Title IV: On Prebends and Dignities

At the presentation of religious, even exempt religious, rectors ought not to be instituted in their churches unless there is first assigned to them enough from which they can bear the incumbent burdens and be suitably maintained; nor does a contrary custom have force. John Andrew.

Clement III, otherwise IV.

The care of the governance we have undertaken makes us solicitous that we take care to provide diligently for the interests of our subjects, especially in those matters by which provision is made for the salvation of souls, now through the promulgation of new laws, now through the renewal of old ones. Indeed, it was once providently established by the Apostolic See that the diocesan bishops of places should receive no one into any church at the presentation of religious unless there has been assigned to him before them enough from the revenues of that church that he can pay the episcopal dues and have suitable maintenance. But, as the frequent complaint of many intimates to us, exempt religious receive annually so much from the revenues of parish churches in which they possess the right of patronage, or the presentation of rectors belongs to them, that the rectors of those churches cannot from the remainder be suitably maintained, pay the episcopal dues, and support the other burdens incumbent upon them. For this reason it often happens that suitable persons are not found who are willing to receive churches of this kind, and thus they are frequently conferred upon less suitable persons, from which dangers to souls are imminent. We therefore, wishing that a salutary remedy be applied in this matter, by the present decree establish and command that this constitution be inviolably observed with regard to all religious patrons of churches, exempt as well as nonexempt, and others, notwithstanding any contrary custom.

No one other than the Pope can confer benefices vacant at the Curia; if anyone does so, the collation is invalid. John Andrew.

The same.

Although the plenary disposition of churches, personates, dignities, and other ecclesiastical benefices is known to belong to the Roman Pontiff, so that he can by law not only confer them when they are vacant, but also grant a right in them when they are to become vacant, nevertheless ancient custom has reserved to the Roman Pontiffs, more particularly than the rest, the collation of churches, personates, dignities, and benefices vacant at the Apostolic See. We therefore, judging a custom of this kind praiseworthy, approving it by apostolic authority, and wishing nevertheless that it be inviolably observed, establish by the same authority that no one other than the Roman Pontiff, furnished with whatever authority in this regard, shall presume to confer upon anyone or any persons churches, dignities, personates, and benefices that shall hereafter happen to become vacant at that See, whether their election, provision, or collation belongs to him by right of ordinary power, or whether he has received general or even special letters concerning provision for certain persons under whatever form of words—unless special and express authority to confer those same things vacant in the Roman Curia has been attributed to him by the Supreme Pontiff himself. For if anything should be done or attempted otherwise, we decree it null and void.

If the Pope does not confer benefices vacant at the Curia within a month from the day of vacancy, those to whom the collation belonged will be able to confer them. John Andrew.

Gregory X, in the General Council of Lyons.

We decree that the statute of Pope Clement, our predecessor of happy memory, concerning dignities and benefices vacant in the Roman Curia being conferred by no one other than the Roman Pontiff, is to be modified in such a way that those to whom the collation of those benefices and dignities belongs may, notwithstanding the aforesaid statute, but only after a month, reckoned from the day on which the dignities or benefices themselves became vacant, validly confer them personally or, if they themselves are acting in distant places, through their vicars general existing in their dioceses, to whom this has been canonically committed.

In benefices, or applications for benefices, through a provision up to a certain sum, a pension is not owed. “The churches of a city or diocese” does not include the cathedral; but “the churches of a province” includes the metropolitan church and the remaining cathedrals. John Andrew.

Boniface VIII.

Although in other respects the fullest interpretation is to be made in matters of benefices, nevertheless letters obtained concerning the acquisition of benefices ought, since they are ambitious, to be restricted. And therefore, if we command that provision be made for someone up to a certain sum, we wish provision to be made for him not by a pension, but only by ecclesiastical benefices, unless express mention of a pension is made in our letters. Although under the designation “the churches of a city” the cathedral church is in other circumstances included, nevertheless, when we command that provision be made for someone from a benefice in one of the churches of a city or diocese, a mandate of this kind does not extend to the cathedral church, which, on account of its honor, we do not wish in this case to be included under this general expression. It is otherwise, however, when we command that provision be made in one of the churches of a province. For then both the metropolitan church and the other cathedral churches are included under such a mandate, since in this case we appear to make a more abundant grant to the applicant than in the other case.

One applying for a secular benefice is provided for from a benefice possessed by secular clerics up to the completion of lawful prescription. This is the first point. A secular cleric who applies simply for a priory is not provided for from one customarily governed by religious. This states the second point. Dominicus.

The same.

When it is commanded that provision be made from an ecclesiastical benefice customarily assigned to secular clerics, this ought to be understood of one that was continuously and peacefully governed for so long a time by one or more secular clerics instituted as rectors in it that lawful prescription has been completed, even if religious at times ministered in it before or afterward. But when it is written that provision be made for a secular cleric from some priory, provision cannot be made from a priory that has customarily been governed by religious according to the aforesaid manner, unless this is expressly provided in the letters.

