Question I

GRATIAN. PART I. That the clerics cannot claim the tithes for themselves in full by the authority of that privilege is proved from this: according to the decrees of the holy Fathers, tithes are divided into four parts, of which one part is assigned to bishops, the second to clerics, the third to restoring buildings, and the fourth to the poor. But no one ought to observe the decrees of the holy canons more than the Apostolic. Hence Pope Gelasius says, [in the epistle to the bishops of Dardania]:

We trust that no one who is truly a Christian is now ignorant that, before the other sees, none ought more to execute the constitution of each synod that the consent of the universal church has approved than the first see, which has both confirmed each synod by its authority and preserves it with continuous moderation.

Likewise Pope Leo, [epistle 4 to the bishops of Sicily]. We are incited by divine precepts and apostolic admonitions to watch over the condition of all the churches with an untiring disposition and, if anything is ever found liable to reproof, to recall it either from the unskillfulness of ignorance or from the usurpation of presumption. For by the command of the divine voice, by which the most blessed Apostle is instructed through a threefold repetition in mystical ordinances that he who loves Christ should feed Christ’s sheep, we are exhorted by reverence for that see over which, through the abundance of divine grace, we preside, to avoid as far as we can the danger of sloth, lest the profession of the supreme Apostle, by which he testified that he loved the Lord, be found not to be in us, because one who negligently feeds the Lord’s flock so often commended to him is proved not to love the supreme Shepherd.

The same to Bishop Anatolius, [epistle 51]. Let those things that have been ordained generally for perpetual advantage be varied by no change, nor let those things established for the common good be drawn to private advantage; but with the boundaries that the Fathers established remaining, let no one unjustly usurp what belongs to another, but let each person exercise himself in the breadth of charity within his own proper and lawful bounds, as he shall be able.

Likewise Pope Hilary, [in the Roman Synod, c. 1]. Let it be lawful for no one, without danger to his status, to violate either divine constitutions or the decrees of the Apostolic See, because the guilt of such transgressions will regard us, who administer the offices of the most powerful priest, if we are found slothful in the causes of God, for we remember how God threatens the negligence of priests, which we ought to fear. Indeed, one who enjoys higher honor commits a greater offense by his guilt, and the loftiness of those sinning makes the vices of sinners more grave.

Likewise Pope Damasus. Voluntary violators of the canons are judged gravely by the holy Fathers and are condemned by the Holy Spirit—by whose inspiration and gift they were dictated—because those who, not compelled by necessity but willingly, as was said above, act or presume to speak anything insolently against those same sacred canons, or freely consent to those who wish to do so, appear not unfittingly to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. For such presumption is manifestly one kind of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, because, as has already been touched upon, it acts against him by whose exertion and grace the holy canons were issued.

Likewise Pope Urban. There are some who say that it has always been lawful for the Roman Pontiff to establish new laws. This we not only do not deny, but also affirm very strongly. Yet it must above all be known that he can establish new laws concerning those matters about which the Evangelists said nothing at all. But where the Lord or his Apostles, and the holy Fathers following them, have openly defined something by a sentence, there the Roman Pontiff ought not to give a new law, but rather to confirm what has been preached even unto soul and blood. For if he should attempt—which may it not be—to destroy what the Apostles and Prophets taught, he would be proved not to give a sentence but rather to err. But let this be far from those who have always guarded the Lord’s church most excellently against the snares of wolves.

Likewise Pope Zosimus. Not even the authority of this see can grant or alter anything contrary to the statutes of the Fathers. For among us antiquity lives with unshaken roots, and the decrees of the Fathers have sanctioned reverence for it.

Likewise Pope Marcellinus, [epistle 2]. The Catholic Church defends everything that is irreprehensible. And below: § 1. Let an unjust judgment and an unjust definition ordained by judges through royal fear or command have no force. What has been done contrary to evangelical, prophetic, or apostolic teaching or their constitution, or that of the holy Fathers, will by no means stand; and what has been done by unbelievers or heretics will be made wholly void.

