The Justice of God: Apostate Vatican II versus Apostolic Catholicity - Vatican II is Apostate

The Justice of God: Apostate Vatican II versus Apostolic Catholicity - Vatican II is Apostate


The Best and Most Important Online Catholic Books

VATICAN II IS DAMNED

click on picture

The Justice of God: Vatican II is damned - 1

The Justice of God: Vatican II is damned - 2

The Best and Most Important Online Catholic Books: Apostate Vatican II versus Apostolic Catholicity - Home

Apostate Vatican II versus Apostolic Catholicity - Vatican II is Apostate

Apostate Vatican II versus Apostolic Catholicity - Home

Pope Saint Gregory the Great is the last with Saint Jerome and Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine of Hippo of the Four Great Doctors (Doctor means teacher of the whole undefiled Catholic doctrine handed down from the Apostles) of the Church. Pope Saint Gregory the Great (died 604 A.D.) with Saint Isadore of Seville (died 636 A.D. - who destroyed the last of the Arian Heresy in the West) are the last two of the Church Fathers in the West and Saint John Damascene (died December 4, 749 AD, at Mar Saba near Jerusalem) is the last of the Church Fathers in the East.

NO DOCTRINE CAN BE ADMITTED TO OR PROFESSED BY THE FAITHFUL WITHOUT THE FULL CONSENSUS OF THE CHURCH FATHERS -  NOT EVEN IF A COUNCIL AND ANY NUMBER OF POPES WERE TO PUT FORWARD SUCH A DOCTRINE.

POPE  SAINT GREGORY  THE GREAT - CHURCH FATHER

The Church Fathers, especially as referred to here, are by definition an exact group ending with and not later than St. John Damascene in the East in the eighth century A.D. and in the West in the seventh century A.D. St. Isadore of Seville and Pope St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome (who said that any bishop who declared himself in charge of the whole Church, instead of all bishops, including the Pope of Rome, having no more than equal authority, with Rome among other Patriarchal sees and none of them coercing others, was in fact, the precursor of the Antichrist. Pope Saint Gregory the Great is the last with Saint Jerome and Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine of Hippo of the Four Great Doctors (Doctor means teacher of the whole undefiled Catholic doctrine handed down from the Apostles) of the Church. Pope Saint Gregory the Great (died 604 A.D.) with Saint Isadore of Seville (died 636 A.D. - who destroyed the last of the Arian Heresy in the West) are the last two of the Church Fathers in the West and Saint John Damascene (died December 4, 749 AD, at Mar Saba near Jerusalem) is the last of the Church Fathers in the East. 

NO DOCTRINE CAN BE ADMITTED TO OR PROFESSED BY THE FAITHFUL WITHOUT THE FULL CONSENSUS OF THE CHURCH FATHERS - NOT EVEN IF A COUNCIL AND ANY NUMBER OF POPES WERE TO PUT FORWARD SUCH A DOCTRINE.

__________________________________________________________

The History of Canon Law in the Classical Period, 1140-1234: From Gratian to the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, ed. Wilfried Hartmann and Kenneth Pennington (History of Medieval Canon Law; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2008) 318-366.

Conciliar Law 1123-1215: The Legislation of the Four Lateran Councils

by

Anne J. Duggan

When a bishop declared at the beginning of Third Lateran Council in 1177 that only the Roman Church could issue decrees of universal character, he was proclaiming a principle which had inspired reforming popes since Leo IX. The resumption of regular Roman councils, usually held in the Lateran during Lent, had been a crucial element both in the progress of the >Gregorian= reform movement and in the assertion of papal leadership of the church. At the same time, the schisms and crises of the papal imperial controversy (c.1075-1122) forced the popes to travel extensively outside the papal states, holding councils and reiterating reforming decrees wherever they went. The >Investiture= dispute thus brought the papacy into direct contact with trans Alpine Europe. Popes and their legates presided at large councils, which reiterated the main messages of the reformers, condemned local abuses, and proclaimed papal primacy. The Church thus became accustomed to such plenary gatherings, which became increasingly more representative of the whole Latin Church merely of the Church in Rome, or the papal estates, or even Italy.

Of the three so called >general= councils held at the Lateran in the twelfth century, only the third, Alexander III=s Lateran Council of 1179, can be regarded as fully ecumenical according to the standards of the time. During the thirteenth century, Alexander III=s council and Innocent III=s Lateran Council of 1215 were designated as Lateran I and Lateran II in the legislation of local councils in England and France,[1] and it was only in late medieval sources that the Lateran Councils of 1123 and 1139 came to be designated Lateran I and Lateran II, while those of 1179 and 1215 were duly re numbered Lateran III and Lateran IV.[2] The Greek Church did not recognize the ecumenical status of any council later than the Second Council of Nicaea (786-787),[3] which came to be regarded as the seventh and last general council of the undivided Church,[4] and the dogmatic debates between Latin and Greek theologians at the Council of Ferrara Florence Rome in 1439 were based on the definitions of the seven ecumenical councils recognized by both sides.[5]

In fact, the so called Lateran Councils I and II were indistinguishable in form and legislation from the many papal councils from the 1090s onwards, which were the most characteristic feature of the ecclesiastical reform movement of the period. Urban II=s councils of Piacenza (1095), Clermont (November, 1095), Nîmes (July, 1096),[6] Bari (October, 1098), and Rome (April, 1099),[7] Gelasius II=s council at Toulouse (May, 1119),[8] and Eugenius III=s council of Reims (March, 1148)[9] were all similar in character and legislation and not significantly different in authority, attendance, or reception.[10] It was only in retrospect that Lateran I and Lateran II were differentiated from the other papal councils of the period and associated with the more legally sophisticated and influential Lateran council of 1179. All three Lateran councils, however, belong to the same tradition and illustrate the increasingly effective exercise of legislative authority by the papacy. They continued and enlarged upon the reforming tradition of the papal synods of the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries in regarding clerical discipline and freedom from lay authority, while consciously placing themselves in the venerable tradition of the early councils, sometimes citing the councils of Nicaea[11] and Chalcedon[12] by name. Calixtus II, especially, emphasized the antiquity of the sources for his legislation in 1123 by alluding to the >canones apostolorum=[13] and by appealing to the authority of the ancient fathers in such phrases as >Sacrorum patrum exampla sequentes=, >sicut sanctis canonibus constitutum est=, >Sanctorum patrum canonibus consona sentientes=, >Sanctorum etiam patrum vestigiis inhaerentes=, >Paternarum traditionum exemplis commoniti=, etc.[14] Both Innocent II and Alexander III referred to the authority of >the canons= or >the sacred canons=.[15]

Simultaneously however, the popes referred to the more recent tradition of papal legislation, naming the pseudo >Pope Stephen=[16] as well as Gregory VII, Urban II, Paschal II, Innocent II, and Eugenius III,[17] and emphasizing their apostolic authority in such phrases as >auctoritate sedis apostolicaeYprobibemus=, >apostolica auctoritate praecipimus=, >auctoritate apostolica praecipimus=, >sancti Spiritus auctoritate confirmamus= (Calixtus II);[18] >apostolica auctoritate decernimusYapostolica auctoritate interdicimus=, >apostolica auctoritate prohibemus=,[19] >auctoritate Dei et beatorum Petri et PauliYinterdicimus= (Innocent II)[20]; >commissa nobis auctoritate curemus=, >beatorum apostolorum Petri et Pauli auctoritate confisi= (Alexander III).[21] In all three councils, the language of the canons alternates between papal commands in the first person pluralC>prohibemus=, >interdicimus=, >irritas esse iudicamus=, >statuimus=, >censemus=, >concedimus=, >statuimus=, >praecipimus=, >inhibemus=, etc..[22] and impersonal decreesC>careat dignitate=, >deponatur=, >arceatur=, >careat=, >excommunicationi subiaceat=, etc.;[23] and a growing sense of legislative authority is implied in the formulation of the decrees. Where Calixtus II issued short commands, Alexander III proclaimed basic principles, sometimes cited scriptural authority, and laid down carefully composed legal definitions. The twenty two decrees of Lateran I occupy five pages of Alberigo=s edition, the thirty canons of Lateran II fill seven, the twenty seven canons of Lateran III comprise fifteen pages. Alexander=s canons are thus, on average, more than twice as long as those of his predecessors, and reveal a greater sophistication in form and language, reflecting the significant legal development which had taken place in the four decades following Lateran II and the publication of the last recension of Gratian=s Decretum (ca. 1140-1144).[24]

All three councils were great ecclesiastical gatherings (each one in fact larger than its predecessor). Whereas Lateran I was attended by some two hundred bishops and abbots and Lateran II by more than one hundred bishops and an unrecorded number of abbots, Lateran III included about three hundred bishops and an unknown number of abbots and their attendants,[25] and some lay princes were present in person or by proxy. The councils afforded opportunities for individuals or groups to raise personal, local or group issues. At the First Lateran, for example, the archbishop elect of Bremen sought restoration of his metropolitan jurisdiction over the Scandinavian Church.[26] Conrad of Constance was canonized at Lateran I, and Sturmi of Fulda at Lateran II.[27] Bishops raised questions about the subordination of monasteries;[28] and the problems of heterodoxy and heresy were discussed at Lateran II (>Petrohusians=, the followers of Peter of Bruys: c.2) and Lateran III (Cathars, etc., c.27). These councils reflect increasing ecclesiastical centralization under the authority of the papacy, but more significantly they suggest a growing centripetalism C a tendency to turn to the center for support and authority C paralleling the growth of the papacy=s appellate jurisdiction. They also represent a growing commitment to legal and institutional unity and uniformity within the Latin Church.

The reform movement had emphasized the authority of ancient law, which in turn had spurred the creation of collections of law designed to serve the interests of the reformers. The Collection in 74 Titles, for example, was taken to Germany by papal legates, and there copied and circulated.[29] Councils, reform, and the revival of canon law and of papal and episcopal authority were closely interconnected, since an essential foundation of the reform movement was the re assertion and re definition of the disciplinary authority of the ecclesiastical hierarchy culminating in the papacy; and papal and legatine councils demonstrated the primacy of the popes. Even the protocol, which placed the pope on an elevated dais, surrounded by his curia and the cardinals, emphasized the pope=s supremacy.

Our knowledge of conciliar procedure is incomplete.[30] For neither Lateran I nor Lateran II is there a reliable contemporary report of the whole process, but it is likely that the procedure recorded for the papal council of Reims in 1119 was followed. After six formal sessions, the canons were dictated by John of Crema, written down by John, a monk of the Benedictine monastery of Saint Ouen of Rouen, then formally promulgated through solemn recitation by the >bibliothecarius= of the Roman Church, Cardinal Chrysogonus. The promulgation of the canons was followed by the excommunication of enemies in a dramatic ceremony in which 427 tapers were lit and extinguished. Finally, Pope Calixtus II issued indulgences and bestowed his blessing.[31] From the time of the Third Lateran Council, however, there survives an Ordo Romanus for the holding of councils, which prescribed the liturgical aspects of the occasion and three solemn sessions, culminating with the publication of the decrees in the manner of Reims 1119.[32]

From the surviving reports of various interested parties, it is clear that complex questions of jurisdiction and orthodoxy were not generally debated by the full council but assigned to special commissions of experts (>periti=). At Lateran I, for example, the dispute about Corsica was deputed to a commission of twelve archbishops and twelve bishops;[33] at Lateran III, the election of Bertold of Bremen was submitted to the adjudication of two cardinals, and two representatives of the Vaudois sect were examined by a commission presided over by a bishop.[34]

It is supposed that by the time of Lateran IV the papal chancery was sufficiently organized to make possible the rapid multiplication of texts of the decrees,[35] but there is no reliable information about the procedure adopted for the dissemination of the decrees of either Lateran IV or the first three Lateran councils. The evidence we have is conflicting. On the one hand, the survival of copies of Lateran decrees in local archives and chronicles implies that texts were taken away by the participants. Twelve canons from the >alpha= recension of the decrees of Lateran I (omitting 11-12 and 15-17) were inserted into Symeon of Durham=s Historia regum,[36] for example; Gerhoh of Reichersberg knew the legislation of Lateran II,[37] and four English chronicles recorded the full legislation of Lateran III.[38] On the other hand, the many discrepancies in the textual tradition of the legislation suggest that the participants may have constructed their own records. The confusion in the texts of Lateran I could be explained in this way. For Lateran II and III, the differences may be explained, at least in part, by the wider dissemination of the texts and the possibility that more than one archetype was made available for copying.

The First Lateran Council

The chief reason for the summons of the First Lateran Council of 1123 was the formal ratification of the settlement of the Investiture dispute, which had been reached at Worms in the preceding September (1122),[39] but many current issues were raised by interested partiesCthe claims of Bremen Hamburg to metropolitan authority over Scandinavia; those of Ravenna to jurisdiction over Ferrara; the jurisdictional dispute between the bishops of Siena and Arezzo and between the monasteries of Saint Macaire and Sainte Croix in Bordeaux; the contest between Pisa and Genoa for ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the island of Corsica; and the canonization of Conrad of Constance.[40]

While these aspects of the council=s business are well recorded in contemporary chronicles, the legislation has been less securely transmitted. Alberigo identified two recensions, >alpha= and >beta=, the one with seventeen canons, the other with twenty two,[41] and there are additional discrepancies and confusions. Various systems of enumeration occur in the learned literature; for simplicity, the number and order of the Alberigo edition have been followed here.[42] In its general canons, the council carried forward the >Gregorian= attack on simony,[43] clerical marriage and concubinage,[44] and secular exploitation in all its forms. >Following the example of the holy fathers=,[45] the simoniacal acquisition of ecclesiastical office or promotion is prohibited, on pain of deposition (c.1); only those canonically elected may be consecrated as bishops, on pain of deposition (c.3); citing the authority of the Council of Nicaea (325), marriage or concubinage is forbidden to all clergy in the subdiaconate and above (cc.7, 21); and minimum grades are established for ecclesiastical office: only priests may be appointed provost, archpriest or dean; only deacons may be appointed archdeacon (c.6).

Four canons deal with various forms of lay abuse of ecclesiastical persons or property: denouncing lay exploitation of the Church=s goods as a form of sacrilege (c.8), forbidding lay fortification or control of churches (c.12, ad fin.) and lay acquisition of tithes, without episcopal permission (c.18), and threatening with anathema anyone who attacks or despoils churches or monasteries, or injures their personnel, or attacks or robs those who come to churches and monasteries to pray (c.20).