To have a personate with cure, and a prebend to which a parish church is annexed, is not contrary to the General Council. John Andrew.

The same.

Concerning the fact that you hold, together with personates—upon some of which the cure of souls is incumbent—prebends to which parish churches are annexed, in which you have spiritual jurisdiction according to the approved custom of your church, and thus, according to the interpretation of some, the cure of souls: since this is not contrary to the General Council, a dispensation is not necessary for you.

In applications for benefices, the date is considered, not presentation or reception. John Andrew.

The same.

We decree that the person upon whom a canonry of some church has been conferred by the Apostolic See, although he has not yet been received in it, is to be preferred in obtaining a prebend, according to the order of his provision, to all those upon whom a similar grant was afterward conferred in that church, although the latter first presented their letters and were first received in it.

By apostolic letters making no mention of a defect of orders, provision can be made for the applicant from a benefice with cure; he shall nevertheless cause himself to be promoted to orders at the next appointed times. John Andrew.

The same.

If it should happen that you receive our letters for poor clerics or others, directing you to provide them with benefices even if the cure of souls is annexed to them, you may lawfully provide them with benefices having cure, although they have neither been constituted in sacred orders nor is mention of the defect of orders made in those letters; nor can your provision be impugned under pretext of the said defect. It will nevertheless be necessary for them to cause themselves to be promoted, at the next times appointed by law, to the orders that the benefices conferred upon them require.

When another's mandate concerning a provision to be made by the Pope is fulfilled, the provision is understood to have been made by the Pope's authority. This states the point according to Zenzel.

The same.

If we command that one concerning whose provision a legate of the Apostolic See had sent his letters to a certain church, to which obedience had not been rendered, be received by our authority in that church as canon and brother, and that provision be made for him from a prebend according to the tenor of the legate's letters, a person so received by authority of this our mandate is understood to have been received not by the legate's authority but by ours. And therefore, in obtaining a prebend, he is to be preferred to all persons received after him by the same authority in the said church.

A mandate alternatively including several collators takes effect in the first benefice to become vacant; but when several become vacant at the same time, the order of the writing is observed. This states the point according to Dominicus.

The same.

When our mandate is directed to you under this form, that you provide someone with a benefice belonging to your collation or that of another, you ought to provide the person for whom it is written with the benefice that first becomes vacant, whether it belongs to your collation or to his. But if several benefices perhaps belonging to your collation and his become vacant at the same time, then you will have to observe the order of the writing, so that you provide him only with that benefice which is known to belong to you.

If a cleric for whom provision from the first vacant prebend had been commanded neglects to seek the prebend owed to him, the grant is extinguished. But if a canonry had been conferred upon him, he will then have the prebend when no one there is awaiting one by apostolic authority. John Andrew.

The same.

If a cleric for whom you received a mandate from the Apostolic See that you provide him with the prebend next to become vacant in a certain church, and afterward cause him to be received as canon and brother of that church, negligently omits to seek the prebend owed to him when it becomes vacant, he will not afterward be able to seek another prebend to become vacant in that church under pretext of the said mandate, nor will you be able to provide him with it, since the grant made to him has been extinguished through his negligence. But if the aforesaid cleric had from the beginning been made a canon in the aforesaid church by apostolic authority, then, since he remained a canon in it notwithstanding the said negligence, and consequently by reason of his canonry is to be preferred to the others for another prebend owed by law to no one else, he will be able to seek another prebend next to become vacant, provided that there are not some persons awaiting prebends in that church by the same authority. And provision from it ought to be made for him not by you, since you did not receive a mandate concerning it, but by the person to whom the collation of prebends in that church belongs; otherwise, the collation of a prebend of this kind made to another to the prejudice of that cleric shall by that very fact lack force.

One received by the Pope's authority, even at another's mandate, is to be preferred to others for a prebend. This states the point according to Zenzel.

The same.

Those who by apostolic authority have been received as canons in some church ought, in obtaining prebends, to be preferred to others who had previously been received in that church by the authority of legates or of any other persons whatsoever. Nor is there doubt that one who is received at the mandate of a legate or another exercising apostolic authority specially granted to him in this regard has been received by apostolic authority.

If, after a grant made to me by the Pope of a canonry and prebend, the canons of Bologna, ignorant of this, confer upon an ignorant person the prebend that afterward becomes vacant, the collation does not have force. This states the point. John Andrew.

The same.

If, after we have conferred upon you a canonry in some church and commanded that provision be made for you from a prebend next to become vacant there and owed by law to no one else, those to whom the collation of prebends in it belongs, of their own motion and ignorant of the grant made to you, should decide to confer upon another the prebend that afterward becomes vacant there, such a collation, attempted to your prejudice, possesses no validity. For by the very fact that you were made a canon by apostolic authority, a right to obtain the prebend next to become vacant there was acquired by you; and as soon as it became vacant, since it was owed to no one else, you could justly seek it. Therefore, it could not be conferred upon another by the aforesaid persons, although they were ignorant.