Likewise Pope Hormisdas, [to the bishops of Spain]. The first salvation is to preserve the rule of right faith and in no way to deviate from the constitutions of the Fathers.

Likewise Pelagius to King Childebert. We must endeavor, in order to remove the scandal of suspicion, to render the service of our confession to the laws to which sacred Scripture commands that even we be subject. For when Rufinus, a magnificent man and legate of Your Excellency, came, he confidently requested of us, as was fitting, that we ought either to signify to you that the Tome of Pope Leo of blessed memory is preserved by us in all things, or to send a confession of our faith in our own words. And because the first part of his request was easier, we fulfilled it at once, as he said, and by a profession of our own hand we signified to you that, with God’s favor, I preserve in all things the Tome written by the Prelate for the assertion of the Catholic faith. But so that no occasion for suspicion—which may it not be—might thereafter remain, I hastened also to do that other part of which the aforesaid illustrious man admonished me: namely, I set forth in my own words the confession of faith that we hold.

Likewise Pope Hadrian, [in the Capitularies, last chapter]. By a general decree we establish that whoever among kings, bishops, or powerful persons shall henceforth believe or permit the censure of the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs to be violated in anything shall be made an execrable anathema and shall always stand guilty before God as a transgressor of the Catholic faith.

Likewise Pope Damasus to Archbishop Stephen. We command that all decretal constitutions of all our predecessors that have been promulgated concerning ecclesiastical orders and the disciplines of the canons ought so generally to be observed by all bishops and priests that, if they commit anything against them, they should know that pardon concerning their honor will thereafter be denied them.

Likewise Gregory, [Book II, epistle 7, to Bishop John]. We sanction these things by a definition consonant with the holy Fathers: one who does not know how to obey the sacred canons is worthy neither to minister at the sacred altars nor to receive communion there.

Likewise from the Council of Chalcedon, [c. 1]. We establish that the rules brought forth until now by the holy Fathers in each synod are to be maintained.

Likewise Gregory to Montanus and Thomas, [Book V, epistle 12]. The order of justice and reason counsels that one who desires his commands to be observed by his successors should without doubt preserve the will and statutes of his predecessor.

