Title XXXII: On Notification of a New Work

Latin source headnote: Even a church built after notification of a new work is to be destroyed at the builder's expense. It says this together with the following chapter.

Lucius III, to the Bishop of Padua.

We have understood from your letters that, when the cause which is pending between our beloved sons, the prior of Saint Cyprian of Venice and the clerics of Rodigio, concerning a chapel which was constructed by those clerics to the prejudice of the baptismal church of Costa, as the account of the same prior demonstrated to us, had been delegated to your fraternity by the Apostolic See to be terminated by a canonical conclusion, the parties having been summoned to your presence, it became sufficiently known to you through witnesses that the aforesaid church of Rodigo had begun to build that chapel after an appeal had been made to us and notification of the new work had been given; and on this account the aforesaid prior sought in judgment that whatever had been done in the often-mentioned chapel after the appeal had been made to us and after notification of the new work had been given should be demolished altogether. Concerning this it seemed doubtful to your discretion whether one could proceed to these things by canonical judgment, [and], since nothing concerning notification of a new work has been defined in the canons, you determined that the Apostolic See was to be consulted. But because, just as human laws do not disdain to imitate the sacred canons, so also the statutes of the sacred canons are aided by the constitutions of former princes, by the present letters we command your fraternity that, diligently considering that whatever is built after notification of a new work, whether by right or by wrong, ought according to legal constitutions to be demolished, and because no church is to be constructed to the prejudice of another, you do not delay in terminating the matter itself according to the statutes of the laws and canons, appeal being removed, having associated prudent men with you. For since we believe you skilled in both laws, we deemed it safer for the cause to be terminated through your solicitude—you who will be able more fully to know the truth from the statements of the parties and the bounds and limits of the places—than for anything to be defined by us while we are ignorant of the character of the matter.

Latin source headnote: It is summarized in the first chapter above.