At the same time, six canons sought to reverse the disintegration of episcopal authority which had occurred through the growth of private patronage and monastic exemption: the excommunicates of one bishop may not be received into communion by other bishops or abbots (c.2); the cure of souls or prebends may not be assigned by any lesser prelate without the approval of the bishop, since the sacred canons lay down that the cure of souls and the dispensing of ecclesiastical affairs should remain in the bishop=s power (c.4); parish priests may be appointed only by bishops, and they may not receive tithes or churches from laymen without the bishop=s permission (c.18); monks must be properly subject to their bishop: they may not celebrate public masses or visit, anoint or hear the confessions of the sick,[46] and the priests who minister in their churches must be instituted by the bishop, to whom they are responsible for the cure of souls (c.16); neither monks nor abbots may lease churches or the property of bishops (c.19); and all alienation of ecclesiastical property is forbidden (c.22).[47] Most of the canons deal with strictly ecclesiastical affairs; but two concern matters of wider social importance. Consanguineous marriages are condemned and those who contract them are branded with infamy (c.9),[48] and the Truce of God is given general application (c.15).[49]

In addition to disciplinary questions affecting the whole church, the council dealt with matters of local or temporary import. The ordinations of Maurice Bourdin (anti pope >Gregory VIII=) and the bishops consecrated by him were nullified (c.5); Pope Urban II=s protection for crusaders was renewed, with penalties for those who had taken the Cross but failed to fulfil their vows (c.10); and five canons concerned malefactors in Rome and the papal states. Automatic excommunications were promulgated against laity who removed offerings from Roman churches (naming St Peter=s, St John Lateran, S. Maria Rotunda, St Nicholas of Bari, St Giles: c. 12 at the beginning), the makers and users of false coin 8. 13), the brigands who attacked pilgrims to the holy places in Rome or merchants (c.14), anyone who attempted to hold the city of Benevento by military might (c.17); and, using the significant formulation, >with the advice of our brethren and of the whole Curia and with the approval and agreement of the Prefect=, Calixtus abrogated the >wicked custom=, whereby the property of deceased >Porticani= was disposed of against their wishes and without the approval of their heirs (c.11).[50]

With these seven exceptions, the canons were all in the reform tradition and seven repeat, echo, or give greater prominence to earlier legislation (and an eighth refers to a decision of Pope Urban II).[51] The targets are simony, clerical concubinage, appointment of unsuitable ecclesiastics, and lay abuse of ecclesiastical persons, offices, or incomes, and the principal antidote is the restoration of ecclesiastical discipline through formal restatement of the law and reinforcement of episcopal responsibility and authority.

Within a very few years, the statutes of local councils in England, Normandy, France, and Spain began to echo the conciliar legislation. For most of these councils, little except their place and date has been recorded, not always accurately, but enough survives to demonstrate the wide dissemination of the Lateran=s decrees.[52] Seven of its canons were echoed in Cardinal John of Crema=s legatine legislation at Westminster in 1125;[53] five in William of Corbeil=s, also at Westminster, in 1127;[54] two in Cardinal Alberic of Ostia=s Westminster Council in 1138;[55] and five occur in Raymond of Toledo=s council at Palencia in 1129.[56] But it is clear from even a brief comparison of the conciliar texts, that the local legislators interwove general with particular concerns, intermingled Lateran material with their own local sources, and adapted legislation to their own circumstances. The texts of the decrees were not regarded as inviolate: their prescriptions were summarized, abbreviated, and adapted to the structure of the local codes.

More importantly for the development of the learned law, fourteen of the twenty two canons were received into Gratian=s Decretum, in whole or in part, and thus found their way into the work which became the basis, not only for the academic study of canon law in Bologna and elsewhere, but also for the application of that same law throughout the ecclesiastical courts of Europe.[57] In this way, Lateran I made a permanent contribution to ecclesiastical law on simony, episcopal appointment, episcopal control over benefices, the requirements for ecclesiastical office, lay power in church affairs, consanguinity,[58] monastic competence, clerical immunity, clerical concubinage, and the alienation of church property. Omitted were three whose contents were covered by alternative texts[59] and five which could be deemed of local or temporary application.[60]

It is significant, however, that Gratian attributed none of these canons to a council. Except where he wrongly attributed four canons to Urban II (cc.18-20 and 22), his normal mode of citation is >Item Calixtus papa=. The rulings are thus attributed to the pope and not to the council. Nevertheless, Gratian showed far more respect for the integrity of the individual texts. He sometimes merged two canons into one, but did not significantly disturb the verbal integrity of his source.

Second Lateran Council (1139)

Just as the First Lateran Council was called to ratify the Concord of Worms and restore the authority of the papacy over a re united Church, the Second Council of the Lateran was called to celebrate the ending of the eight year schism between Anacletus II and Innocent II.[61] This had been a >Roman= schism, in that the dispute between the rival claimants to the papal office was principally a dispute between rival noble families within the city (Frangipani vs. Pierleoni), but it had occurred at a critical moment, since the papal leadership of the reform was imperilled by the existence of two opposing claimants to the chair of St Peter. Nevertheless, Innocent II had progressively secured the support of the Latin Church and, indeed, carried forward the reforms with councils at Clermont (1130), Reims (1131),[62] and Pisa (1135),[63] and in personal interviews with Louis VI of France, Henry I of England, and Lothair III of Germany. Attended by one hundred bishops, among whom was the Latin patriarch of Antioch, and an estimated four hundred abbots and lesser prelates, the council issued 30 decrees,[64] largely repeating the legislation of Innocent=s own councils of Clermont, Reims, and Pisa,[65] together with that of earlier councils.[66] One decree merely repeats the prohibitions of Lateran I against consanguineous marriages (c.17). But although much of its legislation reiterated the principal themes of the reform, it did so with greater precision. Lateran I had prohibited the reception of excommunicates; Lateran II reinforced the prohibition by imposing the same sentence on those who knowingly communicate with excommunicates (c.3).[67] Three canons concern various forms of illicit traffic in sacred things, but whereas the First Lateran had issued a general condemnation of simony, whose essence is repeated in Lateran II (c.1: anyone receiving orders through simony is to be deposed), the Second Lateran details whole categories of office and spiritual ministry which are included in the prohibition, and adds infamy to the penalty of deprivation: anyone receiving ecclesiastical preferment of any kind (prebends, priories, deaneries, etc.) for payment is to be deposed and disgraced; any trafficking in sacred things (chrism, holy oil, consecration of altars, etc.) is to involve both buyer and seller in the penalties of >infamia= (c.2);[68] no money can be taken for chrism, holy oil, or burial (c.24).

On the question of clerical morality and discipline, Lateran II is likewise more explicit: not only is marriage forbidden to clerics in the subdiaconate and above (c.6), but lay people are forbidden to hear the Masses of incontinent clergy (c.7), the inheritance of ecclesiastical office is forbidden (c.16), and sons of priests are not to serve churches, unless they have first lived in monasteries or houses of canons (c.21: Presbyterorum filios); and clerks must maintain the tonsure and wear appropriate ecclesiastical dress (c.4).[69] In repeating Lateran I=s prescriptions about the appropriate sacerdotal grade for archdeacons and deans, Lateran II added that such offices were not to be conferred on unordained youths, and any refusing to receive the appropriate ordination were to be deprived of their offices (c.10, at the end). The misdeeds of religious or self styled religious are similarly condemned in specific terms: following popes Gregory VII, Urban II, and Paschal II, professed nuns are forbidden to marry (c.8), monks and canons may not study secular law or medicine for money (c.9), men and women religious may not use the same choir (c.27), women who call themselves nuns but do not live according to the Rule of St Benedict, St Basil, or St Augustine are condemned (c.26). On the other hand, the rights of religious to participate in episcopal elections is confirmed (c.28).

Equally, the attack on lay abuse of ecclesiastical institutions was continued: on the authority of Chalcedon (451, c.22), the seizure of the goods of deceased clerics was forbidden (c.5); lay persons may not have ecclesiastical tithes; lay owners of churches must restore them to the bishop=s power, on pain of excommunication (c.10); ecclesiastical offices may not be received from laymen; laymen may not dispose of ecclesiastical goods (c.25); and false penitents, who feign repentance but do not give up the sin, are condemned (c.22).

Reflecting the continuing disorder and violence in many parts of Christendom, the Council reiterated with greater emphasis and precision Lateran I=s embrace of the Peace movement, confirming the >Truce of God=Ccessation of military action during the sacred seasons of Christmas and Easter (from the beginning of Advent until the octave of the Epiphany [13 January] and from Quinquagesima Sunday until the Octave of Easter) and also every week end throughout the rest of the year, from sunset on Wednesday until sunrise on Monday (c.12),[70] and proclaiming the general security of priests, clerks, monks, pilgrims, merchants, and rustics (c.11). But the extremely important decree Si quis suadente declared that anyone who laid hands on clerks or monks was automatically excommunicated for the sacrilege and could be absolved only by the Roman pontiff (c.15).[71] The condemnations of tournaments (c.14), of >the murderous art of crossbowmen and archers= (c.29), of arsonists, and those who lay waste the country side (c.18), are part of the same commitment to peace and security. The ultimate sanction of denial of Christian burial is applied against those who die in tournaments or in the commission of arson;[72] and one year=s service in Jerusalem or Spain is proposed as an appropriate penance for arson (cc.14, 18). Bishops who relax the arson law are to be deprived of episcopal office for a year (c.19), and, in consultation with archbishops and bishops, kings and princes are permitted to act against such persons (c.20). In a similar and highly significant manner, the council condemned those (heretics) who impugn the sacraments and ordered them to be coerced by >potestates exteros= (c.23). Also significant for the future, was the strong condemnation of usury, which carried not only the penalty of >infamia= but also denial of Christian burial for the unrepentant (c.13),[73] and the language used to nullify the ordinations of Pierleone (the anti pope Anacletus II) >and other schismatics and heretics= (c.30). It was as a >schismatic and a heretic= that Benedict XIII was deposed by the Council of Constance in 1417![74]

What is evident is the greater length and detail of these canons in comparison with those of the First Lateran Council, and the emphasis on consequences and penalties: those who do not enforce the law are to suffer; certain actions carry not only automatic excommunication but denial of Christian burial (participation in tournaments, usury, arson); and they embrace a wider social program: condemning usury, arson and devastation, tournaments, and the use of deadly weapons (bows and crossbows). In many ways, this was an extension of the Truce of God movementCattempting to protect certain categories of vulnerable non combatants from violence at all times: clergy, travellers, and country people.

Ordericus Vitalis considered the council of small value,[75] and Gerhoh von Reichersberg lamented the non implementation in German lands of c.10 on the lay misuse of tithes and c.28 on episcopal elections,[76] but its canons influenced synodal legislation at Saintes in 1140,[77] and Eugenius III=s council at Reims in 1148.[78] Eighteen of its thirty canons were received into Gratian=s Decretum, in whole or in part,[79] and c.29 was received into the Decretales of 1234, where it is ascribed to Innocent III.[80] Lateran II thus contributed significantly to the development of the law on simony, clerical life and behavior, violence to clerks (Si quis suadente: c.15), the non hereditability of benefices (Presbyterorum filios: c.21),[81] arson and devastation, >false religious=, and the association of male and female religious in liturgical services. The legislation against tournaments and deadly weapons was largely ignored.[82]

Gratian=s treatment of the canons of the second Lateran is similar to his treatment of those of the first. Only twice does he refer to a council as the source of the decrees (cc.18-19-20 and c.28), but even then he does not name the precise location. Canons 18-20 (combined in one citation) are identified as a general decree issued by Innocent II in the universal council (>Innocentius II in uniuersali concilio generaliter constituit=), and canon 28 is described as a decree of Pope Innocent issued in the general synod held in Rome (>in generali synodo Innocentii Papae Romae habita constitutum est=)Cas Cheney pointed out, they were >seldom ascribed to a council and never to a Lateran council.=[83] Apart from his single mis attribution to Urban II (c.21) the remainder of his citations are >Innocentius papa= (cc.2, 7-8, 15) or >Innocentius II= (cc.4-6, 10, 12, 22, 26-27) or >Innocentius Papa II= (c.16). The legal compiler preferred the authority of the person who issued the ruling to the forum in which it was issued.

Third Lateran Council (1179)

Summoned in letters dated 21 September 1178, the Third Lateran Council assembled on 5 March and ended on 19 March 1179.[84] The Acta of the council, drawn up by William of Tyre, have not survived, nor has the official text of the canons been established, but contemporary chronicles contain ample accounts both of the proceedings and of the legislation.[85] No fewer than four English chronicles contain full texts of the canons,[86] and Ralph de Diceto, dean of St Paul=s in London, cited two canons from >the many memorable decrees= issued by the council.[87]

Like its two predecessors, Lateran III met in the aftermath of schism and papal imperial disputes. Since 1159 the papacy of Alexander III had been disturbed by an imperially supported schism of three successive anti popes (Victor IV, 1159-1164; Paschal III, 1164-1168; Calixtus III, 1168-1178) and the Emperor Frederick I=s attempts to impose imperial control on the North Italian cities. Alexander successfully negotiated the perils of the times. Despite the risks of the schism, he significantly advanced the legal and judicial role of the papacy, responding to appeals and issuing many hundreds appellate decisions on cases brought to Rome from all the regions of the Latin Church outside German lands.[88] The Third Lateran was thus a demonstration of the restored unity of the Latin Church and a recognition of papal leadership within it; but it was also a culmination of the reform program pursued in papal and legatine councils for more than a century. The opening address, given by the bishop of Assisi, reads like a panegyric to the eminent dignity of the Roman church, this >city of the sun=, >the first and principal churchYover which presides this great pontiff and supreme patriarch=, and proclaims its paramount legislative authority, >Only the Roman Church has the power to summon a general council, to make new laws, and to abrogate old ones=.[89]

The twenty seven decrees issued in the council concern four principal aspects of Church life: the election and appointment of clerics (cc.1, 3, 5, 8), clerical life and behavior (cc.11-16, 18), condemnation of abuses (cc.4, 6-7, 9-10, 17, 19), and sanctions against various social ills (cc.20, 23, 25) and illicit dealings with Jews, Saracens, heretics, and mercenaries (cc.22, 24-27).

Election and appointment

The four canons on ecclesiastical elections and appointments were to be of permanent importance. Licet de vitanda (c.1) laid down the principle that a two thirds majority of the cardinals was required for a valid papal election, while accepting that the choice of the >maior et sanior pars= should be accepted in other episcopal elections. Licet de vitanda has remained the basic electoral law of the papacy, with minor modifications, until the present day. Cum in sacris (c.3) established the basic requirements for admission to ecclesiastical office: >aetatis maturitas et morum gravitas et scientia litterarum= (mature age, sound character, and literacy), and defined the age requirement as thirty for a bishop and twenty five for any office involving pastoral responsibility (the cure of souls). In addition, bishops must be of legitimate birth, and all appointees must, within the canonical period, receive the appropriate clerical order for the office they have receivedCpriesthood for deans and the diaconate for archdeacons. Episcopus si aliquem (c.5) required bishops who ordained priests or deacons >sine certo titulo=, without a specific benefice or sufficient private income, to maintain them at their own expense. And Nulla ecclesiastica ministeria (c.8) forbade the practice of promising benefices before the death of the incumbent; bishops (or chapters) must appoint new candidates within six months, or lose the right of appointment (creating the principle of devolution).[90]

Clerical life

Five of the seven canons concerning clerical life and behavior reinforced the reforming regulations of the previous century: suspect women were to be removed from clerics= houses on pain of loss of benefice, clerical and lay homosexuality was condemned, clergy were forbidden to frequent nunneries (c.11), clergy might not engage in secular business (c.12), churches must be served by clerics who can reside in them (c.13); the accumulation of benefices (c.14, beginning), alienation of ecclesiastical property and venal appointment of rural deans were prohibited (c.15), but canons 16, 18 and 22 broke important new ground. Cum in cunctis (c.16) gave conciliar support to the principle of majority rule in ecclesiastical communities, so that decisions made by the >maior et sanior pars= should not be obstructed by small cliques or bad local custom.[91] Quoniam ecclesia Dei (c.18) ordered the assignment of a prebend in every cathedral church to maintain a Master to teach clergy and poor scholars without payment, and the re establishment of such arrangements wherever they had existed in collegiate or monastic churches in earlier times. The license to teach should be bestowed freely, and no suitable teacher should be denied.[92] And an important canon, Cum dicat Apostolus (c.23), allowed communities of lepers to have their own churches and priests, tithe free, as long as the rights of the parish church were not infringed.[93]

Abuses

Equally realistic was the approach to abuse. Instead of merely outlawing simony, three canons dealt with specific malpractice, regulating the rights of bishops, archdeacons, legates, and others to receive hospitality from their subjects, and imposing reasonable limits on the size of their trains (c.4),[94] forbidding fees for the induction of bishops, abbots, and other prelates, or for blessings, burials, or the conferment of the sacraments (c.7), forbidding monasteries to exact payment for entry into the religious life (c.10).[95] At the same time, Cum et plantare (c.9) condemned the abuses of privilege which undermined episcopal authority, by Templars, Hospitallers and other privileged orders, and reiterated the rule that diocesan clergy could be nominated and removed only with the consent of the bishop.[96] The same concern for the appointment of suitable pastors is evident in Quoniam in quibusdam (c.17), which condemned abuse of churches by lay patrons, and in two wide ranging decrees, Quia in tantum (c.14) and Non minus (c.19), further forms of lay abuse are condemned. Lay appointment of clergy, the imposition of secular taxes and imposts, lay possession of tithes, and the compulsion of clerks to appear before lay courts are all forbidden on pain of excommunication, while the transfer of tithes from one layman to another is forbidden on pain of denial of Christian burial (c.14); and the imposition of secular liabilities on churches is forbidden, on pain of excommunication (c.19). The abuse of power by ecclesiastical prelates is condemned in Reprehensibilis valde (c.6), which forbids excommunication or suspension without proper warning and orders due respect to be given to appellants, who must nevertheless prosecute their appeals or suffer financial penalties.

