Question IV

GRATIAN. That he ought not to be condemned without a synodal hearing is proved by the authority of Pope Julius, who says [letter I]:

Let no bishop assailed concerning certain criminal charges be heard, judged, or condemned except in a lawful synod convened at its proper time by apostolic authority. But if anything has been presumed otherwise by certain persons, let what they have done be reduced to nothing and in no way be reckoned among ecclesiastical statutes.

Likewise Zephyrinus, Bishop of the city of Rome, to all Bishops, [letter I]. If it is necessary, let every accused bishop choose twelve judges by whom his case is to be judged; nor shall he be heard, excommunicated, or judged before they are chosen by him personally and, after he has been regularly summoned to the assembly first of his own bishops, his case is justly heard and reasonably decided by them. But the conclusion of his case shall be referred to the apostolic see, so that it may be terminated there, and it shall not be concluded before it is supported by its authority. GRATIAN. That a bishop is prohibited from being condemned without a synodal hearing must be understood without prejudice to the Roman see, which by its own authority is able to condemn any persons or absolve those condemned. Hence Gelasius: “They themselves are the canons, etc.” below, in the cause: “Marked by a sentence of excommunication.” § 1. Likewise Hadrian, [c. 8]: “With the primacy of the Roman Church preserved in all things, it is manifest that the synod of each province shall administer those things which are within that province, as is established to have been decreed in the Council of Nicaea.” But when the accused has come to the council, whatever is transacted in the deliberations of those sitting or is proposed by the accusing party shall be put forward not with contentious voices but with a most gentle account of words. Hence it is read in the Eleventh Council of Toledo, [c. 1]:

While the Lord's priests are sitting in the place of blessing, no one ought either to make a clamor with indiscreet voices or to disturb it with any tumults; no one is even to be occupied with vain tales or laughter, or—which is worse—to pour forth tumultuous voices in obstinate disputes. “For if anyone,” as the Apostle says, “thinks himself to be religious, not bridling his tongue but deceiving his heart, this man's religion is vain.” For justice loses its worship when the whirlwind of those making a clamor confounds the silences of judgment, as the Prophet says: “The worship of justice shall be silence.” Therefore, whatever is transacted in the deliberations of those sitting or is proposed by the accusing party ought to be put forward with such a most gentle account of words that neither may contentious voices disturb the understanding of the hearers nor may they weaken the vigor of judgment by tumult. Therefore, whoever in the assembly of a council believes that he may violate these things set forth above, and disturbs the council contrary to these prohibitions by tumult, insults, or laughter, in accordance with the edict of divine law which commands, “Cast out the scoffer, and contention shall go out with him,” let him, dragged from the session with every disgrace, withdraw from the common assembly and bear a sentence of excommunication for three days.