Innocent III, to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Since by the office of the apostolate committed [to us, although undeserving, we hold the place of Him who, according to the prophetic word, delivered the poor man from the powerful and the needy man who had no helper, it is fitting that we strive with diligent effort lest lesser persons be oppressed by greater ones, but that prelates so exercise the jurisdiction received over their subjects that they are proved to benefit rather than to preside. Therefore, attending to these things according to the debt of our office,] by a strict command [we long ago] ordered you that, in the affair of the chapel of Lamhee, according to the form contained in the apostolic letters, you cease altogether from oppression of the monks of Canterbury. [Concerning this, our beloved sons B., Abbot of Boxleia, and W., Abbot of Ponte Roberti, your envoys, coming to our presence, endeavored in many ways to excuse your fraternity. In the first place, they alleged that, when Theobald of good memory, Archbishop of Canterbury, and the glorious Thomas, his successor, considering that no one serving as a soldier for God entangles himself in secular affairs, and being unwilling that the monks of Canterbury, abandoning the divine offices, should transfer themselves to secular affairs, had had the will and purpose to build a church in honor of Stephen the Protomartyr and to ordain secular clerics in it, revenues being assigned to them from their proceeds and churches, through whom they could expedite their affairs both at the Apostolic See and before secular courts, the hasty death of the first and the long exile of the second impeded their laudable purpose, as was more fully contained and expressed in the letters of our venerable brother I., formerly Archbishop of Lyons, which were recited in our presence and that of our brothers. Baldwin of good memory, Archbishop of Canterbury, succeeding them as much in purpose as in office and in will as in dignity, began to build a church near the suburb of the city of Canterbury, at a distance of about three or four stadia, in honor of the aforesaid protomartyr and blessed Thomas, an indulgence for this having first been obtained from Pope Urban, our predecessor of happy memory. By his authority it was granted to him that he could both build a church in honor of those martyrs and ordain suitable persons for whom he would provide canonically in ecclesiastical benefices, yet so that the churches should by no means be defrauded of the services owed and the necessary stipends. And although that Urban had repeatedly directed letters against the said B., your predecessor, concerning demolition of the work, they said that, because he made no mention in them of the indulgence already granted, no derogation whatever had been made to it by repeated rescripts; they alleged, moreover, that those rescripts had been obtained both by false suggestion and with the truth suppressed, and had not come to the knowledge of the archbishop himself. Whence, if he had not obeyed them, he could not rightly be reprehended. They likewise produced in their own favor a rescript of Pope Gregory, our predecessor of holy memory, who, although he had granted by general letters that rescripts obtained within three months before the death of the aforesaid Urban, his predecessor, should possess the same firmness, notwithstanding the death of the mandator, that they ought to have possessed if he were then living, nevertheless was unwilling that matters touching the archbishop himself and his clerics be included under the aforesaid generality. By this rescript, they said, he had plainly derogated from his predecessor's letters, which he had directed against the archbishop at the instance of the monks. They said that those letters, and also those of Clement of good memory, his successor, who had been his imitator in this matter, had been wholly derogated from by an amicable settlement then made, by the will of the parties, between the archbishop and the aforesaid monks through our most dear son in Christ R., the illustrious King of the English, our venerable brother Walter, Archbishop of Rouen, and certain bishops and abbots. For when, in the time of the aforesaid B., Archbishop of Canterbury, the aforesaid king, archbishop, bishops, and abbots had come to Canterbury, the parties submitted to them by compromise both the construction of that church and the institution of the prior and certain other questions. They, after diligent deliberation had first been taken, judged together that the archbishop himself had reasonably built the aforesaid church. Nevertheless, for the good of peace, at the instance of the aforesaid king and also of the others, he granted that he would transfer the college of canons to another place which he should choose as suitable. Therefore, your said envoys alleged that by this settlement the monks had renounced the preceding rescripts obtained from the Apostolic See, since thereafter the said archbishop, leaving the former place where he could not build without scandal to the monks, transferred his purpose to the place of Lamhee, fifty miles distant from the city of Canterbury, where he began to build a church, as he had before, in honor of the aforesaid martyrs, so that because of the exceedingly great distance between the places no material for complaint would remain to the monks. Afterward, succeeding him, you wished to perfect what had been done less fully by him; and they endeavored to show that this was lawful for you by the rescript of the letters of Pope Celestine, our predecessor of good memory, who in the seventh and final year of his pontificate, in order to allay every discord between the churches of Canterbury and Lamhee and lest the canons of Lamhee possess the faculty of rising against the cathedral church, granted you free faculty to arrange the church of Lamhee itself internally and externally, notwithstanding letters obtained for our venerable brother the Bishop of Chichester and our beloved sons the Abbots of Waltham and Reading. Therefore, they said that through these letters his preceding writings, which seemed contrary to them, were wholly revoked. Thus your said envoys strove to prove their position through the laudable purpose of the aforesaid pontiffs Theobald and the glorious martyr Thomas, through the indulgences and rescripts of the Roman Pontiffs Urban, Gregory, and Celestine, and through the aforesaid settlement made by the will of the parties. But on the part of the monks the foregoing arguments were answered in order as follows: that we could not and ought not judge concerning the hidden wills of men, which the Lord who searches the reins and hearts reserved to Himself alone, nor were they able to answer such matters, the allegation of which in judgment was nothing other than to divine the secrets of hearts. Indeed, they said that by the indulgence of Pope Urban, our predecessor, which we