Sanctions

The fourth segment of the legislation, concerning broader questions of social and political life, opens with an almost verbatim recapitulation of four decrees which had already been promulgated in Lateran II,[97] forbidding jousts (c.20), confirming the Truce of God (c.21),[98] renewing ecclesiastical protection for priests, monks, clergy, lay brothers (>conversi=), pilgrims, merchants, and peasants (c.22), and a general condemnation of usury, punishable by excommunication and denial of Christian burial (c.25). The remaining three canons deal with relations with Jews, Saracens, and heretics. Ita quorundam (c.24) forbids the selling of arms or supplies to the Saracens, or Christian service in Saracen galleys, and condemns all acts of piracy or the maltreatment of victims of shipwreck; Iudei sive Saraceni (c.26) forbids Jews and Saracens to employ Christian servants. The very important last canon, Sicut ait beatus Leo (c.27), declared that all heretics (Cathars, Paterines, >Publicans=)[99] and their

defenders and all who receive them are anathema. It forbade any support or aid to be given to them on pain of denial of Christian burial and dissolved all bonds of loyalty, homage and obedience owed to them.  The canon also ordered secular powers to take punitive action against them and bestowed ecclesiastical protection on those who take such action under the bishop=s direction to expel the heretics.[100] This canon was the precedent for the decree Ad abolendam, issued with the support of Emperor Frederick I at Verona in 1184, which established the principle of episcopal investigation of heretics. Lucius III declared all heretics anathema, commanded bishops to investigate and condemn them, and authorized the secular authorities to punish those who persisted in their heresy, both clerical (after degradation) and lay.[101] This latter decree itself evidence of the threat to orthodox religion posed by organized heresy, marks the first stage in the creation of the episcopal Inquisition. Canon 27 also condemned to equal execration mercenaries and their employers and supporters.

The Reception.

The first two Lateran councils occurred in time to be received into Gratian=s Decretum, and thus become part of the learned law studied in the schools and applied in ecclesiastical courts throughout Christendom. The timing of the Third Lateran Council was equally fortunate. The intervening forty years had seen the creation of the decretal based ius novum and the formation of a learned legal culture common to the whole Church. As early as the 1150s, new legal definitions from papal decretals were being inserted into copies of the Decretum; from the 1160s, collections of the new law, including the decrees of recent councils, were being assembled by judges delegate and their circles in England.[102] Individual decrees of the Council of Reims (1148), for example, are found in six collections from the period;[103] the decrees of Alexander III=s Council of Tours (1163) are found in seven English collections,[104] and the decrees of Richard of Canterbury=s legatine council of Westminster (1175) were included in Belverensis.[105] The canons of Lateran III were immediately received into decretal collections and widely disseminated. Alberigo lists twenty two collections which contain the whole text,[106] and he concluded that the decrees of this council were disseminated through the whole Latin Church and exerted a great influence on its courts and affairs.[107] Not surprisingly, all 27 canons were received into the Liber Extra, the formal collection of law made by Raymond of Peñafort for Pope Gregory IX in 1234 and promulgated by him for use >in iudiciis et in scholis.=[108]

At the same time, many of its decrees were echoed and amplified in diocesan and provincial councils throughout the West: at Rouen in 1190,[109] at Montpellier in 1195,[110] at Westminster in 1200,[111] and in the conciliar activities of reformers like Odo de Sully in Paris (H 1209)[112] and Stephen Langton in Canterbury (1213 -1214),[113] as well as in the work of papal legates Robert de Courçon, Paris, 1213;[114] Rouen, February 1214;[115] Bordeaux, June 1214, and Peter of Benevento, Montpellier, January 1215.[116] Even more significantly, the council=s legislation restricting ecclesiastical retinues and procurations (c.4), restricting vacancies to six months, after which the right of appointment would devolve on the next ecclesiastical superior (c.8), forbidding religious to receive tithes or churches from lay hands without the bishop=s permission (c.9), forbidding plurality of >beneficia curata= (c.13), ordering the appointment of schoolmasters (c.18), and forbidding the imposition of lay imposts and taxes on churches (c.19), was explicitly cited in five decrees of Lateran IV (1215),[117] and its influence can be detected in a further sixteen. The Fourth Lateran=s decrees on heresy (c.3), clerical incontinence (c.14), bloodshed and tournaments (cc.18, 71), devolution in episcopal and monastic churches (cc.23, 29), election by scrutiny or compromise, accepting the >maior vel sanior pars= principle (c.24),[118] the appointment of suitably qualified clergy (c.26), qualifications for ecclesiastical appointment (c.30), lay possession of tithes (c.32), appeals (c.35), clerical immunity from secular taxation (c.46), excommunications (c.47), monastic privileges (c.57), and various forms of simony (cc.63-64), all echo the prescriptions of Lateran III.[119]

Not only did the Third Lateran=s legislation profoundly affect both the canon law and the provincial and diocesan legislation across Europe, its influence can be found in the moral and penitential literature of the time. Echoes of at least fourteen of its canons have been found in pastoral manuals composed in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. Peter the Chanter, Alan of Lille, Robert of Flamborough, Peter of Poitiers, Thomas of Chobham, and Raymond of Peñafort include some of its provisions, Peter the Chanter, Alan, and Raymond citing the council or Alexander III by name.[120]

Although there is considerable continuity between the three Lateran councils, the Third Lateran significantly eclipsed its predecessors.[121] Its canons demonstrate a greater juristic maturity in language and construction, with greater precision both in the definition of misconduct and in the sanctions to be applied. Behind the legislation of Lateran III was the legal expertise built up through the pontificate of Alexander III, whose numerous decisions and responses to consultations from bishops and ecclesiastical judges across Europe had laid the basis of the decretal law which would ultimately form the largest single element of the Gregorian Decretales of 1234. The authority with which the council spoke, the clarity of its definitions, and the rapidity with which its legislation was disseminated throughout Latin Christendom assured its place both in the history of the Church and in the history of canon law.

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215)

Summoned by the bull Vineam Domini Sabaoth on 19 April 1213, the Fourth Lateran Council opened in Rome on 11 November 1215.[122] By all measures, it was the largest, most representative, and most influential council assembled under papal leadership before the end of the fourteenth century. It was attended by some four hundred bishops and eight hundred abbots, priors, and representatives of collegiate churches.[123] The first three Lateran councils marked the end of schisms or the resolution of disputes. The fourth, in contrast, marked the culmination of the career of Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), one of the most remarkable and successful popes of the Middle Ages, and represented his determination to provide effective mechanisms for reform. At the same time, it marked the culmination of the legislative and legal evolution since Lateran I, combining derivations from the ius antiquum with more recent conciliar and decretal law. Its sources included twenty four borrowings from Gratian=s Decretum, eleven from Compilatio prima, three from Compilatio secunda, fourteen from Compilatio tertia, four from Lateran I, six from Lateran II, and at least twelve from Lateran III, as well as twenty six from Innocent III=s own decretals.[124] But just as Lateran III surpassed its two predecessors in the wider scope and greater legal maturity of its decrees, so did the scale of Lateran IV in its turn eclipse Lateran III. Conceived in the tradition of the ancient councils of the Church, principally Nicaea (325) and Chalcedon (451), Lateran IV issued binding legislation whose prescriptions helped to shape the history of the later medieval church until the Council of Trent, and beyond.[125]

The period since the Third Lateran Council had been one of grave difficulty: the Latin Kingdom had been all but overwhelmed in 1187 (battle of Hattin); the Third Crusade had staved off disaster, but had not restored Christian control of the Holy Places in Jerusalem; the Fourth Crusade had diverted its attentions to Zara (modern Zadar, Croatia) and Constantinople; and the Catharist heresy had established itself in Toulouse and Northern Italy. Criticisms of ecclesiastical institutions abounded, and Innocent III recognized that a comprehensive program of reform was required to answer the challenges posed by critics, heterodox and orthodox alike.[126] The council was called, therefore, >to extirpate vices and plant virtues, correct abuses and reform morals, suppress heresies and strengthen faith, pacify discords and strengthen peace, repress oppression and support liberty; to induce Christian princes and peoples to support the Holy Land with the financial aid of clerks and laymen; and many other questions, which would take too long to enumerate= C as the letters of summons expressed it.[127] Among these >other questions=, three major political questions engaged the pope=s attention: the succession to the empire, the revolt against King John in England, and the settlement of the County of Toulouse after the Albigensian crusade. Formal decisions on all three problems were delivered during the final session of the council (30 November). The excommunication of the barons in revolt against King John of England was renewed; Count Raymond VI of Toulouse was deposed for collusion in heresy and Simon de Montfort was instituted as count in his stead; and Otto IV was finally deposed in favor of Frederick of Hohenstaufen, whose election as king of Germany and emperor elect was formally confirmed.[128]

Important as these matters were in the general history of the West, Innocent=s principal purpose remained reform. To this end, he ordered prudent persons in every province to conduct a general investigation into abuses which required apostolic correction, with written reports to be submitted to the council; and he enlarged the council membership to include the abbots and general chapters of Cîteaux and Premontré, the Grand Masters of the Temple and the Hospital, and representatives from cathedral and collegiate churches, kings, princes, and free cities. The Fourth Lateran Council was thus the largest and most representative of the medieval councils to that date. In addition to the Roman Province itself, no fewer than eighty ecclesiastical provinces were represented, including Latin prelates from Byzantium and the Holy Land.[129]

The scholarly consensus is that the constitutions were drafted by Innocent III himself.[130] The earliest manuscripts support this view, describing the canons as >the constitutions or decrees of the lord pope Innocent III issued in the general Lateran Council=;[131] and their latest editor, García y García, has commented on the close parallels between the phrasing of some of the constitutions and earlier writings or decisions of Innocent III.[132] Moreover, the pope=s own authority is emphasized in the use of the first person plural C >Irrefragabili constitutione sancimus= (c.7), >statuimus= (c.20), >decreto presenti statuimus= (c.22), >uolumusYinterdicimus= (c.42), >dolemusYuolentes= (c.44), sometimes combined with an expression of conciliar approval or authorityC>sacra uniuersali synodo approbante sancimus= (c.5), >sacri auctoritate concilii prohibemus= (c.43), >Sacro approbante concilio prohibemus= (c.47). But if Innocent III largely devised the decrees, he did so in a context of wide consultation and promulgated them in a forum which represented the whole Church. The council had been in gestation from the beginning of his pontificate;[133] the questions raised reflected contemporary concerns;[134] and there was opportunity for individuals or groups to present their own views both before the council met and during the intervals between its three formal sessions.[135]

Legislation

At the final solemn session (30 November 1215), seventy one constitutions covering a wide range of theological, legal and disciplinary matters were promulgated by papal and conciliar authority.[136] Their contents can be analyzed under fifteen headings.

Faith and heresy

The decrees began with a solemn profession of faith, De fide catholica, designed to define central tenets of Christian doctrine in the light of current debate among theological speculators like Joachim of Fiore[137] and Amaury de Bène,[138] as well as the questions raised by the Cathars and other heretical groups.[139] The Trinity and the divine and human natures of Christ were defined in the language of the twelfth century Parisian theologian Peter Lombard, whose Quatuor libri sententiarum had become the basic textbook of academic theology, but not without opposition.[140] The nature of Christ=s presence in the Eucharist was similarly defined in scholastic terminology, which gave canonical approbation to the concept of transubstantiation (c.1).[141] These important theological definitions were followed by condemnations of Joachim (for his attack on the Trinitarian teaching of Peter Lombard) and Amaury de Bène (H 1204), who had taught a version of pantheism, as well as un named heretics and their secular supporters (c.2). Canon 3 excommunicated and anathematized all heretics who challenged the doctrines just enumerated, and ordered those convicted to be handed over to the secular authorities for punishment; secular rulers are obliged to eradicate heresy from their territories on pain of excommunication; those who take up arms against heretics are to enjoy the privileges accorded to crusaders; and bishops who fail in their duty to oppose heresy and heretics are to be deposed (c.3).[142]

This decree did not establish a formal inquisition, but it provided the precedent upon which Gregory IX was to act in 1231-1233, when he renewed the sentences of excommunication and anathema against heretics and authorized systematic pursuit and punishment.[143] Canon 4 forbade, on pain of deposition, the Greek practice of purging altars on which Latins had celebrated and re baptizing persons baptized by Latins. From there, it was a logical progression to proclaiming the hierarchical order of patriarchates: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem (c.5), which led into the important section on ecclesiastical order and discipline.

Order and discipline

Following the lead of Lateran III, Innocent sought not merely to condemn malpractice and abuse, but to create mechanisms and structures which would continue the reform program beyond the time of the council. To this end, Sicut olim (c.6) ordered regular visitations to investigate clerical behavior, and annual provincial and diocesan synods to correct faults and reiterate the Council=s own decrees; Irrefragabili (c.7) authorized bishops to correct their chapters, local custom notwithstanding; Qualiter (c.8) laid down rules for the prudent investigation of faults by prelates generally;[144] Quoniam in plerisque (c.9) authorized the appointment of special clergy to provide pastoral care for populations of different rites and languages; and in a very important decision, In singulis regnis (c.12) extended the Cistercian practice of General Chapters to all religious orders which did not already have them, but substituted triennial for annual gatherings, organized by province or region. The general chapters were to have a function similar to that of provincial and diocesan councils, with powers of visitation and correction.[145] The position of the much debated Ne nimia religionum (c.13), which forbade the creation of new religious orders, suggests that the problem was regarded principally as a matter of ecclesiastical order, and the intention of the decree was to prevent the unregulated proliferation of local religious organizations.[146]

Preachers, teachers, and penitentiaries

A principal aim of the council was the regeneration of the spiritual vigor of the Church, which could not be brought about without investment in education and preaching. Again inspired by Lateran III (c.18),[147] Quia nonnullis ordered the appointment of masters to teach >grammar=, not only in cathedral churches but in all churches capable of supporting them, and the appointment of teachers of theology in all metropolitan churches (c.11), while Inter caetera ordered the appointment of preachers and penitentiaries to assist in the discharge of the episcopal functions of preaching and penance (c.10).