If the Pope gives his legate license to receive by apostolic authority resignations, freely made into his hands, of benefices within his legation, and to confer those benefices; secondly, if the Pope, without mention being made of the aforesaid power, confers upon me a canonry and a prebend, if one is vacant, or the one that first becomes vacant in some church of the legation; thirdly, if a canon of that church resigns and the legate, likewise ignorant of the collation made to me, confers the aforesaid prebend upon you: the legate's collation does not have force, but that prebend is owed to me. This states the point. John Andrew.

The same.

Some time ago, when power had been granted by our letters to our venerable brother S., Bishop of Palestrina, whom we sent to the regions of Gaul, to receive by our authority the resignation of holders of ecclesiastical benefices in those regions who wished freely to resign them into his hands, and to confer those benefices upon suitable persons, we afterward, without mention being made of a grant of this kind, conferred upon Nicholas de Bonefac., chamberlain of our beloved son N., cardinal priest of the title of Saint Lawrence in Damaso, a canonry of the Church of Lisieux, which exists in those regions, and a prebend owed by law to no one else, if any was then vacant in the said church, and provided him with the same. But if no such prebend was vacant there, we decided to reserve to an apostolic grant the conferral upon the said chamberlain, when it should become vacant, of the prebend next to become vacant there, decreeing from that time as null and void anything that anyone should happen to attempt otherwise concerning this, and appointing certain executors for him for this purpose.

And when afterward Nicholas Vasalli, a cleric, had resigned into the hands of the said bishop the canonry and prebend that he held in the said Church of Lisieux, and, under pretext of the said power, that bishop—perhaps ignorant of the aforesaid collation, provision, reservation, and decree—had conferred them upon William Vasalli, a priest, the said executors, notwithstanding the aforesaid collation, by authority of our letters conferred that same prebend upon the said chamberlain as being owed to him. Under pretext of the collation made to him by the said bishop, the said priest does not permit the chamberlain to possess that prebend peacefully; for this reason that chamberlain humbly petitioned us that we deign to provide him with an appropriate remedy in this matter.

We therefore attend to the fact that, although we granted the aforesaid power to the said bishop, a greater power nevertheless remained with us, even though it was the same power in the aforesaid matters; for which reason our position, as we preoccupied that power, ought to be the stronger, especially because according to canonical and lawful enactments a specific provision derogates from a general one, although no mention of the general is made in the derogating specific provision. We also consider that, if the aforesaid power had been disclosed to us, we would nevertheless issue letters of grace in the said regions without mention being made of it, because it would be absurd if our power, so extensive, were impeded, and if in all the letters of our provisions that we granted in the aforesaid regions it were necessary for us to make special mention of the often-mentioned power. We consider also that our aforesaid decree—especially here, where the said chamberlain had already been made a canon of Lisieux by us before the said resignation—had immediately bound those who were ignorant, since it was not issued concerning an uncertain matter, nor did it depend upon another's judgment or upon the will of anyone who had power to accept. For that reason, through it we also appear to have expressed that no other could confer, and to have revoked the aforesaid power with regard to the present specific case. That power could be revoked by one ignorant of it in this case, in which only the gain of the said William is at issue and not the prejudice of the aforesaid bishop; nor, after a revocation of this kind, could a right in the revoked matter be transferred by him to another who was likewise ignorant. This is also after the likeness of a slave placed in charge of a cashbook, who, after the death of the master who placed him in charge, does not make the monies lent become those of the recipient, although the death of the master, which revoked the appointment, was unknown between the contracting parties; and of a master who immediately extinguishes the peculium that he had granted to his own slave when he has changed his will concerning it.

We command your discretion, therefore, that, after prior admonition, you compel the aforesaid priest by ecclesiastical censure entirely to release that prebend to the said chamberlain and thereafter in no way to trouble him concerning it, notwithstanding the collation of the aforesaid canonry and prebend made to the priest by the said bishop, which was null.

The second person, who applied for a dignity and a prebend, is preferred to the first, who had applied only for a prebend, if the prebend is annexed to the dignity; otherwise, he is not. This states the point. John Andrew.

The same.

Because many often doubt who, if a canonry of some church has successively been conferred upon two persons by the Apostolic See, and it was commanded that provision be made for the first from a prebend, but for the second from a prebend and a dignity, personate, or office when the opportunity should present itself, ought by law to be preferred between them for the prebend that afterward becomes vacant there together with a dignity, personate, or office, we, wishing to settle a doubt of this kind, declare by the present edict that the first person, since he is earlier in time and his right ought neither to be prejudiced nor swallowed up by the second mandate—since no contrary intention of the mandator appears—is to be preferred for the said prebend, unless it is annexed to the vacant dignity, personate, or office. For if it were annexed, the second person, to whom the dignity, personate, or office is owed, would be preferred for it.

