to the adverse party, we granted to him that the lapse of time should not obstruct him from being able to recover that possession. But since so much time is said to have elapsed before the grant of that indulgence that it could suffice for you to produce the effect of true possession according to the statutes of the general council, and, if perhaps that time had not elapsed before the aforesaid indulgence, it appears that the same indulgence closes to you the way to true possession, since it is simply contained in it that henceforth the lapse of time is not to obstruct that proctor from being able to recover the possession mentioned, we, whose intention it was to assist the right of the said proctor and that church without injury to you and your church, By the authority of the present letters declare that it was not our intention through that indulgence to extinguish the right that belongs to you from past possession or, after your return, shall belong to you from future possession. For the adverse party will be able to impute it to itself if it has been negligent in prosecuting its justice, since, when the impediment of your absence ceased, it had the faculty of convening you.

Latin source headnote: Under the name of an oblation is understood whatever is offered to a church in any manner, at Mass or outside it, and in a church or outside it.

The same, to the Prior and Clerics of Saints John and Paul at Todi.

When a question was formerly litigated between you on one side and the abbot of Saint P. of Monte in the Diocese of Spoleto on the other concerning the third part of the oblations and possessions of the chapel of Saint Hilary, and of its cells and certain other things, before Angelo of good memory, cardinal deacon of Saint Andrew, then subdeacon and chaplain of Pope I. of happy memory, our predecessor, granted by the same predecessor as auditor to the parties, and it had been proved by you that for forty years and more your church had received the third part of the oblations of that chapel from the clerics instituted by the abbot of Monte, and that he had sometimes committed that same third to you, son prior, to be collected, Pope I. of good memory, our predecessor, adjudging that third to your church, established that it was lawful for you, prior, to collect through those clerics, as had been customary, the part mentioned, as we saw to be contained in the letters of the same predecessor. But because afterward the priest of the aforesaid chapel—asserting that under the name of oblations were by no means contained those things that on the feast of All Saints are sent to that chapel or carried to it or to the house of that priest with a view to the dead; nor those things that are placed in the treasury, which he takes from the altar and causes to be carried through the church fraudulently by someone; and those things before the cross and at the Mass of the Trinity; and those things given for the betrothed; and lamps with oil that are offered to the aforesaid chapel by certain persons; or things that are given to the messenger who is sent through the parish of the aforesaid chapel to receive such things—and denying that the third part of all these should be exhibited to you, endeavored, from other things to be paid under the name of the third part, to retain proportionately what touched your church for making the necessary expenses of the chapel itself, the said predecessor, that every occasion of scandal might be removed, willed and commanded that the third portion be paid integrally, without any subtraction, both from all the things stated above and from oblations and other things. But the chaplains of the aforesaid chapel, wishing still to raise the tinder of another defense, and saying that first fruits and tithes, or those things offered to priests for Masses for the dead, and things for seventh days, thirtieth days, and anniversaries, breads and other things offered within the week, and testamentary dispositions of the dead, are by no means contained under the name of oblations, are unwilling to pay you the third part of all these things. We therefore will and command that, through your cleric instituted by you in the same church, from all the things stated above and from other oblations, by whatever title they have come to the same church, the third portion be paid to you integrally without any diminution.

Latin source headnote: A lawsuit is said to have been moved when issue has been joined.

The same, to Bishop F. and B. Bertrandi.

It was proposed on your behalf before us that the beloved sons, the provost and canons of Arezzo, endeavoring by a sinister interpretation to lead back into the scruple of a renewed question the sentence that Pope I. of happy memory, our predecessor, promulgated concerning the Church of Saint Gregory, certain lands and part of the mills of Cuprene and of Castrosaxo and the mill situated above the bridge of Calianen., and other various articles comprehended in that sentence, between you and their canonry, assert that the chapter of that sentence in which it is said that the canonry itself is not to impede your monastery from being able to rebuild the aforesaid mill of Calianen. in that condition in which it is known to have been at the time of the lawsuit moved, is to be referred to the time when a little stone was cast in denunciation of a new work; while you assert to the contrary that it is to be understood of the time when issue was joined concerning this between you and the aforesaid canonry. Therefore, you humbly supplicated that we deign to decide an altercation of this kind by an interpretation of the chapter stated above. We therefore, having diligently considered the same sentence, interpret what is said in the aforesaid chapter concerning the time of the lawsuit moved to be referred to the time when joinder of issue was made.

Latin source headnote: A constitution of a legate concerning the third part of mortuaries to be paid to the bishop ought to be understood of those mortuaries in which it is owed by common law.

The same, to the Prelates of the Community of the French at Constantinople.

It was proposed on your behalf before us that your patriarch, our venerable brother, on the occasion of a certain constitution that our venerable brother the Bishop of Albano, then legate of the Apostolic See in the parts of Romania, issued concerning the legacies of the deceased, and which the beloved son I., cardinal priest of the title of Saint Praxedes, renewed while he discharged the office of legation there, unduly exacts from you a third part of certain things that are bequeathed by dying persons to you and your churches. Therefore, since they, as we learned from their interpretation, did not understand that any portion ought to be paid to the cathedral church from those things that are bequeathed in ecclesiastical ornaments, or for the fabric of a church in need of repair, or for the lights of the church, nor also from those things that are bequeathed for an anniversary, seventh, thirtieth, and twentieth day to be performed, or from those that are bequeathed by anyone to persons specially, unless perhaps this is done by reason of the church, we, holding their interpretation ratified, command that the aforesaid constitution be observed according to it, firmly prohibiting anyone from fraudulently procuring anything in the aforesaid matters to the prejudice of the cathedral church.

Latin source headnote: In a privilege concerning receipt of the fruits of benefices, the appellation of benefices comprehends even greater benefices when the privilege is granted to a bishop for an honorable and favorable cause. This is what it says, with the supplement of Panormitanus.

The same, to the Bishop of Toulon.

Your fraternity intimated to us that, since for the relief of the burden of debts by which you are oppressed we deemed that it should be granted to you that it be lawful for you to retain for two years the fruits of benefices that happen in the meantime to become vacant in your diocese, certain persons, endeavoring by a sinister interpretation to restrict the privilege of apostolic grace, assert that prebends and greater benefices are by no means contained under the name of benefices; concerning this you sought an apostolic interpretation. We therefore, rejecting the opinion of interpreters of this kind, declare by the authority of the present letters that in this case prebends and other benefices are contained under the general name of benefices.

Latin source headnote: The word “moderation” contains diminution, not augmentation.

Gregory IX, to the Dean and Sacristan of Engo.

The letters transmitted to us contained that, when the bishop and chapter of Saintes signified that the number of forty canons instituted in their church could not be observed because the resources of the church did not suffice, we gave you in mandate that, moderating the number of canons and prebends in accordance with the resources of the church, you establish that it be firmly observed. But you found that the resources of the aforesaid church had increased so greatly from the time when the number was established that a greater number could be maintained in it without mutilation of the prebends; therefore you asked whether by the word “moderation” added to our letters you ought to augment or diminish that number. Therefore we command that, if the old prebends have not been diminished, since moderation has no place, you leave their number and the number of canons in the same condition in which it is known to have existed hitherto, converting the increase of their revenues to the benefit of that church until we deem that it should be disposed otherwise.