Clerical life

Much of the material in this section was a reinforcement of previous legislation C laying down penalties for incontinent clergy (c.14),148 forbidding drunkenness and gluttony (c.15), ordering clergy to maintain the tonsure and avoid luxurious dress (c.16);149 and ordering prelates to avoid unnecessary feasting and attend services regularly and properly (17). But in renewing the ancient prohibition against ordained clergy participating in >sentences of blood= or duels,150 Sententiam sanguinis (c.18) extended its application to include all forms of involvement in the shedding of blood, judicial and non judicial, forbidding clergy to act as scribes or recorders in courts where such sentences were issued, or to command companies of mercenaries or crossbowmen, or to engage in surgery; or even to bless ordeals of hot or cold water or hot iron.151 This last was an extremely important decision which had immediate effect on those jurisdictions which still employed the ordeal as a method of proof in judicial process. The English royal council, for example, directed its judges to adopt other procedures on 26 January 1219, and the judicial ordeal ceased to be a feature of English Common Law.152

Religious cult

This important segment partly echoes the work of contemporary reformers like Odo de Sully, bishop of Paris,153 in ordering the proper maintenance of churches and oratories (c.19), the safe custody of chrism and the Eucharist (c.20),154 and the regular attendance of priests at the sickbeds of the dyingCexpressed as a requirement that physicians urge the very sick to make provision for the health of their souls as well as their bodies (c.22), while the highly important Omnis utriusque sexus (c.21) commanded all Christians to confess their sins to their own priest and receive the Eucharist at least once a year, especially at Easter. The secrets of the confessional must not be revealed, on pain of suspension.155

Appointments and elections

This section, too, can be regarded as reinforcement and clarification of existing legislation.156 Cathedral and regular churches must not be vacant for more than three months, after which the right of appointment devolves on the next ecclesiastical superior (c.23);157 elections should be made by scrutiny or by compromise (c.24);158 elections made through secular abuse are null; those who accept them are debarred from any other ecclesiastical appointment; those who hold them are to be suspended for three years (c.25); those who confirm the appointments of unworthy candidates for ecclesiastical office are penalized by loss of rights and income (c.26); ordinands must be properly instructed (c.27); those who obtain permission to resign must be compelled to do so (c.28); renewing Lateran III=s prescriptions, the accumulation of benefices with cure of souls is forbidden,159 and appointments to benefices must be made within six160 months, failing which the right devolves to the next superior (c.29);161 prelates to appoint suitable persons, on pain of loss of right of appointment (c.30); sons of canons, especially bastards, not to be installed in the same churches as their fathers (c.31); patrons of parish churches to assign sufficient incomes to the priests in charge; and suitable income to be assigned to vicars (c.32); procurations not to be taken without visitation (c.33); and prelates must not burden their subjects with excessive demands (c.34).

Legal procedure

The inclusion of so many long and complicated constitutions relating to different aspects of the operation of the system of canonical courts, is testimony to the legal revolution which had taken place since Gratian=s Decretum. A Europe wide system of canonical jurisdiction had come into being, and many questions of practice and procedure required authoritative definition. Constitutions 35-48 deal with technical aspects of the law. Defendants must not appeal without good cause before sentence is given; if they do, they are to be charged expenses (c.35); judges may revoke comminatory and interlocutory sentences162 and proceed with the case (c.36); no one may be summoned more than two days= journey outside his own diocese without his express agreement; no one may impetrate papal letters without the approval of his superior (c.37);163 a full written record of all proceedings must be kept in ecclesiastical courts (c.38); persons receiving property wrongly taken from another can be sued for restitution, the rigor of the civil law notwithstanding (c.39); if, because of the defendant=s contumacy, a plaintiff is assigned possession of something, >causa rei servandae=, and is unable, through violence or trickery, to acquire or maintain possession of it within a year, he is, after a year, to be established as the true possessor, so that the defendant may not benefit from his own wrong doing. Laymen may not be appointed arbiters in spiritual matters (c.40); prescriptions are valid only if made in good faith (c.41);164 clergy may not invade secular jurisdiction in the name of ecclesiastical freedom 8. 42); recusation of judges must be supported by evidence, which must be judged by an arbitrator; if proved, the judge may appoint another judge or send the case to a superior (c.48).165

Relations with the secular power

Lay princes had given up investiture with ring and crozier in the early twelfth century, but manifestations of the grossest forms of secular abuse of ecclesiastical persons and property still occurred in all parts of Christendom. In what can be called a codicil to the legislation of the twelfth century, Lateran IV decreed that clerics should not take oaths of fealty to laymen without lawful cause (c.43); that lay princes should not usurp the rights of churches (c.44); that a patron who kills or mutilates a clerk shall be deprived of his office, and his heirs to the fourth generation will be deprived of entry to a college of clergy or prelature in a regular house, except by dispensation (c.45); that clerks must not be obliged to pay taxes on pain of excommunication (c.46).166

Excommunication

Here, too, Lateran IV repeated and extended the decrees of its predecessors: excommunication to be imposed only after warning in the presence of suitable witnesses and for manifest and reasonable cause (c.47); excommunications to be neither imposed nor lifted for payment (c.49).

Marriage

Among the difficulties associated with determining the validity of Christian marriage, the problems relating to consanguinity and clandestinity had caused great uncertainty in the twelfth century. The prohibition against inter marriage between blood relations had been drawn so widely (up to the seventh degree of consanguinity) that it was difficult in practice to observe the canonical rules, especially in small rural communities and among the upper aristocracy. For this reason, in Non debet reprehensibile (c.50), Innocent III formally revoked earlier legislation,167 and reduced the prohibited degrees of consanguinity and affinity to four (thus barring marriages between persons descended from the same great great grand parents).168 At the same time, he re-issued the condemnation of clandestine marriages, declaring the children of such unions illegitimate, and ordered that intended marriages should be proclaimed in advance (>banns of marriage=), so that any lawful objections could be raised in advance of the ceremony (c.51).169   The pope also declared that hearsay evidence was not admissible in matrimonial cases (c.52).

Tithes

Another matter of contention was the obligation of Christians to pay tithes to their parish church. The council condemned those who had their property cultivated by others (non-Christians) in order to avoid tithes (c.53); declared that tithe payments have priority over all other taxes and dues (c.54); ordered Cistercians and other privileged orders to pay tithes on all lands acquired by them in the future, whether cultivated by themselves or not (c.55);170 and prohibited both secular and regular clergy from making any kind of agreement which would deprive the parish priest of his lawful tithe (c.56).

12. Religious Orders

The tensions between monasticism and episcopal authority were as old as monasticism itself. In a series of five constitutions (cc.57-62), Innocent III sought to mediate between the two, while recognizing the valid claims of each. Ut privilegia (c.57) gave precise instructions on the interpretation of the privilege of celebrating religious services during interdict, enjoyed by some orders; and the same privilege was extended to bishops in Quod nunnulis (c.58). Quod quibusdam (c.59) established that a religious may not pledge his faith or accept a loan without the knowledge of his abbot and the majority of the chapter; Accendentibus (c.60) forbade abbots to exercise rights which properly belonged to bishops, such as hearing matrimonial cases, imposing public penances, and granting letters of indulgence; and In Lateraniensi (c.61) reiterated earlier prohibitions against religious receiving tithes from laymen.171

Simony

Here, too, Lateran IV reflected earlier legislation:172 no fees are to be exacted for the consecration of bishops, the blessing of abbots or the ordination of clerics (c.63); monks and nuns may not require payment for entry into the religious life (c.64); bishops may not require gifts for instituting clergy or permitting entry to the religious life (c.65); clergy must confer the sacraments freely; may not charge burial fees, but can accept customary offerings (c.66). But concern with another form of trafficking in the sacred underlies the decree Cum ex eo (c.62), which sought to restrain both the exploitation of saints= relics and the excessive bestowal of indulgences. Old relics of saints might not be exhibited outside reliquaries or offered for sale; new relics could not be venerated without papal approval; questors for alms must have written authorization either from the Apostolic See or from a diocesan bishop,173 and may not depart from the text. Moreover, episcopal indulgences may not exceed one year for attendance at the dedication of a church, and forty days for the anniversary.174

Regulations relating to Jews and Moslems

The concern for the integrity of orthodox Christian belief and practice which was manifested in the opening canons of the council recurs in the closing constitution, which imposed restrictions on relations between Christians and non-Christians. Jews may not charge extortionate interest (c.67); Jews and Moslems must wear a distinct form of dress and not mock Christian ceremonies (c.68); Jews may not hold public office (c.69); Jewish converts to Christianity may not return to their former rites (c.70).175

The Crusade

The final action of the council (c.71) was to issue a call for a crusade, to take place in the following year (from June, 1216), offering the benefits of the crusading indulgence to those who contributed to the endeavor, and the Church=s protection to those who went in person, and imposing a three years= tax of one twentieth of ecclesiastical revenues on all clerics in the church, the pope and cardinals promising to pay a tenth.

The Reception

Almost a century of legal development had occurred since the First Lateran Council of 1123. During that time, the learned law had established itself in the schools and courts of Western Christendom and had been subjected to exhaustive academic scrutiny and debate. It followed that the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council, intended to have immediate legal authority, were carefully drafted to provide unambiguous direction. Hence the decrees are very much longer than those of Lateran I and II, and mostly longer even than those of Lateran III. Moreover, a five fold pattern, comparable with the five fold structure adopted by Bernard of Pavia in the >Leipzig= collection and Compilatio prima (iudex, iudicia, clerus, connubium, crimen), is broadly discernible in the ordering of the decrees,176 and succinct rubrics were provided to facilitate incorporation into collections of law.177

Reception into the main stream of positive law was not long delayed. Almost immediately, the council=s decrees were received into the >ius novum=, first into Compilatio quarta (compiled 1216; officially published 1216-17),178 and then into the Gregorian decretals of 1234.179 In fact, its first two constitutions became the first two >capitula= of the Liber Extra.180 Antonio García y García has demonstrated both the wide diffusion of the Lateran=s legislation181 and the speed with which it was incorporated into the scholarly legal tradition. Johannes Teutonicus, the leading professor of canon law at Bologna, composed an >apparatus= on the decrees within months of the closure of the council;182 his Portuguese colleague, Vincentius Hispanus, composed another at about the same time or very slightly later,183 and further glosses and commentaries were written by Damasus Hungarus (after 1216), and the anonymous authors of the Casus Parisienses and the Casus Fuldenses (both before 1220). Moreover, after their incorporation into Compilatio quarta and the Liber Extra, they were minutely examined in the context of these formally promulgated compendia of canon law.184 Although all the constitutions were glossed, the commentators were principally interested in the strictly legal aspects of the council=s legislation. It is therefore not surprising that the most heavily glossed canons were those concerned with canonical process. The >apparatus= of Johannes Teutonicus, for example, occupies eighty four pages, of which just over thirty four pagesCmore than a third of the wholeCare devoted to the fourteen constitutions concerned with procedure (cc.35-48), and a similar disproportion is revealed in the works of his contemporaries. Vincentius Hispanus and Damasus Hungarus devoted about a quarter of their discussions to the procedural canons.185

But the Lateran decrees were not merely the province of academic lawyers. Copies of the decrees were carried away from Rome to the four quarters of the Latin world by the four hundred or so bishops and eight hundred abbots, priors, capitular representatives, and others. The contemporary records of the Latin Church bear testimony to their application to a greater or lesser extent throughout the thirteenth century, and beyond, in the different regions of the Latin Church.186 Moreover, Sicut olim (c.6) greatly stimulated187 the convocation of provincial and diocesan councils which promulgated local synodal statutes and reiterated decrees of the general council.188 In stimulating the increasing regularity of diocesan synods, the Fourth Lateran Council helped to create the medium for the dissemination of its own constitutions.

For England, the earliest evidence of the reception of Lateran decrees occurs in the extremely important set of statutes first issued by Bishop Richard Poore for the diocese of Salisbury in 1219 and then re issued, with additions, in Durham 1228-1236.189 The decrees are a mélange of recent ecclesiastical legislation, combining canons from the Third and Fourth Lateran Councils with chapters from Bishop Odo de Sully=s synodal statutes for the diocese of Paris (before 1208) and Archbishop Stephen Langton=s provincial statutes for Canterbury (1213-1214).190 The Salisbury compilation was an immediate success. Derivatives, adaptations and expansions were made in many dioceses in the succeeding century, as individual bishops sought in the wake of the Lateran Council to provide authoritative guidance for their administrators and clergy. Its influence can be traced especially in the statutes issued for the dioceses of Canterbury (1222 -1228), Durham (1228-1236), Durham peculiars in York (1241-1249), Salisbury (1238-1244), Exeter (1225-1237), London (1245-1259), and Chichester (1244-1253), and in an undated provincial council in Scotland.191 Only slightly later, in a provincial council held in Osney Abbey (outside Oxford) in April 1222,192 Archbishop Stephen Langton issued sixty statutes on sacramental life and ecclesiastical discipline, which echoed or summarized Lateran constitutions in fifteen cases, alluding to the council by name in seven.193 Moreover, his final statute ordered observance of >the council held at the Lateran by Pope Innocent III of holy memory=, in respect of payment of tithe, and other provisions, and commanded the bishops to promulgate both the Lateran constitutions and his own, as appropriate in their diocesan synods.194 The crucial importance of this council can be judged by its survival in about sixty manuscripts, only seven of which date from the thirteenth century, and from the inclusion of many of its constitutions in the great compendium of English ecclesiastical law composed by William Lyndwood in 1430.195 Not long after Stephen Langton=s council, the statutes (1222-1225) for an unidentified English diocese reveal important borrowings from Lateran IV,196 and the synodal statutes promulgated c. 1224 by Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester, began with the declaration that >The statutes of the Second197 Lateran Council shall be observed by everyone in our diocese= (c.1).198 The direct and indirect influence of Lateran legislation can be found in other English diocesan councils throughout the thirteenth century, as at Exeter (1225-1237), Worcester (1229, 1240), Lincoln (1239?), Norwich (1240-1243), Bath and Wells c. 1258), as well as in Cardinal Otto=s legatine decrees issued at London in 1237.199 That the Fourth Lateran Council became and remained general law for the English Church is confirmed by the conclusion to the preamble of the Bath and Wells statutes of 1258 which explicitly acknowledge the authority of the edicts of three councils, the Lateran, Oxford, and London: that is, Lateran IV, Stephen Langton=s Oxford synod (1222), and Cardinal Otto=s London council (1237).200