A mandate to provide from dignities or other ecclesiastical benefices does not include benefices with cure when the cure is not expressed. This states the point as far as § “But for those.” — § 1. In provision of a benefice, the elective mode is not included if other modes of providing are expressed. This states the point. — § 2. Beneficial letters expressing one mode do not include the others. This states the point. — § 3. A mandate simply including two persons does not bind one of them alone, and conversely, one directed to one person does not affect two. This states the point. Dominicus.

The same.

Since greater suitability is required in those to whom benefices having the cure of souls are committed than in those who are promoted to others, it is in no way our intention that, when we command that certain persons be provided with churches, personates, dignities, or any other benefices whatsoever without mention being made of the cure of souls, provision can or ought to be made for them from those upon which a cure of this kind is incumbent.

§ 1. But those for whom we write that provision be made for them from personates or dignities, even if they have the cure of souls, belonging to the collation, provision, presentation, or disposition of any persons whatsoever, will not be able to be provided with prelacies, personates, or dignities to which those who are to be placed over them are assumed by election.

§ 2. Moreover, since a great difference is known to exist between collation, presentation, and institution, if it is commanded that someone be provided with a benefice belonging to the collation of another, provision cannot be made from one that belongs to his presentation or institution, nor conversely. For when one of the aforesaid cases has been expressed, the mandate made concerning it, which by its nature ought to be restricted, ought not to be extended to the others.

§ 3. But if provision is ordered to be made from a benefice belonging to the collation or presentation of certain persons, without the addition “jointly or separately,” it cannot be fulfilled in a benefice that belongs only to the collation or presentation of one of them; just as, if provision had been ordered from a benefice belonging to the collation of one person, it could not be fulfilled in a benefice whose collation belonged to him together with another.

A benefice conferred upon me cannot be conferred upon another before my dissent, unless the term given to me for consenting has elapsed; and even then, after the term but before it is conferred upon another, I will be able to consent. John Andrew.

The same.

If a benefice is conferred upon you in your absence by your bishop, although by a collation of this kind, until you have ratified it, you do not acquire a right in the benefice itself such that it can be called yours, nevertheless the bishop himself, or any other person, will not be able to make a disposition of that benefice in favor of another person unless you refuse to consent. If he should do so, his disposition, made concerning a benefice that was not free, will lack force. But if the bishop, after the collation has been notified to you, assigns a suitable term for consenting, then, unless you have consented, after it has elapsed he will be able freely to confer the benefice upon whomever he sees fit. Nevertheless, before he has conferred it, you will be able to give your consent, notwithstanding that the term has elapsed, and from that time it will not be possible to dispose of the benefice otherwise.

One who by force or unjustly occupies a second benefice with cure is deprived of the first. But one who occupies any benefice with cure is by the law itself deprived of the right that he had in it or to it. This states the point. John Andrew.

The same.

We decree that one who occupies by force a benefice upon which the cure of souls is incumbent, or knowingly intrudes himself into it unjustly, is by the law itself deprived of the benefice with a similar cure that he held first. For it is not fitting that the foolish person should be in a better position than the skilled, or that an invader should enjoy a stronger privilege than one who enters justly. Moreover, so that violent persons, who do not fear to occupy dignities, personates, or any other ecclesiastical benefices by their own authority—or, more truly, temerity—may, if not from love of virtue, at least through fear of punishment, be restrained from the audacity of their temerity, they shall by that very fact lose whatever right perhaps belonged to them in or to the dignities, personates, and benefices thus occupied.

One having apostolic power to provide a suitable person with a benefice will not be able to provide for someone otherwise sufficiently beneficed unless this is expressed in the letters; and then he will provide for one holding a single simple benefice. But if it is granted that he provide for one holding benefices, this refers to only two, and an act contrary to this is null. This states the point. Dominicus.

The same.

One to whom it is granted that he may by apostolic authority provide one suitable person in his own or another church cannot provide for someone holding another sufficient benefice unless the latter first entirely resigns the benefice that he holds, or unless it is expressed in a grant of this kind that he may provide for a person otherwise beneficed. For then he will be able to provide for one holding only a single benefice, provided that the cure of souls is not incumbent upon it. But if it has been granted that he may provide for one who is known to hold other benefices, plurality of this kind ought to be restricted to only two benefices without cure. A provision made contrary to the foregoing shall likewise by that very fact lack force.

If someone in ignorance receives a benefice previously reserved or conferred upon another by the Pope, then, if from the time he learns of this he relinquishes it without difficulty, he recovers the former benefices relinquished because of it; otherwise, he does not. John Andrew.

The same.