mentioned above, no derogation whatever had been made to their right, because the canonical assignment of benefices through it was reserved to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who according to canonical constitution could not proceed without the deliberation and assent of the monks; far from consenting to his deed in this matter, they had even expressly contradicted it, as subsequent events showed, and they still persevered in the same purpose. With them thus contradicting, the judgment of the superior was to have been awaited. They endeavored to show the same thing also by this argument: that according to legitimate sanctions, if at any time a principal benefit is granted to someone—for example, the free making of a testament—nothing else seems to be granted than that he may make a testament in a legitimate and also customary manner. Likewise, one who obtained from a prince that he might build in a public place will not be able to build to another's inconvenience unless this very thing also was sought and granted by the prince. They further asserted that derogation had been made from the aforesaid indulgence by the subsequent executory letters of Urban himself, by which he willed that the work itself be held accursed and profane. They alleged that, whether the indulgence had been shown before Urban himself, it was altogether abrogated, since notwithstanding it the demolition of the church itself had been commanded; or whether it had been omitted, this ought to be imputed to its holder, since it is provided even by civil law that lawsuits ought not to be restored under pretext of instruments discovered afterward. They wished to prove the same thing by the letters of Pope Clement, our predecessor of pious memory. When the envoys of the parties were established in his presence, because the said B., your predecessor, had wished contumaciously and pertinaciously to complete the accursed and profane work, he, after the example of Pope Urban, his predecessor, strictly commanded the aforesaid archbishop, on the counsel of his brothers, to take care to demolish without any delay whatever he had done in the named church, revoking altogether as invalid whatever had been wrongly attempted concerning the institution of canons and other matters. There, whether the aforesaid indulgence had been omitted or even alleged, for the reason stated above it could not impede their claim. They said that their party could be burdened in no respect by the settlement itself, which we mentioned above, since it had been violently extorted through fear of the king. For when Pope Clement, our aforesaid predecessor, in order to allay the discord arisen between the archbishop and the monks of Canterbury, had specially sent into England John of Anagni of good memory, then Cardinal Priest of the title of Saint Mark and legate of the Apostolic See, but afterward Bishop of Palestrina, after he crossed there, it was brought about by the procurement of the said B., Archbishop of Canterbury, that he was held at the port of Dover against his will for many days, which redounded to the grave injury of the Roman Church. Nor was he permitted to proceed to Canterbury before the monks suffered force and were compelled to sustain all things in the peace which they made with the archbishop through the said King of the English, who at the same time had come to Canterbury with his bishops. Therefore, when he heard this while situated nearby, and afterward knew it while present at Canterbury, he took care to commit it to writing so that the truth of the matter might become known to all and so that what had been done might not generate prejudice to the justice of the monks. And if the archbishop himself or any of his successors should at any time produce a writing concerning the form of the peace, it would be known to all that it had been composed without the consent or knowledge of the brothers of the said church and had not been exhibited to him when he requested it, although he had been sent to the cause by the Supreme Pontiff. Whence he ought either to have confirmed the transaction if it accorded with justice, or, if it had been done otherwise, to have invalidated it. Thus, therefore, knowing that manifest violence had intervened in that deed, by the apostolic authority with which he functioned he established that neither the settlement thus made nor the compromise violently extorted nor any writing thus composed should be valid, and that it should bring no prejudice to those monks in the future, since all things had been completed in his presence and against his contradiction, as is contained in his public letters, which we caused to be recited before us. After these things, when Pope Celestine of good memory, our predecessor, by apostolic authority revoked as invalid all things that had been done by force or fear against the monks by the aforesaid Archbishop B., he expressly decreed to lack force those things in particular which were alleged to have been done against the command of the Apostolic See while the legate of the Roman Church was present and contradicting, as they were contained and expressed in the authentic instrument of the same legate, namely I. of Anagni, formerly Cardinal Priest, who had been sent into England on account of the cause itself, and whatever the same archbishop had obtained contrary to the right of the monks or the tenor of the privileges of the Apostolic See. He further established that no man should draw into precedent those things which he had wrongly done, and that those things which he had obtained from the Apostolic See with the truth suppressed should at no time generate prejudice in any matter to the right or privileges of the monks, just as was established to us and our brothers from the contents of those letters. The monks also asserted that from the very greater distance of the place a greater prejudice had been generated against them, because, since secular clerics were said by your envoys to have been summoned to supply their default, the affairs of the church of Canterbury could scarcely be managed through nearby clerics while the monks were absent, whereas, with those clerics situated far away and the absence of the monks seized as an opportunity, the affairs would be transacted without the monks' knowledge and while they were altogether unconsulted, whence the church of Canterbury would incur loss and damage. Thus nothing accrued to them through this, since the same cause for contradiction remained. They further asserted that the final rescript of the said Pope Celestine, our predecessor, lacked force, as having been surreptitiously obtained through suppression of the truth, since in it no mention was made of the commands that had proceeded from Pope Urban and Clement, nor even of that confirmation which he himself had granted concerning the quashing of the aforesaid settlement, and especially since he is said to have granted that rescript at a time when sickness