A comparable process is found in France. In the immediate aftermath of the council, a composite code, combining decrees of Lateran IV with the highly important sacramental and disciplinary decrees of Odo de Sully H1208),201 was issued at Tours (1215-1216),202 and shortly afterwards (1220), Guillaume de Beaumont, bishop of Angers, promulgated a similar compendium of Odo=s statutes and constitutions of the Fourth Lateran Council (which Guillaume attended).203 In this case, the derivations from Lateran IV are usually identified as >From the last Lateran Council=, >From the Lateran Council=, etc., but some are not identified, and three chapters are wrongly attributed to the council.204 The Angers statutes became the archetype of a whole family of diocesan codes in Western France, copies of which were to be kept by every parish priest. They were adopted in Le Mans (1229), Tours (after 1229), Nantes (date unknown), Orléans (1231?), Bayeux (1300?), and Lisieux (date uncertain, but re issued and up dated in 1321) and influenced the compilations made in the thirteenth century in Autun (1286), Coutances (13th cent.), Clermont Ferrand (1268), Langres (13th cent.), Lyon (after 1298), Nîmes (1252),205 Noyon (before 1285), Rouen (before 1235), Saintes (after 1255), and Sisteron (1241)Cand indeed throughout the whole of France until the Council of Trent.206 Meanwhile, a substantial derivation from Lateran IV was promulgated at Rouen in 1224, with the declaration, >by the authority of the sacred general Lateran CouncilYwe desire these especially to be observed, which are known to have been established in that council=.207

In two of the six provinces208 of the German church the ground was prepared to some extent by reform minded prelates before 1215. Odo de Sully=s decrees influenced the synodal statutes of Archbishop Siegfried II of Mainz in 1209;209 and statutes were issued for Toul, Liège, and Utrecht in 1192, 1203, and 1209, respectively, while decrees similar to the Utrecht code were promulgated in Cologne and Liège in 1209.210 Twenty one bishops and archbishops and perhaps forty or fifty other clerics constituted the >German= contingent at the Lateran council,211 and there is evidence of the immediate promulgation of its constitutions in the provinces of Salzburg (Archbishop Eberhard: 1216),212 Trier (Dietrich II: 1216 and 1238),213 and Mainz (Siegfried II: 1218, 1233, 1239),214 as well as reiteration at diocesan level in Constanz (1216), Hildesheim (1216), Metz (c.1219?), Chur 8. 1219?), Halberstadt (1216-1220), Liège (1217), and Toul (1224).215 For the provinces of Mainz, Salzburg, and Trier, therefore, echoes of Lateran IV reverberate through the synodal legislation of the first generation after 1216; and fairly wide knowledge of the its decrees can be established in monastic and cathedral churches.216.

Evidence for the remaining three provinces is less secure, but early promulgation can be inferred for Cologne (Engelbert: 1220?)217 and Magdeburg (Albrecht: 1220).218 Later in the century, there is firmer evidence for the issue of reforming decrees covering clerical and monastic behavior in Cologne and Magdeburg in 1261.219 Political difficulties impeded action at the provincial level in Bremen Hamburg, however, but diocesan publication occurred in Merseburg (1216-1218), Prague (1216), and Naumburg (1217),220 and the papal legate Gregory may have published reforming decrees in Ratzeburg, Schwerin, Lübeck, Olmütz, and Meissen in 1221-1222.221 In 1225, another legate, Cardinal Conrad of Porto, presided at a legatine council at Mainz, which issued decrees for the whole German nation, and ended with a general mandate for the annual promulgation of the constitutions at provincial, episcopal, and other synods.222 In due course they were incorporated into the Mainz synodal book in 1310.223

The story in Spain and Portugal is colored by the local preoccupations of the Spanish episcopate, impoverished by the >reconquista=, distracted by the jurisdictional dispute between Compostela and Toledo, and very much subject to royal control.224 Although twenty seven Spanish bishops and a considerable company of lesser ecclesiastics attended the council,225 only Bishop Gerald (Giraldo) of Segovia made an attempt, unsuccessful as it turned out, to apply some of the new constitutions in a synod in 1216.226 Not until the legation of John of Abbeville, cardinal bishop of Sabina, was the full program of the Lateran reforms introduced into Iberia.227 He visited the whole of the Spanish peninsula in 1228-1229, holding councils at Valladolid (1228), Salamanca (1229), Lérida (March, 1229), and elsewhere, the principal purpose of which was the emphatic promulgation of relevant Lateran decrees throughout the four ecclesiastical provinces of the Spanish peninsula.228 Only those from Lérida have survived,229 but it is likely that the legislation at Valladolid and Salamanca was similar in form and extent.230 The very close dependence of the Lérida code on Lateran IV is evident from the arenga, which orders the general observance >of the decrees of the holy general council, which have been for the most part neglected=.231 Twenty one of its thirty seven statutes reflected Lateran legislation and ten refer to the council in one way or another.232 The whole program was reiterated ten years later by an energetic Catalan reformer, Pedro (Pere) de Albalat, archbishop of Tarragona. His first council (1239) concluded with a general promulgation of the statutes of the general council and of the papal legate;233 and this was supplemented in 1241 by the promulgation at Barcelona of a Summa on the seven sacraments, which owed much to Odo de Sully=s statutes.234 More than a generation later, Rodrigo Gonzálvez at Compostela issued a series of decrees in the Lateran spirit (1289),235 and the legal code published by Alfonso X of Castile received the Lateran legislation through the medium of the Decretales Gregorii noni.236

For Hungary and Poland, the picture is much less clear. No fewer than three archbishops and eight bishops from Hungary and Dalmatia (then under Hungarian rule) attended the council,237 but there is little evidence of reforming activity on their return. At least five Hungarian councils, provincial and legatine, have been recorded in some fashion for the period 1222 to 1276, with varying degrees of accuracy, but no legislation has survived.238 A series of grave crises disrupted the normal exercise of ecclesiastical authority for much of the thirteenth century. The civil wars and political upheavals which followed the death of Béla III in 1196 disturbed the kingdom until 1235; but even worse was to follow. Hungary suffered terrible devastation, first in the Mongol invasion of 1241-1243 and then during the virtual anarchy under Ladislaus IV (1272-1290). Civil upheaval and unrestrained looting and destruction were scarcely conducive to ecclesiastical reform. The first evidence of the introduction of some of the Lateran decrees comes from the legatine council held in Buda in 1279 by the papal legate, Bishop Philip of Fermo.239 In this very important legislation, which combined disciplinary decrees with liturgical and doctrinal instructions on the sacraments and basic Catholic belief,240 direct dependence on the Lateran constitutions can be argued for the decrees against clerical involvement in commerce, gaming, and hunting (c.9 [8]) and sentences of blood (c.10 [9]), and in the canon ordering the proper maintenance of chrism, holy oil, and the Eucharist (c.24 [21]). Moreover, a further four enactments referred specifically to >the council=, meaning the Fourth Lateran Council. The ordinance forbidding both the display of relics outside their shrines and the unlicensed recognition of new relics (c.28 [27]) invokes its authority (>In Concilio statutum est=); similarly, the decrees prohibiting the storage of private property in churches (c.43 [41]), instructing physicians to ensure the summons of priests to attend the dying (c.97 [-]), and prohibiting the imposition of fees for burials, weddings, and other sacraments (c.123 [-]), all cite the council (>In Concilio prohibetur=, >Statutum est in concilio=). Verbal dependence on the text of Lateran IV is evident in all seven cases.241 For the rest of the code, however, the derivation is much less certain. The Budan decrees relating to clerical and monastic dress and discipline, as well as restrictions on Jews, reflect Lateran provisions, but without specific or significant verbal echoes, and the influence of other conciliar sources (Avignon 1209, Rouen 1231, Vienna 1267, and even the first council of Esztergom [now dated 1095?]) has been proposed.242

The political situation in Poland was scarcely better, as the disintegration of the kingdom into territorial principalities continued through the thirteenth century, exacerbated by the terror and destruction of the Mongol invasion; and would be reformers had a difficult task in the face of powerful secular interests.243 The Polish contingent to the Lateran council included the reformer, Henry Kietlicz, archbishop of Gniezno, and four suffragans.244 On his return, Archbishop Henry issued a general statute against incontinent clergy in 1218245 and appointed two clerks to investigate clerical and episcopal misdemeanors;246 and Archbishop Pelka (Fulk, 1235-58) reiterated similar strictures in councils held in 1233, 1244 and 1257;247 but the intervention of papal legates was required to introduce the Lateran decrees to any significant extent. Jacques Pantaléon, archdeacon of Liège (later Pope Urban IV) held a legatine council in Wroc»aw (for the province of Gniezno) in 1248. In addition to matters of local concern, many of the chapters echoed Lateran constitutions. The decree against lay abuse of ecclesiastical persons and property (c.11 [1]), and the regulations about tithe-payment (cc.15-17 [5-7]), are local applications of the general law; so, too, the injunction that parish priests should not bless the marriages of persons from another parish (23 [16]), and the prescriptions on the triple reading of the banns of marriage (c.24 [17]), the safe custody of baptismal water, eucharist and holy oil (c.27 [21]), and archdeacons= visitations (c.28 [22]).248 Eighteen years later (1266-67), another legate, Cardinal Guido of S. Lorenzo in Lucina, visited Scandinavia and the provinces of Bremen, Magdeburg, Salzburg, and Gniezno, publishing decrees for each.249 The Gniezno decrees on lay abuse (cc.2, 5), consanguineous marriages (c.3), plurality (c.4), tithes (c.6), clerical litigation before lay judges (c.7), visitation and procurations (cc.8-9), annual councils (c.11), and association with Jews (cc.10, 12-14) reflect the legislation of the Fourth Lateran Council, but without citation or verbal dependence.250 Of even greater importance, however, was the comprehensive code for Hungary and Poland, discussed above, published at Buda in 1279 by the papal legate Bishop Philip of Fermo. Together with the directives of his two legatine predecessors, Philip=s summary of current legislation formed the basis of the synodal statutes issued six years later (1285) by Archbishop Jacob Swinka of Gniezno and so passed into the law of the Polish church.251

Although the effective application of the decrees varied according to local conditions and customs, decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council passed into the general tradition of local synodal legislation throughout the West more than those of any other medieval council and influenced the compilation of manuals for priestly instruction.252 The clear directives for confession, communion, and marriage, for the proper care of churches and sacred objects, and the rules for elections, the establishment of the majority principle in ecclesiastical corporations, the precise definition of contentious theological questions (the Trinity, the Eucharist, the natures of Christ), the reinforcement of episcopal authority, the clarification of judicial procedure, including the requirement that all ecclesiastical courts must keep a full written record of their proceedings, were all of permanent effect for the rest of the Middle Ages, and beyond.

[1] C. R. Cheney, >The Numbering of the Lateran Councils of 1179 and 1215=, Medieval Texts and Studies (Oxford 1973) 206-207.

[2] Cheney, >The Numbering of the Lateran Councils= 203-208.

[3] Cf. COD 131-156.

[4] Although not immediately: see Vittorio Peri, >L=ecumenicità di un concilio come processo storico nella vita della Chiesa=, AHC 20 (1988) 216-244, especially 223-238. The subsequent Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) was accepted in the West but not in the East: cf. ibid., 157-159. The full list of eight general councils is given in Gratian, Decretum, D.16 c.8: >Sancta octo universalia concilia, primum NicenumYoctauum quoque Constantinopolitanum usque ad unum apicem immutilata seruare, et pari honore et ueneratione digna habereY=. The Latins= request for the Greek text of the >eighth council= to be read at Florence in October 1438, caused some consternation among the Greek delegates, and the decrees of the first seven alone were made the basis of doctrinal discussions. In defense of its own claim to be the seventh ecumenical council, Nicaea II listed three essential requirements for ecumenicity: presence, in person or by representatives, of the five patriarchs, with participation by the bishop of Rome and unanimity; doctrinal importance of the matters defined; recognition by the whole Church of the council=s position in the series of ecumenical councils: cf. Peri, >L=ecumenicità di un concilio= 220-222. For the Latin reception of decrees of this council, see Jean Gaudemet, >Le deuxième concile de Nicée (787) dans les Collections canoniques occidentales=, AHC 20(1988) 278-288.

[5] I.e., Nicaea I (325), Constantinople I (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553), III (680-681), and Nicaea II (787): Andreas de Santacroce, Acta Latina concilii Florentini (Concilium Florentinum documenta et scriptores 6; Rome 1955) 43-45; Silvestros Syropoulos, Vera historia unionis non verae inter Graecos et Latinos: sive concilii Florentini ed. and trans. by R. Creyghton (Adrian Vlacq: Hagae Comitis 1660) 169-171; Les >Mémoires= du grand ecclésiarque de l=Église de Constantinople Sylvestre Syropoulos sur le concile de Florence (1438-1439), ed. V. Laurent (Concilium Florentinum documenta et scriptores 9; Rome 1971) 330-335. Cf. C. J. Hefele, Histoire des conciles, trans. by H. Leclerq (11 vols. in 21; Paris 1907-1952) 7.2 pp. 976-977; J. Gill, The Council of Florence (Cambridge 1961) 147-151; Ivan N. Ostroumov, The History of the Council of Florence (largely based on Syropoulos), trans. B. Popoff (Boston 1971) 66-72.

[6] Mansi 20.801-920, 931-42. Mansi=s texts must be used with some caution, however. For the decrees of Piacenza and Clermont, see. F. J. Gossman, Pope Urban II and Canon Law (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 403; Washington, D.C., 1960) 3-11; cf. Robert Somerville, >The French Councils of Pope Urban II: Some Basic Considerations=, AHC 2 (1970), 56-65 (reprinted in Papacy, Councils and Canon Law in the 11th and 12th Centuries [Aldershot 1990] no. 5), which shows that the so called council of Limoges dated Dec. 1095 (Mansi 20.919-922) is a figment. For the complex textual traditions of the decrees of the council of Clermont, see idem, The Councils of Urban II, 1: Decreta Claromontensia (AHC, Supplementum 1; Amsterdam 1972).

[7] Mansi 20.947-952, 961-970.

[8] Mansi 21.225-228.

[9] Mansi 21.711-736. Calixtus II=s council held in difficult circumstances at Reims in October 1119 (Mansi 20.234-258), though widely reported, does not belong to the same category: cf. Robert Somerville, >The Councils of Pope Calixtus II: Reims 1119=, Proceedings Salamanca 35-50, reprinted in Papacy, Councils and Canon Law no.12.

[10] For the reception of Urban II=s conciliar legislation, see Gossman, Pope Urban II and Canon Law especially 103-135.

[11] Lat. I, c.7

[12] Lat. II, c.5

[13] Lat. I, c.8, >secundum apostolorum canones=. This title was given to a sequence of fifty canons in the >collectio canonum= made in Rome by the sixth century Dionysius Exiguus (H after 525) and transmitted to northern Europe in the Dionysio Hadriana. They were derived from a fourth century Greek compilation of 84 (or 85, depending on the system of numeration) so called >Apostolic Constitutions=. To his Latin translations of the first 49 (or 50), Dionysius Exiguus added the decrees of the councils of Nicaea (325), Antioch (341), Constantinople (381), and Chalcedon (451), and other early councils, as well as decretals of popes from Siricius (H 399) to Anastasius II (H 498): DDC, iv (1948) 1131-1152, especially 1113-1152. For the Latin text, see Ecclesiae occidentalis monumenta iuris antiquissima, ed. C. H. Turner (2 vols. Oxford 1898-1939) 1.1-32; M. Strewe, Die Canonessammlung des Dionysius Exiguus in der ersten Redaktion (Arbeiten der Kirchengeschichte 16; Berlin-Leipzig 1931) 1-10; cf. PL 67.139-148. For the Greek text, see H. T. Bruns, Canones Apostolorum et conciliorum veterum selecti (2 vols. in 1; Berlin 1839; reprinted Turin 1959) 1.1-8.

