distinction — Decretum of Gratian
Distinction X
GRATIAN. The enactments of princes do not take precedence over ecclesiastical enactments, but are subordinate to them. Hence Pope Nicholas writes to the bishops gathered at the council at Convicinum:
GRATIANUS. Constitutiones uero principum ecclesiasticis constitutionibus non preminent, sed obsecuntur. Unde Nicolaus Papa scribit episcopis in Concilio apud Conuicinum congregatis:
Friedberg, col. 19/20
C. I. The law of emperors cannot dissolve ecclesiastical laws.
The law of emperors is not to be used in all ecclesiastical controversies, especially since it is found sometimes to oppose evangelical and canonical sanction. The same: The law of emperors is not above God’s law, but beneath it. Ecclesiastical laws cannot be dissolved by an imperial judgment. §1. To demonstrate this, the testimonies of these two, namely Innocent and Gregory, are quite sufficient. Saint Innocent indeed says in his decretal epistle to Alexander, bishop of Antioch: “As to what you ask,” he says, “whether, when provinces have been divided by an imperial judgment so that two metropolitan sees are created, two metropolitans ought to be named: it did not seem good to us for the Church of God to be changed according to the mutability of worldly necessities, or to suffer honors or divisions that the emperor has seen fit to make for his own purposes.” Blessed Gregory, writing to the patrician Theoctista, says among other things: “If it is said that the bonds of marriage ought to be dissolved for the sake of religion, it must be known that although human law has permitted this, divine law has nevertheless prohibited it.” Behold how ecclesiastical laws cannot be dissolved by an imperial judgment. Behold how divine law prohibited what human law permitted. §2. We do not say that the laws of emperors—laws which the Church often uses against heretics and by which she is often defended against tyrants and all the depraved—are to be utterly rejected; rather, we assert that they cannot inflict prejudice upon evangelical, apostolic, and canonical decrees, after which they are to be placed.
C. I. Lex imperatorum ecclesiastica iura dissoluere non potest.
Lege imperatorum non in omnibus ecclesiasticis controuersiis utendum est, presertim cum inueniantur euangelicae ac canonicae sanctioni aliquotiens obuiare. Idem: Lex imperatorum non est supra legem Dei, sed subtus. Imperiali iudicio non possunt iura ecclesiastica dissolui. §. 1. Ad quod ostendendum, duorum horum, Innocentii scilicet et Gregorii, satis sufficiunt testimonia. Sanctus quidem Innocentius in decretali epistola sua ad Alexandrum Antiochenum episcopum ait: "Quod sciscitaris," inquiens, "utrum diuisis imperiali iudicio prouinciis, ut duae metropoles fiant, si duo metropolitani debeant nominari: non uisum est nobis ad mobilitatem necessitatum mundanarum Dei ecclesiam conmutari, honoresque aut diuisiones perpeti, quas pro suis faciendis causis duxerit imperator." Beatus Gregorius scribens ad Theotistam patriciam inter cetera: "Si", inquit, "religionis causa uincula matrimonii debere dissolui dicantur, sciendum est, quia etsi hoc lex humana concessit, lex tamen diuina prohibuit." Ecce quemadmodum imperiali iudicio non possunt ecclesiastica iura dissolui. Ecce qualiter, quod lex humana concessit, lex diuina prohibuit. §. 2. Non quod imperatorum leges (quibus sepe ecclesia utitur contra hereticos, sepe contra tirannos atque contra prauos quosque defenditur) dicamus penitus rennuendas, sed quod eas euangelicis, apostolicis atque canonicis decretis (quibus postponendae sunt) non posse inferre preiudicium asseramus.
Friedberg, col. 19/20
C. II. It is lawful for an emperor to do nothing that opposes the rules of the Gospel.
Likewise Symmachus [pope], in the sixth synod [the Roman synod in the time of King Theodoric]. It is not lawful for an emperor, or for anyone guarding piety, to presume anything against the divine commandments, nor to do anything that opposes the evangelical, prophetic, or apostolic rules.
C. II. Nichil quod euangelicis regulis obuiet, imperatori agere licet.
Item Simachus [Papa] in sexta Sinodo. [Romana tempore Theodorici Regis.] Non licet imperatori, uel cuiquam pietatem custodienti aliquid contra diuina mandata presumere, nec quicquam, quod euangelicis, propheticis aut apostolicis regulis obuiet, agere.