If it should sometimes happen that benefices conferred by the Apostolic See or reserved by an interposed decree are de facto conferred by those to whom their collation otherwise belongs upon persons ignorant of a collation or reservation of this kind, and that the benefices those persons previously held and relinquished after obtaining the aforesaid benefices are assigned to others, then, lest such ignorance be prejudicial to them when they are without fault, we establish that if, after afterward being made more certain of the aforesaid collation or reservation, they entirely relinquish without any difficulty the benefices thus de facto conferred upon them, they may freely return to their former benefices, notwithstanding any collation of those benefices made to any persons whatsoever. Otherwise, if they have raised a difficulty in relinquishing the other benefices, the faculty of returning to the former ones is to be entirely forbidden to them. We decree that the same method is to be observed in every respect, both in relinquishing what was received and recovering what was relinquished, with regard to all others who perhaps relinquished their benefices on the aforesaid occasion and obtained benefices relinquished by others.

The concealment of a benefice, even a small one, vitiates a dispensation concerning plurality of benefices; even when lawfully obtained concerning two, such a dispensation refers to the first two received. Likewise, provision made for someone from a benefice, notwithstanding that he has another, does not introduce a dispensation to retain both. This states the point according to Zenzel.

The same.

A dispensation concerning plurality of benefices granted to an applicant cannot benefit one who concealed in it any benefice, however small. Moreover, that indult of the Apostolic See by which someone may receive and lawfully retain together two benefices having the cure of souls, if they are otherwise canonically conferred upon him, is understood of the first two benefices with cure that he happens to obtain after the said indult. But when it happens that provision is made for you by the aforesaid See from some benefice, notwithstanding that you are known to hold another benefice, it is not thereby understood that a dispensation has been made for you to retain the first benefice with the second. For the aforesaid expression effects only this: that the grant made to you cannot be judged subreptitious.

A legate's mandate concerning provision to be made, when confirmed by the Pope, is to be regarded as a papal grant. Zenzel.

The same.

If a legate of the Apostolic See, wishing by authority of his legation to provide for you in a certain church, reserves to his own collation a canonry and prebend owed by law to no one else and next to become vacant in that church, decrees as null and void anything that should happen to be attempted otherwise concerning this, and by his letters appoints certain executors to confer them upon you when they become vacant; and if we afterward, a full account of these things having been given, hold as ratified and acceptable what was done by the legate himself, confirm it by apostolic authority, and by our letters command the same executors or others to proceed by our authority in the business of such provision according to the tenor of the legate's letters: it is certain that, since the provision of the legate himself is regarded as having been effected by our authority after authority was imparted by us, you will by law have to be preferred, for the prebend afterward to become vacant there, to all those for whom we subsequently commanded provision to be made in that church, even if we decided to confer upon them a canonry of that church.

The concealment of a benefice held, even a small one, is an obstacle unless it is established that the provision was made on the Pope's own motion; this is understood only if it is expressed in the letter. This states the point. Zenzel.

The same.

If on our own motion we confer another benefice upon someone holding a benefice, without mention being made of the latter, we do not wish a grant of this kind, which proceeded from our mere liberality, to be regarded as invalid on that account. It is otherwise if we make such a grant at that person's petition, or at another's petition offered on his behalf. For then, however small the benefice concealed in it, we do not wish the grant to obtain force, as being subreptitious. Moreover, a grant is to be regarded as having been made on our own motion only when this has been expressly provided in it.

A collation made on the Pope's own motion, when several benefices in the same church are vacant at once, is understood to have been made from the richer one; but if the benefices are equal, the choice belongs to the person to whom the grant was made. A collation made at another's petition is restricted to the lesser benefice. If they are equal, the person who otherwise made the collation chooses. If that person neglects to do so, the other chooses, and conversely. This states the point according to Zenzel.

The same.

If, when several dignities or prebends are vacant at the same time in some church, we, uncertain of this vacancy, confer upon someone in general a dignity or prebend, if any owed by law to no one else is vacant in that church, then, if we made such a grant on our own motion, so that the fullest interpretation is then made in it, we wish it to refer to the dignity or prebend that is regarded as being of greater value among them; or, if perhaps they are equal, to the one that the person upon whom we confer it decides to choose within ten days after receiving knowledge of the said vacancy. But if the grant was made by us at another's petition, we decree that it is to refer—so that in this case it may be restricted as accords with law—to the one that is of lesser value; or, if there is equality among them, to the one that the person to whom their collation belongs chooses within the said time after such grant has become known to him. Moreover, if either of them neglects to choose within the due time, insofar as the choice belongs to him, the choice shall from that time freely devolve upon the other.

A prebend that becomes vacant through the death of the bishop who holds it is not owed to one awaiting a prebend. This states the point according to Zenzel.

The same.