[14] Lat. I, cc.1, 4, 12, 16, 20, 21.

[15] Lat. II, c.26; Lat. III, cc.3, 13, 14, 15.

[16] Lat. I, c.8, >Praeterea iuxta beatissimi Stephani papae sanctionem=: cf. Pseudo Isidore, Decretales pseudo-Isidorianae et Capitula Angilramni, ed. Paul Hinschius (Leipzig 1863; reprinted Aalen 1963) 186.

[17] Lat. I, c.19, Lat. II, c.7 (Gregory VII); Lat. II, c.7 (Urban II); Lat. I, c.10; Lat. II, c.7 (Paschal II); Lat. III, cc.2, 20 (Innocent II); Lat. III, c.20 (Eugenius III).

[18] Lat. I, cc.1, 10, 12, 15.

[19] Lat. II, cc.9, 10; cf. c.16.

[20] Lat. II, c.18.

[21] Lat. III, cc.11, 27.

[22] Cf. Lat. I, cc.2, 5, 7, 9, 10; Lat. II, cc.1, 3, 4, 5, etc.; Lat. III, cc.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, etc.

[23] Lat. I, cc.1, 3, 4; Lat. II, cc.2-5, 9, 12-19; Lat. III, cc.3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, etc.

[24] For a general discussion of the medieval general councils, see Gérard Fransen, >L=Écclésiologie des Conciles médiévaux=, Le Concile et les conciles ed. B. Bott et al. (Paris 1960) 125-141.

[25] Raymonde Foreville, >Procédure et débats dans les conciles médiévaux du Latran (1123-1215)=, Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 19 (1965) 21-37; (reprinted in Gouvernement et vie de l=Église au Moyen Âge (London 1979) no. I) especially 24.

[26] Foreville, >Procédures et débars= 25.

[27] Foreville, >Procédure et débats= 26-27.

[28] Raymonde Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV (Histoire des conciles oecuméniques 6; Éditions de l=Orante: Paris 1965) 56.

[29] See John Gilchrist, The Collection in 74 Title. A Canon Law Manual of the Gregorian Reform (Medieval Sources in Translation 22; Toronto 1980) 29; cf. idem >The Reception of Pope Gregory VII into the Canon Law (1073-1141) Part II=, ZRG Kan. Abt. 66 (1980) 192-229, at 204-205.

[30] Foreville, >Procédure et débats= 21-37.

[31] Foreville, >Procedure et débats= 23.

[32] Cf. M. Andrieu, Le pontifical romain au Moyen Age, 1: Le pontifical romain au XIIe siècle (ST 86; Città del Vaticano 1938) 1.255-260; cf. Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 195-199 (French translation).

[33] Mansi 21.296-297 (Annales Genuenses, I); cf. Foreville, >Procédure et débats= 30 (with French translation of the conciliar Ordo).

[34] Arnold of Lübeck, Chronica Slavorum MGH Scriptores 21.132; Walter Map, De nugis curialium 1.31. Cf. Foreville, >Procédure et débats= 31 (with French translation of W. Map).

[35] Constitutiones Concilii quarti Lateranensis una cum Commentariis glossatorum ed. Antonio García y García (MIC Series A: Corpus Glossatorum 2; Vatican City 1981) 11.

[36] Symeonis monachi opera omnia ed. T. Arnold (2 vols. Rolls Series 75; London 1882-1885) 2.278-281.

[37] See below, n. 39.

[38] See below, n. 86.

[39] According to Gerhoh of Reichersberg, who was present at the council, there was vocal opposition to the agreement that the German bishops should be elected in the king=s presence and receive their >regalia= >per sceptrum=: Gerhoh von Reichersberg, Libellus de ordine donorum Sancti Spiritus ed. E. Sackur (MGH Scriptores >Libelli de Lite= 3; Hannover 1897; reprinted Hannover1956) 280.

[40] Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 51-53, 56. For a full discussion of the council, see ibid. 44-68.

[41] Alberigo, COD 188-189.

[42] Alberigo, COD190-94. For the Latin text and English translation, see Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner, SJ (2 vols Georgetown 1990) 1.190-194; for the Latin text and French translation, see Alberigo and Duval, Les Conciles Oecumeniques 2.1 pp. 416-425; cf. Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 175-178. For an older English translation, but with a different order of canons, see H. J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils (St. Louis-London 1937) 177-194.

[43] Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida (H 1061) described simony as a form of heresy (following a tradition traceable to Pope Gregory I, 590-604), and went so far as to deny the validity of simoniacal orders or of sacraments conferred by simoniacs (Adversus simoniacos libri III, ed. F. Thaner: (MGH >Libelli de Lite= 1.118, 120-121, 189); Peter Damian (H 1072), who considered simony a >heresy= but not a transgression of faith (Liber gratissimus, ed. L. de Heinemann: (MGH >Libelli de Lite= 1.23), argued for the validity of the sacraments of wicked ministers, while condemning the viciousness of simony: (J. B. Oosterman, Peter Damian=s Doctrine on the Sacerdotal Office: A Canonical Study of the Validity of Orders and the Worthy Exercise of Ordained Ministry (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 90; University Microfilms International, Michigan 1980) especially 12-13, 37-53, 204-205, 301-302. Cf. John Gilchrist, >@Simoniaca Haeresis@ and the Problem of Orders from Leo IX to Gratian=, Proceedings Boston 209-235.

[44] Cf. Peter Damian=s defence of clerical purity, discussed by Oosterman, Peter Damian=s Doctrine 66-73. For general background, see Roger Gryson, Les origines du célibat ecclésiastique du premier au septième siècle (Gembloux 1970); Roman Cholij, Clerical Celibacy in East and West (Leominster 1988).

[45] Perhaps an allusion to the second canon of Chalcedon (451), which had outlawed all forms of simony on pain of deposition for ordainer and ordained and anathema for any lay intermediary: cf. Alberigo, COD 87-88.

[46] Cf. Giles Constable, Monastic Tithes: From their Origins to the Twelfth Century (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought 10; Cambridge 1964) 145-146.

[47] Joseph F. Cleary, Canonical Limitations on the Alienation of Church Property (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 100; Washington, D.C. 1936) 23-42.

[48] Francis X. Wahl, The Matrimonial Impediments of Consanguinity and Affinity (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 90; Washington, D.C. 1934) 9-19; For >infamia=, see n. 68, below.

[49] This decree was a general application of a >peace movement= which had its origins in late tenth century France: see Jean Pierre Poly, La Provence et la société féodale, 879-1166 (1976) 191-204; cf. Hartmut Hoffmann, Gottesfriede und Treuga Dei (Schriften der MGH 20; Stuttgart 1964); H. E. J. Cowdrey, >The Peace and the Truce of God in the Eleventh Century=, Past and Present 46 (1970) 42-67, Thomas N. Bisson, >The Organized Peace in Southern France and Catalonia, ca. 1140-ca. 1233=, American Historical Review 82 (1977) 290-311; idem, >Peace of God, Truce of God=, DMA 9.473-475.

[50] Residents of the Leonine city, where St Peter=s was situated.

[51] Cc.1-2, 6-9, and 21 all have precedents in recent councils: c.1 (cf. Toulouse 1119), c.9; c.2 (cf. Melfi 1089, c.15: Mansi 20.724), c.6 (cf. Toulouse 1119, c.2); c.7 (cf. Reims 1119, c.5); cc. 8, 21 (cf. Lateran 1110, cc.1-2: Mansi 21.8); c.9 (cf. Troia 1093, c.20: Mansi 20.789-790). For c.10, cf. Urban II=s address at the council of Clermont 1095 (Mansi 20.823).

[52] Westminster (1125, 1127, 1129); Rouen (1128); Bourges, Chartres, Clermont, Beauvais, Vienne, Besançon (1125); Nantes (1127); Arras, Troyes (1128); Châlons sur Marne, Paris (1129); Barcelona (1126), Palencia (1129): Mansi 21.325-388; cf. Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 69.

[53] Councils and Synods, with other Documents relating to the English Church 1.1-2 ed. D. Whitelock, M. Brett and C. N. L. Brooke (Oxford 1981) 1.2 pp. 738-741. Of the 17 canons, nos. 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 16 reflect Lateran legislation: cf. Lateran I cc.1, 8 and 18, 6, 4, 2, 7 and 9.

[54] Cf. Councils and Synods 1.2 pp. 743-749, cc.1, 2, 4, 5, 10 and Lateran I cc.8, 1, 6, 7, and 4. Brett and Brooke remark (p. 745), >á propos= c.5, that >it is noticeable that c.5 follows the wording of the Lateran council of 1123 more closely than that of Westminster [1125]=.

[55] Cf. Ibid.1.2 pp. 768-779, cc.11 and 13 and Lateran I cc.20, 7 and 18.

[56] Mansi 21.385-388, cc.5, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17; cf. Lateran I cc.7 and 21, 2, 9, 14 and 15, 18, 13.

[57] Cc. 1, 3-4, 6, 8 (part), 9, 12, 14, 16b (attributed to Calixtus II), 18 (part), 19-20 (attributed to Urban II), 21 (attributed to Calixtus II), 22 (attributed to Urban II), were received into Gratian, Decretum: can 1 = C.1 q.1 c.10; can. 3 = D.63 c.3; can. 4 = C.16 q.7 c.11; can. 6 = D.60 c.2; can. 8 (from >Si quis [ergo]=) = C.16 q.7 c.23; can 9 = C.35 q.2-3 c.2; can. 12 = C.10 q.1 c.14; can. 14 = C.24 q.3 c.23; can. 16b = C.16 q.1 c.10; can. 18 (from Decimas et ecclesias) = C.16 q.7 c.39 (attributed to Urban II); can. 19 = C.16 q.4 c.1 (attributed to Urban II); can. 20 = C.24 q.3 c.24 (attributed to Urban II); can. 21 = D.27 c.8; can. 22 = C.12 q.2 c.37 (attributed to Urban II).

[58] Until modified by Lateran IV (1215) c.50.

[59] Canons 2, 7, 15. For can. 2 cf. C.11 q.3 c. 17; for can. 7, cf. D.28 c.2; for can. 15 cf. C.24 q.3 c.24, '1.

[60] C.5, nullifying the ordinations of Maurice Bourdin; c.10, renewing Crusaders= provoleges c.11 on the Porticani; c.13 on false coining; and c.17 on Benevento.

[61] Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 73-78; Alberigo, COD 195-6: cf. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 1.195-196; Alberigo and Duval, Les Conciles oecumeniques 2.1 pp. 429-430.

[62] Cf. Robert Somerville, >The Canons of Reims (1131)=, BMCL 5 (1975) 122-130, reprinted in Papacy, Councils and Canon Law no.15.

[63] Cf. Robert Somerville, >The Council of Pisa, 1135: A Re Examination of the Evidence for the Canons=, Speculum 45 (1970) 98-114.

[64] No formal record survives, but a scholarly consensus exists, based on Baronius, Annales ecclesiasticae 12 (1607) 277-280 and the Roman edition of 1612, Concilia generalia ecclesiae catholicae (4 vols. Rome 1608-1612) 4.21-23. For the decrees, see Alberigo COD 197-203. Cf. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 1.197-203 (Latin and English); Alberigo and Duval, Les Conciles oecumeniques 2.1 pp. 432-445 (Latin and French); Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 175-178 (French); Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees 195-213 (English, with commentaries).

[65] Cc.1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12, 14-20 repeat or amplify decrees of the councils of Clermont 1130 and Reims 1131 (cf. Mansi 21.437-440, cc.1-5, 8-13; ibid., 453-462, cc.1-6, 10-17); cc.1-2, 15 and 30 echo or repeat canons of the council of Pisa 1135 (cf. Mansi 21.487-492, cc.1, 12, 14, and 7).

[66] Cc.3, 7, 10, 21-25 derive from the councils of the reforming popes: from Gregory VII, Rome (1078) c.10; from Urban II, Melfi (1089) cc.3, 21-22; from Calixtus II, Toulouse (1119) cc.3, 7, 23-25.

[67] Elizabeth Vodola, Excommunication in the Middle Ages (Berkeley 1986) 27.

[68] On this application of the Roman civilian penalty, see Vincent A. Tatarczuk, Infamy of Law: A Historical Synopsis and Commentary (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 357; Washington, D.C. 1954) 13-23, 27-32. Also Francesco Migliorino, Fama e infamia: Problemi della società medievale nel pensiero giuridico nei secoli XII e XIII (Catania 1985).

[69] For a brief history, see Bernard J. Ganter, Clerical Attire (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 361; Washington, D.C. 1955) 4-18.

[70] Cf. Lat. I, c.15 and. n. 49, above. There was a very similar formulation in the Panoramia (1095) attributed to Ivo of Chartres (PL 161.1343).

[71] For a discussion of the implications of excommunication >latae sententiae= in connexion with this canon, see Vodola, Excommunication 28-31. See also Richard H. Helmholz, >ASi quis suadente@ (C.17 q.4 c.29): Theory and practice=, Proceedings Cambridge 426-438.

[72] Cf. Charles A. Kerin, The Privation of Christian Burial: An Historical Synopsis and Commentary (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 136; Washington, D.C. 1941) 14-28. Christian burial was automatically denied to unreconciled excommunicates C this canon reinforced the general rule.

[73] T. P. McLaughlin, >The Teaching of the Canonists on Usury (XII, XIII, and XIV Centuries)=, Mediaeval Studies 1 (1939) 81-147, 2 (1940) 1-22; Walter Taeuber, >Geld und Kredit im Dekret Gratians und bei den Dekretisten=, SG 2 (1954) 443-464; John T. Noonan, Jr., The Scholastic Analysis of Usury (Cambridge, Mass. 1957); John T. Gilchrist, The Church and Economic Activity in the Middle Ages (London 1969); Arwed Blomeyer, >Aus der Konzilienpraxis zum kanonischen Zinsverbot=, ZRG Kan. Abt. 66 (1980) 317-335; R. H. Helmholz, >Usury in the Medieval English Church Courts=, Speculum 61 (1986), 364-380; James A. Brundage, >Usury=, DMA 12.335-339. For >infamia= and denial of Christian burial, see nn. 68 and 72.

[74] Alberigo, COD 437.

[75] Ecclesiasticae Historiae Libri tredecim: The ecclesiastical history of Orderic Vitalis; edited and translated by Marjorie Chibnall (6 vols. Oxford Medieval Texts; Oxford 1969-1980) Book 13, chapter 39, 6.529-531; cf. Cheney, >The Numbering of the Lateran Councils= 204-205.

[76] Gerhoh von Reichersberg, Liber de nouitatibus huius temporis, ed. E. Sackur (MGH Scriptores >Libelli de Lite= 3; Hannover 1897; reprinted Hannover 1956) 290-291; Dialogus de pontificatu sanctae Romanae ecclesiae, ed. H. Boehmer (MGH Scriptores >Libelli de Lite= 3; Hannover 1897; reprinted Hannover 1956) 3.534.