Friedberg, col. 19/20
C. III. In ecclesiastical causes the royal will is not to be preferred to priests.
Likewise Pope Felix [III]. It is certain that this is salutary for your affairs: when matters of God are at issue, according to his own ordinance, you should strive to subject the royal will to Christ’s priests, not prefer it; to learn sacred things through their prelates rather than teach them; to follow the form of the Church, not humanly to prescribe laws for it to follow, nor to wish to dominate its sanctions—the Church to whose clemency God willed the neck of your pious devotion to be submitted—lest, while the measure of the heavenly dispensation is exceeded, one proceed to the insult of him who orders it.
C. III. In ecclesiasticis causis regia uoluntas sacerdotibus non est preferenda.
Item Felix [III.] Papa. Certum est, hoc rebus uestris esse salutare, ut cum de causis agitur Dei, iuxta ipsius constitutum regiam uoluntatem sacerdotibus Christi studeatis subdere, non preferre, et sacrosancta per eorum presules potius discere quam docere; ecclesiae formam sequi, non huic humanitus sequenda iura prefigere, neque eius sanctionibus uelle dominari, cuius Deus uoluit clementiae tuae piae deuotionis colla submittere, ne, dum mensura celestis dispensationis exceditur, eatur in contumeliam disponentis.
Friedberg, col. 19/20
C. IV. Enactments cannot be contrary to the customs and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs.
Likewise. Enactments contrary to the canons and decrees of the Roman prelates, or to good customs, are of no force.
C. IV. Moribus et decretis Romanorum Pontificum constitutiones contraire non possunt.
Item. Constitutiones contra canones et decreta Presulum Romanorum, uel bonos mores, nullius sunt momenti.
Friedberg, col. 19/20
C. V. Kings are not permitted to usurp those things that belong to priests.
Likewise Pope Nicholas [I, in the epistle to Emperor Michael whose beginning is We had proposed]. Your empire ought to be content with its daily administrations of the commonwealth and not to usurp those things that pertain only to the Lord’s priests.
C. V. Que sacerdotum sunt, regibus usurpare non licet.
Item Nicolaus Papa. [I. in epistola ad Michaelem Imperatorem, cuius initum est: "Proposueramus."] Imperium uestrum suis publicae rei cotidianis amministrationibus debet esse contentum, non usurpare que sacerdotibus Domini solum conueniant.
Friedberg, col. 19/20
C. VI. The tribunals of kings are subject to priestly power.
Likewise Gregory Nazianzen to the emperors at Constantinople [in the oration to the citizens of Nazianzus, full of anguish, and to the angry magistrate]. Do you accept freedom of speech? Do you willingly accept that the law of Christ subjects you to priestly power and places you beneath these tribunals? For he gave power also to us; he gave a principate far more perfect than your principates. Or does it seem just to you if spirit yields to flesh, if heavenly things are overcome by earthly things, if human things are preferred to divine?
Part II. GRATIAN. Behold that enactments of princes are to be placed after ecclesiastical laws. But where they do not oppose evangelical and canonical decrees, they are to be held worthy of every reverence. Hence Augustine says in the dialogue against Petilian [that is, Book II Against the Letters of Petilian, c. 58]:
C. VI. Tribunalia regum sacerdotali sunt potestati subiecta.
Item Gregorius Naciancenus imperatoribus Constantinopolitanis. [in oratione ad ciues Nazianzenos angoris plenos et magistratum iratum] Suscipitisne libertatem uerbi? libenter accipitis, quod lex Christi sacerdotali uos subiicit potestati atque istis tribunalibus subdit? Dedit enim et nobis potestatem, dedit principatum multo perfectiorem principatibus uestris. Aut numquid iustum uobis uidetur, si cedat spiritus carni, si a terrenis celestia superentur, si diuinis preferantur humana? II. Pars. Gratianus. Ecce quod constitutiones principum ecclesiasticis legibus postponendae sunt. Ubi autem euangelicis atque canonicis decretis non obuiauerint, omni reuerentia dignae habeantur.
Unde Augustinus ait in Dialogo contra Petilianum: [id est lib. II. contra literas Petiliani, c. 58.]
Friedberg, col. 19/20
C. VII. It is lawful to employ the laws of emperors in aid of the Church.
If you think that the laws of the earthly empire are to be employed in your aid, we do not reprove it. Paul did this when, against those treating him unjustly, he testified that he was a Roman citizen.
C. VII. Leges imperatorum in adiutorium ecclesiae licet assumi.
Si in adiutorium uestrum terreni imperii leges assumendas putatis, non reprehendimus. Fecit hoc Paulus cum aduersus iniuriosos Romanum ciuem se esse testatur.