Since you state that in your church, which has a number of twelve canons and thirteen prebends, there is a custom that the bishop for the time being has a voice in the chapter as though a canon, although he is not a canon, and holds one of the said prebends in it just as one canon does, it is certain that a person for whom provision is commanded by apostolic authority from a prebend owed by law to no one else and next to become vacant in that church cannot have the prebend that happens to become vacant through the bishop's death—lest, contrary to the said custom, which is not understood to be derogated from by the aforesaid mandate, the future bishop lack a prebend and the said number of canons be increased—but he will have to await until another becomes vacant.

Through the effective acquisition of a second benefice with cure, the fruits of which another receives for a reason, the first does not become vacant. John Andrew.

The same.

If, after it has been granted by us to you that you may receive the fruits of benefices that shall become vacant in your diocese up to a certain time in order to pay the debts with which your church is burdened, it should happen that you confer upon someone holding a similar benefice a benefice that afterward becomes vacant and has the cure of souls annexed, it is equitable that, for as long as you receive its fruits, the first benefice ought not to be regarded as vacant.

When it is commanded that a nonsacerdotal, or whole, or specified-value prebend be conferred upon someone, a sacerdotal, half, or lesser-value prebend cannot be conferred upon him even if he is willing.

The same.

Upon one for whom provision from a nonsacerdotal prebend is commanded, a sacerdotal prebend cannot be conferred by authority of a mandate of this kind, even if he is willing. Similarly, if in a church in which there are whole and half prebends it is commanded that a whole prebend be conferred, although the person for whom it was written wishes to be content with a half prebend, provision cannot be made for him from it. The same applies when it is enjoined that provision be made for someone from a prebend of a specified value, so that the mandate cannot be fulfilled in a prebend of lesser value even if he is willing. For mandates of this kind, whose limits ought to be diligently observed, ought not to be extended to cases other than those expressed.

After a second benefice with cure has been effectively acquired, the first similar benefice may be conferred without its possessor being summoned, but possession of it may not be given. According to Zenzel.

The same.

Although the bishop may by law confer upon another the benefice with the cure of souls that you held after you received another similar one and had peaceful possession of it, or after it was owing to you that you did not have such possession, nevertheless, without you being summoned, he ought not to induct the person upon whom he has conferred it into bodily possession of it, since a right to retain it may perhaps belong to you.

A sacerdotal prebend, under a simple mandate to provide, is to be conferred only upon one fit for the priesthood. This states the point according to Zenzel, and this summary can be adapted to either reading set down in the third gloss. Dominicus.

The same.

Upon one for whom provision is commanded simply from a prebend next to become vacant, a sacerdotal prebend cannot be conferred if he is not yet of such an age that he can be promoted to the priesthood; rather, he will have to await another.

One awaiting a benefice by mandate of the Apostolic See for a certain reason is barred from seeking the benefice when that reason ceases. This states the point according to Zenzel.

The same.

If a poor cleric, for whom, when he had no benefice, it was commanded that the bishop provide him with a benefice according to the merits of his probity, has obtained another benefice before provision is made for him, the bishop is no longer bound to provide for him, since the reason for the mandate ceases.

Where the priority of a benefice conferred upon several persons is not established, first possession, and then the greater prerogative, is preferred. This states the point according to Zenzel.

The same.

If on the same day the same benefice is conferred by the Apostolic See or its legate upon one person, and by the ordinary upon another, and it does not appear which collation was made first, the position of the possessor will be stronger. But if neither possesses it, the person upon whom the See itself or its legate conferred it will be preferred to the other on account of the greater prerogative of the one conferring.

A religious who has a priory or a church with cure, if he receives a second without the Pope's license, vacates the first by the law itself. If he does not immediately relinquish it, he becomes ineligible and is deprived of both. The same penalty applies to those who held several before this constitution unless within a month they choose one and relinquish the other. This states the point as far as § “We prohibit.” John Andrew. — § 1. Priories, churches, or administrations of one monastery customarily governed by its own monks shall not, without the license of the Apostolic See, be committed to monks of another monastery, nor shall those already committed be left to them. Those who act contrary to this shall for that occasion be deprived of the power to dispose of the aforesaid offices, and disposition devolves upon the diocesan in the case of nonexempt houses and upon the Pope in the case of exempt houses. Those receiving or retaining them—or, according to another reading, those choosing—are ineligible by the law itself. This states the point.

The same.

Since individual offices are to be committed to individual persons, and occasion for dissoluteness and wandering is to be removed from religious above all others, by the present edict we prohibit any monks or other religious from presuming, without authority of the Apostolic See, to preside over several priories or churches having the cure of souls, even if that cure is exercised not by them personally but by priests instituted by bishops at their presentation, unless perhaps one of them depends upon another or they are annexed to one another. We establish that whoever among them, while holding such a priory or church, receives another is bound immediately and entirely to relinquish the first, of which he is deprived by the law itself, so that it may freely be conferred upon another by the person to whom this belongs. If he does not do so, from that time he shall by that very fact be rendered ineligible and, as ambitious, be wholly expelled from both. Concerning those who now hold several priories or churches of this kind, however, we provide that within one month after the present constitution comes to them, they are bound to choose one of them that they wish to retain, relinquishing the others; otherwise, from that time they shall be subject to the aforesaid penalties.