[77] Dom Jean Leclercq, >Les décrets de Bernard de Saintes=, Revue du Moyen Age latin 2 (1946)167-170; Odette Pontal, Les statuts synodaux français du XIIIe siècle, 1: Les statuts de Paris et le synodal de l=Ouest (XIIIe siècle) (Collection de documents inédits sur l=histoire de France, Section de philologie et d=histoire jusqu=à 1610, in 8o, 9; Paris 1971) lv.

[78] Mansi 21.225-228.

[79] Whole: cc.2, 4-6, 8, 19-21, 26-28; part: cc.7, 10, 12, 15-16, 18, 22. Can. 2 = Decretum C.1 q.3 c.15; can 4 = C.21 q.4 c.5; can 5 = C.12 q.2 c.47; can 6 = D.28 c.2; can 7 (from >Ut lex=) = C.27 q.1 c.40; can 8 = last sentence of C.27 q.1 c.40; can. 10 (>InnouamusYhonores= and >PrecipimusYsacerdotem=) = D.60 c.3 and C.21 q.2 c.5; can. 12 (from >Precipimus=) = D.90 c.11; can. 15 (>Si quis suadenteYsuscipiat=) = C.17 q.4 c.29; can. 16 (from >auctoritate=) = C.8 q.1 c.7; can. 18 (>PessimamYinterdicimus=. >Si quis igiturYpermaneat=) = C.23 q.8 c.32; can. 19 = penultimate sentence of C.23 q.8 c.32; can 20 = last sentence of C.23 q.8 c.32; can. 21 = D.56 c.1 (ascribed to Urban II); can. 22 (from >[con]fratres=) = D.5 >de poenitentia=; can. 26 = major part of C.18 q.2 c.25; can. 27 = last sentence of C.18 q.2 c.25; can. 28 = D.63 c.35. Gratian referred to c.28 in an earlier recension of his Decretum; the only Lateran II canon that he cited before he produced his vulgate edition.

[80] Can. 29 = X 5.15.1. The ascription to Innocent III was probably a simple mistake, for Compilatio prima (5.9.1) correctly ascribed it to Innocent II (Cheney, >The Numbering of the Lateran Councils= 205).

[81] Cf. Council of Rouen (1190), c.6: Dom G. Bessin, Concilia Rothomagensis provinciae (2 vols. in 1; Rouen; F. Vaultier, 1717) 1.95. For the application of this decree in England, see Councils and Synods with Other Documents Relating to the History of the English Church, 2.1: A.D. 1205-1313, ed. F. M. Powicke and C. R. Cheney (Oxford 1964) 98-99.

[82] Philippe Contamine, War in the Middle Ages, trans. Michael Jones (Oxford 1984, reprinted Oxford 1987-1998) 72-73, 274-275.

[83] Cf. Cheney, >The Numbering of the Lateran Councils= 205.

[84] Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 134-158; Alberigo, COD 205-225. For a French translation of the canons, see Foreville, Latran I, II, III and IV 210-223. See also, Hefele, Histoire des conciles 5.2 pp. 1086-1112; Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees 214-235.

[85] Alberigo, COD 210. In an unpublished Bonn dissertation, Walter Herold examined 36 sources for the canons and concluded that there were 34 different traditions. Stephan Kuttner published Herold=s findings in a short note, >Concerning the Canons of the Third Lateran Council=, Traditio 13 (1957) 505-506. See also, Le troisième concile de Latran (1179): Sa place dans l=histoire, ed. Jean Longère (Paris 1982).

[86] Gesta regis Henrici secundi Benedicti abbatis, ed. W. Stubbs (2 vols. Rolls Series 49; London 1867) 1.222-238; Chronica magistri Rogeri de Houedene, ed. W. Stubbs (4 vols. Rolls Series 51; London 1868-1871) 2.173-189 (1869); The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. W. Stubbs (2 vols. Rolls Series 73; London 1879-1880) 1.278-292; William of Newburgh, Historia rerum Anglicarum, ed. R. G. Howlett, Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I (4 vols. Rolls Series 82; London 1884-1889) 1-2 (1884-1885) 1. 206-223.

[87] Radulfi de Diceto decani Lundoniensis opera historica, ed. W. Stubbs (2 vols. Rolls Series 68; London 1876) 1.430. Perhaps reflecting his own interests as dean of a major cathedral, he singled out the condemnations of illicit burials by Templars and Hospitallers (c.9) and the accumulation of benefices (c.13).

[88] On decretals and decretal collections, see Charles Duggan=s in this volume with extensive bibliography.

[89] Sermo habitus in lateranensi concilio, sub Alexandro papa III, ed. G. Morin, >Le discours d=ouverture du concile générale de Latran(1179) et l=oeuvre littéraire de maître Rufin, évêque d=Assise=, Atti della Pontificia accademia romana di archeologia (3rd Series, Memorie 2; Rome 1928) 116-120; for a French translation, see Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 200-204, especially 202-203. It was long thought that Rufinus had given this homily at the Council, but Roman Deutinger, >The Decretist Rufinus C A well-known Person?= BMCL 23 (1999) 10-15, has convincingly argued that he did not.

[90] Cf. G. J. Ebers, Das Devolutionsrecht, vornehmlich nach katholischem Kirchenrecht (Stuttgart 1906; reprinted Amsterdam 1965) 182-188.

[91] Alberigo, COD reads >seniori= for >saniori= (p. 219, line 30), but >sanior pars= has a long tradition. Cf. Isaac S. Jacob, >The Meaning of ASanior Pars@ in the Rule of St Benedict and its Use in the Decretal Collection of Pope Gregory IX, with a Study of the Electoral Law as Found in the Decretum of Gratian= (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 437; reprinted University Microfilms International, Michigan 1964) 54-92.

[92] Cf. Gaines Post, >Alexander III, the ALicentia docendi@ and the Rise of the Universities=, Anniversary Essays in Medieval History, by Students of C. H. Haskins (Boston-New York 1929) 255-257.

[93] Josef Avril, >L=encadrement diocésain et l=organisation paroissiale=, Le troisième concile de Latran 53-74.

[94] The Council of Toledo (646) had limited bishops= retinues to 50 (Mansi 9.838). Cf. A. L. Slafkosky, The Canonical Episcopal Visitation of the Diocese (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 142; Washington, D.C. 1941), especially 24-28; Avril, >L=encadrement diocésain= 55-57.

[95] Cf. J. H. Lynch, Simoniacal Entry into Religious Life from 1000 to 1260 (Columbus, Ohio 1976) 147-169.

[96] For a discussion the Third Lateran=s legislation on religious privilege, see Jean Becquet, >Les religieux=, Le troisième concile de Latran 45-51.

[97] Cc.20-22, 25 = Lat. II, cc.14, 12, 11, 13.

[98] See n. 49, above for bibliography on the Truce of God..

[99] See Henri Maisonneuve, Études sur les origines de l=Inquisition (2nd ed. Paris 1960) 94-96, 102-163, et passim (Cathars); 151 n. 2, 155 (Patarines); 114-118 (>Publicani=).

[100] For the context and application, see Maisonneuve, Origines de l=Inquisition 126-135.

[101] Mansi 22.476-478; cf. Maisonneuve, Origines de l=Inquisition 151-156.

[102] See Charles Duggan=s essay in this volume on the following. Walther Holtzmann=s opinion that the Third Lateran Council stimulated the making of decretal collections cannot be sustained in the light of this evidence.

[103] 1 Dunelmensis, Fontanensis, 1 Rotomagensis, Florianensis, Cusana, and Oriel.: Studies in the Collections of Twelfth Century Decretals, from the papers of the late Walther Holtzmann ed. and trans., C. R. Cheney and Mary G. Cheney (MIC Series B: Corpus Collectionorum 3; Vatican City 1979) 336, s.v. >Remense=.

[104] On Belverensis see Charles Duggan, Twelfth Century Decretal Collections and their Importance in English History (University of London Historical Studies 12; London 1963) 47, 71 n. 2, 155, 161) Dunelmensis (ibid. 79 and n. 1) Fountains (ibid. 80 n. 1), Bridlington (ibid. 90, 93), Claudiana (ibid. 91 n. 3), Cotton and Peterhouse (ibid. 104 n. 4). For the reception of individual canons, see Holtzmann-Cheney, Collections 336-337 s.v. >Turonense=. Seven of its decrees reached the Gregorian Decretales (Cheney, >The Numbering of the Lateran Councils= 208).

[105] Duggan, Twelfth Century Decretal Collections 47, 71 n. 2, 72, 73, 159-160. For the reception of individual canons, see Holtzmann-Cheney, Collections 337, s.v. >Westmonasteriense= (1175).

[106] Alberigo, COD 207-209; cf. Holtzmann-Cheney, Collections 335-336, s.v. >Lateranum III=.

[107] Alberigo, COD 209: >Pro certo affirmare possumus huius concilii canones per totam latinam ecclesiam divulgatos esse atque in eius curis negotiisque maxime valuisse=; cf. Cheney, >The Numbering of the Lateran Councils= 208: >For canonists and administrators the memorable Roman council was that gathered at the Lateran in 1179 by Alexander III.= In addition to legal manuscripts, copies of the decrees are found, for example in a manuscript containing sacred and profane texts in the library of the Augustinian house of Aureil in Limousin (Jean Becquet, >La bibliothèque des chanoines réguliers d=Aureil en Limousin au XIIIe siècle=, Vie canoniale en France aux Xe-XIIe siècles (London 1985) 107-134, especially 122 no. 76: >Decreta innouata in concilio Alexandri pape=.

[108] With the papal bull Rex pacificus (Friedberg, Decretales 2): >Volentes igitur, ut hac tantum compilatione universi utantur in iudiciis et in scholis, districtius prohibemus, ne quis praesumat aliam facere absque auctoritate sedis apostolicae speciali=. For a translation of the bull see Robert Somerville and Bruce C. Brasington, Prefaces to Canon Law Books in Latin Christianity: Selected Translations, 500-1245 (New Haven-London 1998). For the distribution of the canons, see Friedberg, Decretales xii, s.v. >C. Later. III=.

[109] Bessin, Concilia Rothomagensis 1.94-98: influence of Lateran III is found in: cc.9-10, forbidding clergy from undertaking secular business (cf. Lat. III, c.12); c.12, on visitations and procurations, opens, >Sicut in Lateranensi Concilio cautum est= (cf. Lat. III, c.4;) c.13, on appeals (cf. Lat. III, c.6); c.14, forbidding excommunication without citation and judgment (cf. Lat. III, c.6). Cf. Raymonde Foreville, >The Synod of the Province of Rouen in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries=, Church and Government in the Middle Ages, ed. C. N. L. Brooke et al. (Cambridge 1976) 19-39, especially 38 (reprinted in Gouvernement et vie de l=Église au Moyen Âge London 1979 no.8); idem, >La réception des conciles généraux dans l=église et la province de Rouen au XIIIe siècle=, Droit privé et institutions régionales: Études historiques offertes à Jean Yver (Paris 1976) 243-253, especially 244 (reprinted in Gouvernement et vie de l=Église no.9).

[110] Mansi 22.939-950.

[111] Councils and Synods 1.2 pp. 1060-7100; Mansi 22.713-722: c.5, restricting the trains of visiting prelates, >Cum inter ea quae statuta sunt a modernis patribus Lateranense concilium= (cf. Lat. III, c.4); c.6, bishops to pay the stipend of any priest or deacon ordained without title, >juxta tenorem Lateranensis concilii= (cf. Lat. III, c.5); c.7, excommunication to be proceeded by canonical process, >Rursus Lateranensis concilii statuta sequentes= (cf. Lat. III, c.6); c.8, sacraments to be bestowed without charge, >Sicut in Lateranensi concilio salubriter a sanctis patribus est provisum= (cf. Lat. III, cc.7, 18, 8); c. 10, forbidding clergy to keep concubines, >Statuta etiam Lateranensis concilii reuerenter amplectentes= (cf. Lat. III, c.11); c.13, provision for lepers, >concilii Lateranensis eciam institucione suffulti= (cf. Lat. III, c.23); c.14 (Mansi c.14, beginning), condemning abuse of privileges by Templars and Hospitallers, >Lateranensis concilii tenore perpensoYeiusdem auctoritate concilii= (cf. Lat. III, c.9); c.15 (Mansi c.14, at the end), condemning simoniacal entry into religious houses (cf. Lat. III, c.10).

[112] See Pontal, Les statuts synodaux 52-97: c.55, on excommunication (cf. Lat. III, c.6), c.70, prohibiting lay possession of tithes (cf. Lat. III, c.15, at the end).

[113] Councils and Synods with Other Documents Relating to the History of the English Church, 2, A.D. 1205-1313, ed. F. M. Powicke and C. R. Cheney (Oxford 1964) 1.2 pp. 57-96: influence of Lateran III is found in: c.101, De eodem [= De regula religionis], (cf. Lat. III, c.10); c.107, De beneficio indigni privando, includes the phrase, >in concilio Lateranensi primo= (cf. Lat. III, c.14).

[114] Mansi 22.818-854.

[115] Mansi 22.897-924.

[116] Mansi 22.935-54; cf. Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 241-243.

[117] Lat. III, c.4 (cf. Lat. IV, c.33 ); c.8 (cf. Lat. IV, c.29), c.9 (cf. Lat. IV, c.61), c.13 (cf. Lat. IV, c.29); c.18 (cf. Lat. IV, c.11); c.19 (cf. Lat. IV, c.46).

[118] Note the substitution of >vel= for >et=: cf. Alberigo, COD 219, line 30.

[119] Lat. IV, c.3 (cf. Lat. III, c.27), 14 (cf. Lat. III, c.11), cc.18, 71 (cf. Lat. III, c.20), c. 23 (cf. Lat. III, c.8), c.24 (cf. Lat. III, cc.1, 16), cc.26, 30 (cf. Lat. III, c.3), cc.32, 46 (cf. Lat. III, c. 14), cc.35, 47 (cf. Lat. III, c.6), c.57 (cf. Lat. III, c.9), c.63 (cf. Lat. III, c.7), c.64 (cf. Lat. III, c.10).

[120] Jean Longère, >L=Influence de Latran III sur quelques ouvrages de théologie morale=, Le troisième concile de Latran 91-103.

[121] Raymonde Foreville, >La place de Latran III dans l=histoire conciliare du XIIe siècle=, Le Troisieme Concile de Latran 11-17.

[122] Innocent III, Epistolae 16.30 in PL 216.823-825); Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 245-246, 327-329 (French translation); Alberto Mellone, >Vineam Domini - 10 April 1213: New Efforts and Traditional Topoi - Summoning Lateran IV=, Pope Innocent III and his World, ed. John C. Moore (Aldershot 1999) 63-73, including a new edition of the letter, 72-23.

[123] For the official list of cardinals, metropolitans, and bishops, see Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 391-395; cf. J. Werner, >Die Teilnehmerliste des Laterankonzils v. J. 1215=, Neues Archiv 31 (1906) 577-93; Hefele, Histoire des conciles 5.2 pp. 1722-1733; cf. n. 129, below.