Friedberg, col. 21/22
C. VIII. Kings need pontiffs for eternal life, and pontiffs need kings for temporal matters.
Likewise Cyprian to Julian [Pope Nicholas I, in epistle VII to Emperor Michael]. Since the one mediator of God and men is the man Jesus Christ, he distinguished the proper offices of both powers by their own acts and distinct dignities, wishing them to be raised upward by medicinal humility, not to be plunged back into the lower regions by human pride: so that Christian emperors should need pontiffs for eternal life, and pontiffs should use imperial laws only for the course of temporal affairs, in order that spiritual action might remain apart from carnal incursions, and that “one serving as God’s soldier should by no means involve himself in secular affairs”; and, conversely, that he who was involved in secular affairs should not seem to preside over divine matters.
C. VIII. Reges pontificibus pro eterna uita, et pontifices regibus pro temporalibus indigent.
Item Ciprianus Iuliano. [Nicolaus Papa I. in epist. VII. ad Michaelem Imperatorem] Quoniam idem mediator Dei et hominum est, homo Iesus Christus, sic actibus propriis et dignitatibus distinctis offitia potestatis utriusque discreuit propria uolens medicinali humilitate sursum efferri, non humana superbia rursum in inferna demergi: ut etiam Christiani imperatores pro eterna uita pontificibus indigerent, et pontifices pro cursu temporalium tantummodo rerum imperialibus legibus uterentur, quatenus spiritualis actio a carnalibus distaret incursibus, et "Deo militans minime se negotiis secularibus implicaret;" ac uicissim non ille rebus diuinis presidere uideretur, qui esset negotiis secularibus implicatus.
Friedberg, col. 21/22
C. IX. The laws of emperors ought to be observed.
Likewise Leo IV to Lothair Augustus. Concerning the chapters or imperial precepts of you and of your pontifical predecessors that are to be inviolably guarded and preserved, we profess that, as far as we have been and are able, with Christ’s favor we shall preserve them in every way both now and forever. And if perhaps anyone has told or will tell you otherwise, know with certainty that he is a liar.
C. IX. Leges imperatorum custodiri oportet.
Item Leo IV. Lothario Augusto. De capitulis uel preceptis imperialibus uestris uestrorumque pontificum predecessorum irrefragabiliter custodiendis et conseruandis, quanto ualuimus et ualemus Christo propitio et nunc et in euum conseruaturos modis omnibus profitemur. Et si fortasse quilibet uobis aliter dixerit uel dicturus fuerit, sciatis eum pro certo mendacem.
Friedberg, col. 21/22
C. X. What is done contrary to law is dissolved by the authority of law.
Likewise John VIII to Emperor Louis. You see, dearest son, that what is received contrary to the laws deserves to be dissolved through the laws.
C. X. Legis auctoritate dissoluitur quod contra eam fit.
Item Iohannes VIII. Lodouico Imperatori. Vides, fili carissime, quia quod contra leges accipitur, per leges dissolui meretur.
Friedberg, col. 21/22
C. XI. It is not fitting for the laws of princes and the rules of the fathers to be despised.
Likewise Gelasius to Bishops Rufinus and Aprilis. Who would say that the laws of princes, or the rules of the fathers, or paternal admonitions ought to be despised, except one who thinks that only his own offense will pass unpunished?
C. XI. Leges principum, et regulas patrum contempni non decet.
Item Gelasius Rufino et Aprili Episcopis. Quis autem leges principum, aut patrum regulas, aut ammonitiones paternas debere dicat contempni, nisi qui impunitum sibi tantum estimet transire commissum?
Friedberg, col. 21/22
C. XII. The laws of the Roman princes are to be observed by all.
Likewise to King Theodoric. It is certain that your magnificence wills the laws of the Roman princes, which it has commanded to be observed in human affairs, to be observed much more concerning reverence for blessed Peter the Apostle, for the increase of its own felicity.
C. XII. Seruentur ab omnibus Romanorum principum leges.
Item Theodorico Regi. Certum est magnificentiam uestram leges Romanorum principum, quas in negotiis hominum custodiendas esse precepit, multo magis circa reuerentiam beati Petri apostoli pro suae felicitatis augmento uelle seruari.
Friedberg, col. 21/22
C. XIII. Roman law ought not to be corrupted by anyone’s temerity.
Likewise Leo IV to Lothair Augustus. We implore your clemency that, just as until now Roman law has flourished without any storms and is remembered to have been corrupted for the sake of no human person, so now it may retain its proper strength and vigor.
C. XIII. Romana lex nullius temeritate debet corrumpi.
Item Leo IV. Lotario Augusto. Vestram flagitamus clementiam, ut sicut hactenus Romana lex uiguit absque uniuersis procellis, et quod pro nullius persona hominis reminiscitur esse corrupta, ita nunc suum robur proprium et uigorem obtineat.
Friedberg, col. 21/22