§ 1. Moreover, we prohibit priories or churches, or administrations or offices of one monastery that are customarily governed by its monks, from hereafter being committed, without authority of the same See, to monks of another monastery to be governed, and prohibit those hitherto committed from being left to them. Rather, they shall freely be disposed of by those to whom they belong, since it is not lawful for such monks to have a place in different monasteries, of which one does not depend upon the other, or to govern the priories, churches, administrations, or offices of other monasteries unless they are canonically transferred to them. Those who hereafter commit the aforesaid things to monks of another monastery contrary to the present prohibition, or leave to them things already committed, shall for that occasion be deprived of the power to dispose of them; and they shall be disposed of by the diocesan bishops if they are not exempt, but otherwise by the Apostolic See. Those who presume to receive them or to retain them after they have been received shall be rendered ineligible by the law itself.

Absent monks or canons can pursue contempt if they are not summoned for a reception or collation, unless there is a custom that they are not summoned. This states the point according to Zenzel.

The same.

When the reception of canons or the collation of prebends or benefices is to be made in churches, absent canons are to be summoned, if this can conveniently be done, unless there is a custom that they are not summoned for such matters. Otherwise, what happens to be done in their absence will have to be invalidated at their instance.

The benefices of persons dying even in a place within two lawful days' journeys of the Roman Curia—or while that See is vacant—who do not have a cause, domicile, or origin there; or of those who do have these but are curial officials and are staying there by reason of the Roman Curia; or of those who follow the Curia when it is transferred and die on the journey; or of those who remain ill in the place from which the Curia departed, cannot be conferred by anyone other than the Pope. This states the point according to Zenzel.

The same.

By the present edict we declare that the statute of Pope Clement, our predecessor of happy memory, concerning benefices vacant at the Apostolic See being conferred by no one other than the Roman Pontiff, applies to benefices known to be held by legates or nuncios of that See, or by any others coming to the Roman Curia or even departing from it, if it happens that they die in places near the Curia itself, just as if they died in the place where that Curia resides. The same applies if a curial official—even while the Roman Church is vacant—withdraws to a place near the Curia for the sake of pilgrimage, infirmity, recreation, or any other cause, and dies in a neighboring place of this kind, provided that his domicile or own house does not exist there, even if he intended to return to the Curia itself. In the foregoing matters, places are understood to be near that Curia when they are not situated more than two lawful days' journeys—which in this case we specifically wish to be computed in this manner—from the place where the Curia is staying. Indeed, if someone who has the house of his origin in the place where the Curia resides meets his last day in that house, his benefices are included under the aforesaid statute only if he had previously been a curial official and was staying there by reason of the Curia. Furthermore, when the Curia happens to be transferred from place to place, if curial officials are taken from human affairs on the journey while following that Curia, or if, perhaps remaining ill in the place from which the Curia departs, they die there, the aforesaid statute extends to their benefices, however far the place where they die is from the Curia itself.

The Pope's death prevents parish churches from being said to become vacant at the Curia. This states the point according to Zenzel.

The same.

If, while the Apostolic See is vacant, it should hereafter happen that any parish churches become vacant at that See, we establish that they may be freely disposed of by those to whom this belongs, lest their prolonged vacancy bring danger to souls, notwithstanding the constitution of Pope Clement, our predecessor of happy memory, concerning benefices vacant at that See being conferred by no one other than the Roman Pontiff, or any other contrary constitution issued concerning this. We wish the same concerning those parish churches that shall become vacant there while the Roman Pontiff is alive, if they have not been disposed of by him before his death.

A grant made to someone that he may provide suitable persons in a certain church, when the persons are not expressed, does not expire while the matter remains untouched through the death of the grantor; it is otherwise if the persons were expressed. John Andrew.

The same.

If, without any persons being expressly named, the faculty has graciously been granted to someone that he may by apostolic authority provide certain suitable persons in a specified church, or confer benefices whose collation has lawfully devolved upon the Apostolic See, restraining contradictors by ecclesiastical censure under the same authority, a grant of this kind—which, since it contains a special grace, it is fitting should endure—does not expire through the grantor's death, even while the matter remains untouched. It is otherwise if power was given to him to make provision for a specified person, not as a grace or favor to himself but to the person for whom provision is commanded; that power indeed expires entirely if the grantor dies while the matter remains untouched.

One who, by a license granted concerning unspecified persons, promotes clerics to sacred orders without a title is bound to provide for them. A person giving license to the one promoting, or even to those to be promoted, will be bound to provide for them if they are promoted to sacred orders without a title. This states the point. Zenzel.

The same.

