Title II: On Constitutions

A later constitution of the prince abrogates an earlier contrary one, although it does not express this; it does not abrogate particular customs and reasonable statutes unless it expresses this. John Andrew.

Boniface VIII.

Although the Roman Pontiff, who is deemed to have all laws in the archive of his breast, is known, by enacting a later constitution, to revoke an earlier one even though he makes no mention of it, nevertheless, because he can probably be ignorant of the customs and statutes of particular places and individual persons, since they are matters of fact and consist in fact, he is not understood by a constitution newly issued by him to derogate from them in any respect—provided that they are reasonable—unless this is expressly provided in it.

Two things are stated: first, that the statutes of ordinaries do not bind those who are probably ignorant of them; second, that the statute of a bishop does not bind his subject outside his diocese. John Andrew.

The same.

So that dangers to souls may be averted, we do not will that those who are ignorant be bound by sentences promulgated through the statutes of any ordinaries whatsoever, provided that their ignorance was not gross or supine.

The subjects of a bishop who commit theft outside his diocese are known not to be bound by a statute of that bishop by which a sentence of excommunication is promulgated against all who shall commit theft, since one who declares the law outside his territory may be disobeyed with impunity.