Likewise Leo IV. We have therefore been made pastors of human beings by the Lord’s permission, so that we ought in no way to transgress what our Fathers established either in the holy canons or in worldly laws. For we act contrary to their most salutary institutes if we do not preserve inviolate what they established by divine counsel. PART II. GRATIAN. Therefore, if the first see ought to observe the statutes of councils before all others; if it is necessary for it to watch over the condition of all the churches with an untiring disposition; if it is fitting that the things decreed by the Roman Pontiffs be observed by all; if those who do not know how to obey the sacred canons ought not to minister at the altars: it is evident that privileges by which the condition of the churches is confounded or disturbed ought not to be granted by the Apostolic contrary to the statutes of the holy canons. § 1. To these things answer is made thus: the sacrosanct Roman Church imparts right and authority to the sacred canons, but is not bound by them. For she possesses the right to establish canons, inasmuch as she is the head and hinge of all the churches, from whose rule no one is permitted to dissent. She therefore furnishes authority to the canons in such a way that she does not subject herself to them. But just as Christ, who gave the law, fulfilled that law carnally—being circumcised on the eighth day and presented with offerings in the temple on the fortieth day—so that he might sanctify it in himself, yet afterward, in order to show himself Lord of the law, cleansed a leper by touching him contrary to the letter of the law, and also excused the Apostles who, contrary to the letter of the sabbath, passed through the grainfields, plucked ears, and rubbed them in their hands, by the approved example of David, circumcision, and the temple, saying: “Have you not read what Abimelech did when David came to him, and he gave him the loaves of proposition, from which it was not lawful for any but the priests alone to eat, and he himself and his servants ate?” Likewise, a boy is circumcised on the eighth day according to the law, and you circumcise a man on the sabbath. Likewise, since a continual holocaust was offered under the law, and since, according to the law’s command, a male on the fortieth day and a female on the eightieth day from the beginning of birth was presented with offerings in the temple—whence the priests offering sacrifices in the temple relax the letter of the sabbath and are without crime—then much more can the Son of Man relax the letter of the law, who is Lord even of the sabbath. Hence it is also said of him: “Jesus was teaching as one having authority,” that is, as Lord of the law, adding to the moral precepts those things that were lacking for perfection, changing the shadow of figurative things into the light of spiritual understanding, not as their scribes, who, bound by the letter of the law, did not dare to add or alter anything. Thus also the pontiffs of the supreme see show reverence to canons established by themselves or by others through their authority, and by humbling themselves to them they observe those canons, so that they may present them to others as things to be observed. Sometimes, however, whether by commanding, defining, decreeing, or acting otherwise, they show themselves to be lords and founders of the decrees. In the chapters set forth above, therefore, the necessity of obeying is imposed upon others, but the authority of observing is shown to belong to the supreme Pontiffs, so that by observing what was handed down by them they may demonstrate to others that it is not to be contemned, after the example of Christ, who first received in himself the sacraments that he commanded the church to observe, so that he might sanctify them in himself. Therefore, as we have said, the first see ought to observe the things that it commanded by decreeing, not through the necessity of obeying but through the authority of imparting. It is therefore lawful for it to grant special privileges contrary to general decrees and by a special benefit to grant what is prohibited by a general decree. § 2. Although, if we diligently attend to the intention of the decrees, they are found to grant nothing at all contrary to the authority of the holy canons. For the sacred canons constitute something in such a way as to reserve the authority of their interpretation to the holy Roman Church. Indeed, those alone can interpret the canons who possess the right to establish them. Hence in some chapters of councils, when something is decreed to be observed, it is immediately added: “Unless the authority of the Roman Church shall have commanded otherwise,” or: “The right of the holy Roman Church nevertheless being preserved in all things,” or: “The apostolic authority nevertheless being preserved in all things.” Therefore, whatever is defined by the sacred canons concerning tithes or any ecclesiastical affairs is to be understood as necessarily observed unless the authority of the Roman Church commands or permits it to be done otherwise. Therefore, when certain privileges are granted to some persons by the Apostolic, although they appear to sound something contrary to the general law, they are nevertheless not understood to grant anything contrary to that law, since by the authority of the law itself the privileges of individuals are reserved to the mother of all the churches. For privileges would not be granted to anyone if nothing special beyond the general law were granted to anyone. Indeed, they are called privileges as though private laws, because they generate a private law for individuals. Gregory, intimating this distinction, says: “If you claim this neither by general custom nor by privilege, it remains that you have usurped what you did.” § 3. Likewise Jerome in his exposition of Jonah, [on c. 1]: “The privileges of individuals cannot make a common law.” § 4. Therefore, as is gathered from the foregoing, the holy Roman Church has power to fortify any persons with her privileges and to grant certain things beyond the general decrees by a special benefit, provided nevertheless that the equity of reason is considered, so that she who is the mother of justice may be found to dissent from it in nothing—namely, so that privileges granted for the sake of religion, necessity, or service rendered do not, by relieving anyone, make him so rich that, through failure to consider the losses of many, they cast some into the misery of poverty—calling to mind that saying of the Apostle, who wrote to the Corinthians: “For we do not wish that there be relief for others but tribulation for you.” The sacred law of the princes, agreeing with this, says: “We command that rescripts elicited contrary to law be rejected by all judges, unless perhaps there is something that does not injure another and benefits the petitioner, or grants indulgence for a crime to the suppliants.” § 5. Likewise a constitution of the emperor to the people: “Neither things harmful to the fisc nor things contrary to law ought to be requested.” § 6. Therefore, the clerics of this baptismal church, fortified by the authority of the privilege, can claim for themselves in full the tithes of their diocese, unless perhaps the bishops are compelled by extreme necessity to receive their quarter and those clerics are shown to possess a surplus.