If a bishop whom, without the express naming of any persons, you commissioned in general to celebrate ordinations in your diocese in your place promotes to sacred orders someone who does not have a title, he will be bound to furnish that person with the necessities of life, since he was at fault in ordaining him in this way, until provision is made for him by that bishop or another from a suitable benefice. But if you commissioned him to ordain specified persons, you—who in this case ought to have foreseen whether they had a title—stand obligated to furnish the aforesaid things to a person so ordained until he has been beneficed by you. Moreover, when license is given to diocesan subjects that they may be promoted to all sacred orders by whatever bishop they wish, not those who ordain, but those who grant the license—since they ought not to grant it to one who has no title—are obligated to furnish the aforesaid things if the subjects have no title.

If, first, the Pope gives license to confer benefices becoming vacant in a specified manner, or devolved upon the Pope, and, secondly, specially confers one of these or commands it to be conferred, the specific derogates from the general, so that the benefice is owed to the second person. This states the point. John Andrew.

The same.

Although we recently gave you in general the power to confer by our authority upon suitable persons the benefices of six of your clerics who resign or die, nevertheless you cannot confer the canonry and prebend that one of those clerics of yours, now deceased, held in your church, in which, after the aforesaid grant was made to you, we commanded that provision be made specially for a certain person, since they are owed to the person for whom we wrote. For the later special grant derogates from the first general grant made to you, although it made no mention of the latter. For a similar reason, if, after a faculty was granted to you by us to confer benefices of your diocese whose collation has devolved upon the Apostolic See, we, before you confer one of them, specially confer it upon someone or command it to be conferred, without mention being made of the grant made to you, the collation made by us is to be regarded as canonical.

Revocation of a grant does not take away an acquired right, but a right yet to be acquired, unless the law of annexation introduces something else; nevertheless, it does not take away a right yet to be acquired that is annexed to a right more dignified than the acquired right. This states the point according to Zenzel.

The same.

If a person to whom, by letters of our predecessors Nicholas or Celestine of happy memory, a grant of a canonry, prebend, and dignity, personate, or office had been made in some church had, at the time of our revocatory constitution, obtained the canonry and prebend, which was not annexed to any dignity, personate, or office, then, although he was awaiting the dignity, personate, or office there, by reason of that expectation he is not understood to be deprived of the right that he had canonically acquired in the canonry and prebend. Nevertheless, the right belonging to him to the dignity, personate, or office is understood to have been revoked according to the words of the said revocation.

It is not so, however, if he had obtained a canonry together with a dignity, personate, or office customarily conferred only upon a canon, while awaiting a prebend; for the more dignified right that he already had in such dignity, personate, or office preserves the less dignified right of the canonry, by reason of which canonry the right to a prebend owed to no one else remains saved to him against one received after him by apostolic authority. But the same is also to be held if the aforesaid person, who already had the canonry by apostolic authority, had obtained in the same church, by the collation or provision of the bishop or anyone else, a dignity, personate, or office customarily conferred only upon a canon.

Revocation of a grant and the interposition of a decree are an obstacle even to an ignorant person awaiting a prebend. This states the point. Zenzel.

The same.

When a certain person held by letters of Pope Nicholas, our predecessor of happy memory, a canonry in a specified church while awaiting a prebend to become vacant, his successor Celestine made a similar grant in the same church to a certain other person, whom he wished, with the interposition of a decree, to be preferred to all persons received in that church even before him by apostolic or any other authority. Before knowledge of the second grant reached the first person and his executors, however, a vacant prebend was conferred upon that first person by his executors. After this, but before collation of that prebend was made to the second person, our revocatory constitution was issued. And because it is doubted which of them has a right in that prebend, we decree that neither of them has a right in it. For the first collation, made after and contrary to the decree interposed by the said Celestine, possesses no validity, although it was made by ignorant persons and even to an ignorant person. But the right that belonged to the second person to the prebend, not in the prebend itself, was entirely taken away by our revocation, since his collation did not precede that revocation.

A mandate to provide from a benefice belonging to the collation of a chapter does not touch the right of an individual canon. This states the point according to Zenzel.

The same.

An apostolic mandate directed to you that you provide T., a cleric, with a benefice belonging to the collation of the Chapter of Narbonne rightly includes benefices of that chapter, whether they are given in common by the chapter itself, or by individual canons of that church in the place and by the authority of the chapter, or from the chapter's right by custom or statute. Nevertheless, a mandate of this kind in no way extends to benefices belonging to the collation of those canons by reason of dignities, personates, or offices that some of them hold in that church. We judge the same to apply if the collation of the said benefices is known to belong individually to the canons themselves by reason of their prebends, unless perhaps the mandate contains the provision that you provide the same cleric with a benefice belonging to the collation of the Chapter of Narbonne jointly or separately. For then you will be able to provide from benefices that belong to their collation by reason of prebends of this kind.