oppressed him exceedingly. To found their position, those monks produced the rescripts of the aforesaid Roman Pontiffs Urban, Clement, and Celestine, and also our own after those, by which it was commanded most urgently that whatever had been attempted concerning the aforesaid chapel should be held invalid and void.] But when the things we have premised had been prudently alleged by the envoys in our presence and that of our brothers, we, who have received a time for judging justice, wishing to adhere to the footsteps of Him with whom there is no acceptance of persons, whose place, although unworthy, we hold on earth, and so to walk prudently on the royal road that we turn neither to the right nor to the left, and, believing that our predecessors Urban, Clement, and Celestine also were to be imitated more fully, especially in those things which they established after prior deliberation, on the common counsel of our brothers, by apostolic writings command your fraternity and strictly enjoin upon you in virtue of obedience that, every contradiction, excuse, and appeal ceasing, within thirty days after receipt of the present letters, at your expense you cause to be demolished altogether whatever was built in the church of Lamech after notification of the new work—(notwithstanding even if you shall have been absent [from your church], since it is also provided by a legitimate sanction that, if one to whom a new work had been notified builds before remission and then begins to bring an action that he has a right to possess what was thus built, the action ought to be denied him)—altogether reducing to invalidity whatever is known to have been ordained by you or your predecessor concerning the institution of canons there and other things pertaining to that church, their revenues being recalled to their former state. We command that those canons, because they were instituted there, be declared by you, on our authority, absolved from the obligation of the oath rendered. For since the principal matter does not now stand, whatever followed from it or on account of it we decree under the aforesaid strictness is to be invalidated, as has been sanctioned by canonical and civil tradition. [Furthermore, the clerics who celebrated divine offices in that chapel after the apostolic prohibitions, as we commanded through our other writings, you shall hold as suspended until they have made competent satisfaction concerning this. Nor shall you delay in restoring to the said monks all things that were attempted to their burden—namely by the seizure of presents, churches, and other things—which they possessed before the appeal; and henceforth, on occasion of this affair, you shall not presume to innovate anything concerning the state of the monastery against our prohibition. But if (which we do not believe) you shall either contemn or delay to fulfill our command as was premised, you shall know yourself from that time suspended from pontifical office, and for contempt of the apostolic command we will that you come to our presence to answer. By the counsel of our brothers, strictly enjoining in virtue of obedience, we also command our venerable brothers, the suffragans of the church of Canterbury, that, unless you bring our command into effect within the aforesaid time, they render you no obedience or reverence, because it is just that one who scorns to obey his own prelate should not be obeyed by his subjects. But if perhaps not even thus shall we be able to recall you to the good of obedience—for which evil is never committed, but good ought often to be left undone—you shall know that a greater punishment threatens you, since wounds that do not feel the medicine of poultices must be cut away with iron. Indeed, concerning the aforesaid matters, in which with a safe conscience we could not proceed in another manner, we ask your fraternity not to be saddened in any way, because (God being witness) they proceeded not from any indignation, but because, although insufficient, we have been established in the seat of justice, whence we are bound to preserve the rights of each person unimpaired. We could not, without grave offense to the Creator, show favor to your fraternity, which we embrace very sincerely, since we hold you among our brothers and fellow bishops as an honorable member and an immovable column in the house of the Lord. Nor can you impute anything to us in this matter, since, according to canonical tradition, when counsel cannot be given to anyone except by sinning, then a man ought to judge that he has nothing he may do. It is also found in the secular laws that those things which in deed injure our piety, reputation, and modesty, and generally those things which are opposed to good morals, are to be believed things which we cannot do.] Concerning this also we cannot sufficiently marvel: although the said church had now long been, as it were, a stone of offense and a rock of scandal, on account of which we and our predecessors were so gravely moved against you and your predecessors, and the religious men, equally prudent, the monks of Canterbury, who abandoned all things for Christ, did not hesitate frequently to expose their persons and property to so many labors and pains, so many fears and perils—which without doubt neither the former nor the latter, as was said, would have done unless they knew that the aforesaid matters looked to the grave detriment of the church of Canterbury—to omit other things, at least for the avoidance of so grave a scandal to your neighbors you did not cease from things of this kind that had even been prohibited to you, although you ought to have learned from the testimony of sacred scripture that, while those works which cannot be omitted without mortal sin are not to be abandoned to avoid scandal, nor ought those things which cannot be committed without mortal sin to be committed to avoid scandal, nevertheless one must cease, for the removal of scandal, from those things which can equally be committed and omitted without mortal sin, and one must also persevere in them for the avoidance of scandal. Whence the Apostle says: “If a brother is scandalized, I will not eat flesh forever”; and the Lord in the Gospel says against those who furnish the material of scandal: “Woe to that man through whom scandal comes; it is better for him that an ass's millstone be hung about his neck and that he be sunk into the deep.” And although the scandal of the greater is to be avoided, the scandal of the little ones is also to be avoided, according to the testimony of Truth: “Whoever shall scandalize,” He says, “one of these least little ones who believe in me, etc.” Therefore, let an end henceforth be imposed by you upon the things that have been premised in such a way that the rebellion of past contradiction may not undeservedly be expiated through the virtue of subsequent obedience. [Given at the Lateran, on the Kalends of December, in the first year of our pontificate, 1198.]

Latin source headnote: It is in the option of one notifying a new work whether he ought within three months to show his own prejudice, and meanwhile work is to cease, or whether, after security for demolishing the work has been received, he permits building to proceed at once. It says this together with the following chapter.

Honorius III.

From the report of the canons of Saint Opportuna of Paris, it became known to us that, concerning the fact that N. Rufus, a citizen of Paris, was building in a certain open place belonging to their church, situated within their cloister, to their prejudice and burden although they prohibited it, they lodged a complaint before the official of the Archdeacon of Paris. They offered immediately to prove the prejudice and that the open place belonged to their church, and further petitioned that the building be prohibited notwithstanding that the said N. offered security for demolishing the work. And because the same official decreed by an interlocutory ruling that their proofs were to be admitted and that meanwhile rest was to be taken from the work, the same N. appealed to the church of Sens. But when the official of Sens, a kinsman of the aforesaid Nicholas, after revoking that interlocutory ruling solely at the choice of his own will, decreed that, without their proofs having been admitted, the work was to proceed under security for demolishing it, the aforesaid canons appealed to our hearing, whence they petitioned that we command their proofs to be received and the building to be prohibited. Therefore, by apostolic writings we command your discretion that, if it is so, after revoking as invalid whatever you shall find to have been rashly attempted after an appeal of this kind, you establish concerning this what shall be just, appeal being set aside, causing etc.

Latin source headnote: It is summarized in the preceding chapter.

Gregory IX.

The person to whom you allege that you notified a new work is bound, notwithstanding the security which is offered by him for destroying the work if it is found not to have been built by right, to wait for you for the space of three months while you wish to prove the prejudice to your right.