[124] For a statistical analysis of the sources of Lateran IV, see Antonio García y García, >La Biblia en el concilio 4 lateranense de 1215=, AHC 18 (1986) 91-102, especially 96. He counts only 12 derivations from Lateran III, but six canons of the Third Lateran are cited explicitly: Lat. III, c.4 (cf. Lat. IV, c.33 ); c.8 (cf. Lat. IV, c.29), c.9 (cf. Lat. IV, c.61), c.13 (cf. Lat. IV, c.29); c.18 (cf. Lat. IV, c.11); c.19 (cf. Lat. IV, c.46); and there are echoes of a further ten: Lat. III, c.1 (cf. Lat. IV, 24), c.3 (cf. Lat. IV, cc.26, 30), c.6 (cf. Lat. IV, cc.35, 47), c.7 (cf. Lat. IV, c.63), c.10 (cf. Lat. IV, c.64), c. 11 (cf. Lat. IV, c.14), c.14 (cf. Lat. IV, cc.32, 46), c.16 (cf. Lat. IV, c.24), c.20 (cf. Lat. IV, c.18, 71), c.27 (cf. Lat. IV, c.3); and the influence of Lat III, cc.8 and 9, cited in Lat. IV, c.29 and 81, is also evident in Lat. IV, cc.23 and 57.

[125] > ... generale concilium juxta priscam sanctorum patrum consuetudinem convocemus= (PL 216.824); cf. Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 327 (French translation); cf. Gérard Fransen, >L=Ecclésiologie des Conciles médiévaux=, Le Concile et les conciles, ed. B. Bott, et al. (Paris 1960) 125-141, at 127-128.

[126] Hefele and Leclercq, Histoire des conciles 5.2 pp. 1233-1316; cf. Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 227-244. See also Werner Maleczek, >Laterankonzil, IV=, LMA 5 (1990) 1742-1744.

[127] > ... in quo ad exstirpanda vitia et plantandas virtutes, corrigendos excessus, et reformandos mores, eliminandas haereses, et roborandam fidem, sopiendas discordias, et stabiliendam pacem, comprimendas oppressiones, et libertatem fovendam, inducendos principes et populos Christianos ad succursum et subsidium terrae sanctae tam a clericis quam a laicis impendendum, cum caeteris quae longum esset per singula numerare= (PL 216.824); cf. Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 327-238 (French translation).

[128] Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 258-272, 406.

[129] There were 17 prelates from the patriarchate of Constantinople, four from Jerusalem, one from Antioch, and one Maronite, see Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 391-392; cf. n. 123, above. On representation in councils and the Church during the thirteenth century, see Kenneth Pennington, >Representation in Medieval Canon Law=, The Jurist 64 (2004) 361-383.

[130] Michele Maccarone, >Il IV Concilio Lateranense=, Divinitas 2 (1961) 270-298, especially 284; C. R. Cheney, >A Letter of Innocent III and the Lateran Decree on Cistercian Tithe Paying=, Cîteaux: Commentarii Cistercienses 13 (1962) 146-151; Constitutiones Concilii quarti Lateranensis una cum Commentariis glossatorum, ed. Antonio García y García (MCI, Series A: Corpus Glossatorum 2; Vatican City 1981) 5-10; idem, >Gobierno de la Iglésia universal en el concilio IV Lateranense=, Iglesia, sociedad y derecho (2 vols. Bibliotheca Salmanticensis 89; Salamanca 1987) 2.123-141, especially 132-135 (reprinted from AHC 1 [1969], 50-68).

[131] >Constitutiones siue decreta domini Innocentii pape iii. in generali concilio Lateranensi edita=, García y García, Constitutiones 6. Cf. idem, >A New Eyewitness Account of the Fourth Lateran Council=, Iglesia, sociedad y derecho 2.61-121, especially 67: >deinde leguntur constitutiones domini pape...= (reprinted from Traditio 20 [1964] 115-178).

[132] Antonio García y García has found 28 derivations from Innocent=s own writings in the Council=s decrees (26 from letters, 2 from De altaris mysterio): García y García, >La Biblia en el concilio 4 lateranense= 96.

[133] García y García, Constitutiones 8 cites a letter to the archbishop of Cologne, dated 20 Nov. 1202-1213 Jan. 1203 (Potthast, 1767), which mentions the possibility of calling a general council to which the archbishop would be invited.

[134] Indeed, parallels for many of the decrees can be found in local ecclesiastical legislation: London (Westminster) 1200, Paris 1209, Avignon 1209, Paris 1212, Montpellier 1214, Rouen 1214, etc. Cf. García y García, >Gobierno de la Iglésia universal= 135-141.

[135] Foreville, >Procédure et débats= 25, 29-34; cf. García y García, Constitutiones 11; idem, >Gobierno de la Iglésia universal=, 125-126.

[136] For the best edition of the constitutions, based on the 20 most reliable manuscripts, see García y García, Constitutiones 1-118, which corrects the vulgate edition: COD 230-271; cf. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 1.230-271 (Latin and English); Alberigo and Duval, Les Conciles oecumeniques 2.1 pp. 494-577 (Latin and French); Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 342-386 (French). For a summary translation of Innocent III=s sermon delivered on 11 November 1215, see ibid., Appendix V, 333-338: from Richard of San Germano, Chronica priora, ed. A. Gaudenzi (Naples 1888) 90-93. See also, Hefele and Leclercq, Histoire des conciles 5.2 pp. 1316-1398.

[137] Paul Fournier, Études sur Joachim de Flore et ses doctrines (Paris 1909) 32-37; E. Buonaiuti, Gioacchino da Fiore: I tempi, la vita, il messagio (Rome 1931) 174-175; F. Roberti, Gioacchino da Fiore (Florence 1934) 81-131; Ioachimi abbatis Liber contra Lombardum (Scuola di Gioacchino da Fiore), ed. C. Ottaviano (Rome 1934); E. Bertola, La dottrina trinitaria in Pietro Lombardo (Miscellanea Lombardiana; Novara 1957) 129-135.

[138] G. C. Capelle, Autour du décret de 1210, 3: Amaury de Bène: Étude sur son panthéisme formel (Bibliothèque thomiste 16, Section historique 14;Paris 1932); cf. Maisonneuve, Origines de l=Inquisition 166-168.

[139] Maisonneuve, Origines de l=Inquisition commented on the similarity between the dogmatic definitions of c.1 and the professions of faith imposed on Durand de Huesca (>Poor Catholic=) and Bernard Primus (Poor Lombard=).

[140] Jean Châtillon, >Latran III et l=enseignement christologique de Pierre Lombard=, Le troisième concile de Latran (1179): Sa place dans l=histoire, ed. Jean Longère (Paris 1982) 75-90; cf. Marcia L. Colish, Peter Lombard (Brill=s Studies in Intellectual History 41; Leiden-New York 1994).

[141] Michele Maccarone, Studi su Innocenzo III (Italia Sacra: Studi e documenti di storia ecclesiastica 17; Padua 1972) 390-396.

[142] Citing and expanding Lucius III=s decree Ad abolendam, issued at the council of Verona in 1184 (Mansi, 22.476-478); cf. Maisonneuve, Origines de l=Inquisition 151-156.

[143] Mansi, 23.73-75; cf. Maisonneuve, Origines de l=Inquisition 245-253. For a general survey of the Inquisition (with bibliography), see DMA 6.483-489 and H.A. Kelly, Inquisitions and Other Trial Procedures in the Medieval West (Aldershot 2001).

[144] Lotte Kéry, >Inquisitio - denunciatio - exceptio: Möglichkeiten der Verfahrenseinleitung im Dekretalenrecht=, ZRG, Kan. Abt. 87 (2001) 226-268 for a discussion of Qualiter.

[145] Cf. U. Berlière, >Innocent III et la réorganisation des monastères bénédictines=, Revue bénédictine 22 (1920) 22-42, 145-59; Michele Maccarone, >Riforma e sviluppo della vita religiosa con Innocenzo III=, Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 16 (1962) 29-72, especially 31-41; idem, >I capitoli istuiti dal IV concilio Lateranense=, Studi su Innocenzo III 246-262.

[146] For the context and implications of this decree, see Maccarone, >Riforma e sviluppo della vita religiosa= 61-72; idem, >La costitutione ANe nimia religionum@ del IV concilio Lateranense=, Studi su Innocenzo III 307-337.

[147] For its implementation in Germany, see Papul P. Pixton, >Pope Innocent III and the German Schools: the impact of Canon 11 of the Fourth Lateran Council upon the cathedral and other schools 1216-1272=, Innocenzo III. Urbs et Orbis. Atti del Congresso Internazionale, Roma, 9-15 settembre 1998, ed. Andrea Sommerlechner (2 vols. Rome 2003) 2.101-132, especially 115-132.

148 Cf. Lat I, cc.7, 21; Lat. II, c.6; Lat. III, c.11. For general background, see Roger Gryson, Les origines du célibat ecclésiastique du premier au septième siècle (Gembloux 1970); Roman Choli, Clerical Celibacy in East and West (Leominster 1988); and Clarence Gallagher, Church Law and Church Order in Rome and Byzantium: A Comparative Study (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monigraphs, 8; Aldershot 2002) who compares celibacy in the Eastern and Western churches.

149 Cf. Lat. II, c.4 above, at n. 69.

150 Already in Gratian, Decretum C.23 q.8 c.30: >Non debent agitare iudicium sanguinis qui sacramenta Domini tractent=; ibid., C.2 q.5 c.22: >In novo testamento monomachia non recipitur.=

151 J. W. Baldwin, >The Intellectual Preparation for the Canon of 1215 against the Ordeals=, Speculum 36 (1961) 613-636. On the replacement of the ordeal with the Ordo iudiciarius in church courts see Kenneth Pennington, >Due Process, Community, and the Prince in the Evolution of the Ordo iudiciarius=, RIDC 9 (1998) 9 47

152 Councils and Synods 2.1 p. 49.

153 See below n. 206.

154 Daniel R. Cahill, The Custody of the Blessed Sacrament (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 292; Washington, D.C. 1950) 8-12.

155 Cf. Bertrand Kurtscheid, A History of the Seal of Confession, trans. F. A. Marks (Saint Louis 1927) 115-126; Paul Anciaux, La Théologie du Sacrement de Pénitence au XIIe siècle (Louvain 1949).

156 C.23 (cf. Lat. III, c.8); c.24 (cf. Lat. III, c.1); c.29 (cf. Lat. III, cc.8, 13-14); c.30 (cf. Lat. III, c.3); c.31 (cf. Lat. II, c.21); cc.33-4 (cf. Lat. III, c.4).

157 Ebers, Devolutionsrecht 182-188.

158 Anscar Parsons, Canonical Elections (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 118; Washington, D.C. 1939) 52-64.

159 For a discussion of the tacit obstruction to the full application of this and related canons, see J. W. Gray, >Canon Law in England: Some Reflections on the Stubbs Maitland Controversy=, (SCH 3; Leiden 1966) 48-68, especially 54-60.

160 Note the important emendation of the generally received reading of >three= months to >six= months, bringing the canon into line with Lat. III, c.8: cf. García y García, Constitutiones 74, line 13.

161 Ebers, Devolutionsrecht 182-188.

162 An interlocutory sentence was a judgment on a subsidiary issue which had arisen in the course of litigation.

163 Cf. R. von Heckel, >Das Aufkommen der ständigen Prokuratoren an der päpstlichen Kurie im 13. Jahrhundert=, Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle: Scritti di storia e paleografia 2 (ST 38; Rome 1924) 290-321 at 311-133.

164 Cf. N. Vilain, >Prescription et bonne foi du Décret de Gratien (1140) à Jean d=André H1348)=, Traditio 16 (1958) 136-145.

165 Cf. Linda Fowler, >Recusatio iudicis in civilian and canonist thought=, Post scripta: Essays on Medieval Law and the Emergence of the European State in Honor of Gaines Post, eds. Joseph R. Strayer and Donald E. Queller (SG 15; Rome 1972) 719-785.

166 Cf. Lat. III, c.19; Raymonde Foreville, >Répresentation et taxation du clergé au I=VE concile du Latran (1215)=, Études présentés à la Commission internationale pour les Assemblées d=États XXXI (XIIe Congrès international dessciences historiques; Paris-Louvain 1966) 57-74 (reprinted Gouvernement et vie de l=Église au Moyen Âge [London 1979]) no.3.

167 Cf. Lat. I, c.9; Lat. II, c.17.

168 Francis X. Wahl, The Matrimonial Impediments of Consanguinity and Affinity (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 90; Washington, D.C. 1934) 18-19; Adhélmar Esmein, Le mariage en droit canonique (2 vols. 2nd. ed. Paris 1929) 1.371-393; R. H. Helmholz, Marriage Litigation in Medieval England (Cambridge Studies in English Legal History; London/New York 1974); cf. idem, in DMA 3.539-540. Innocent=s action was not without precedent. In the 1160s, Alexander III had allowed such marriages on a remote Norwegian island (Greenland?), for example, and also in the Croatian province of Spalato (Split): Decretales Ineditae Saeculi XII, ed. Stanley Chodorow and Charles Duggan, MIC Series B 4 (Vatican City 1982) 149-151 no. 86, at 149; Charles Duggan, >Decretal Letters to Hungary= 23-24 no. 10. Moreover, the reduction of the prohibition to four degrees was powerfully argued by Peter the Chanter in his Verbum abbreviatum: J. W. Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants: The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and his Circle (2 vols. Princeton 1970) 1.336-337.

169 Thus making universal a practice that was already followed in some parts of the church: cf. James B. Roberts, The Banns of Marriage (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 64; Washington, D.C. 1931) 9-17. See also E. Diebold, >L=application en France du canon 51 du I=VE concile du Latran d=après les anciens statuts synodaux=, L=Anné Canonique 2 (1963) 187-195.

170 Cf. Cheney, >A Letter of Innocent III and the Lateran Decree on Cistercian Tithe Paying=; Giles Constable, Monastic Tithes 1-19, 303-309.

171 Cf. Lat. II, c.10; Lat. III, c.9.

172 Cc.63, 65-6 (cf. Lat. III, c.7); c.64 (cf. Lat. III, c.10). Cf. Lynch, Simoniacal Entry 179-195.

173 For which the canon supplies the text of a form letter, Quoniam ua ait Apostolus, which could be used for the purpose.

174 For the interesting suggestion that the precise formulation of this canon owed much to existing English practice and the influence of Cardinal Robert Courson, see N. Vincent, >Some Pardoners= Tales; The Earliest English Indulgences=, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 6th series 12 (2002) 23-58 at 55.

175 Kenneth R. Stow, >Papal and Royal Attitudes Toward Jewish Lending in the Thirteenth century=, Association for Jewish Studies Review 6 (1981) 161-184; John A. Watt, >Jews and Christians in the Gregorian Decretals=, Christianity and Judaism, ed. Diana Wood (SCH 29; Oxford 1992) 93-105. Cf. S. Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century (Philadelphia 1933); Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict. From Late Antiquity to the Reformation, ed. Jeremy Cohen (New York 1991) part 2.

176 One manuscript, Florence, Biblioteca Mediceo Laurenziana, MS S. Croce IIIsin.6, fols. 254ra-261vb, arranges the canons in five parts, >Prima pars novellarum=, >Secunda pars novellarum=, etc., comprising cc.1-4, 5-22, 23-34, 35-49, 50-71, and the anonymous Casus Parisienses (possibly by Vincentius Hispanus) adopted a similar division (García y García, Constitutiones 17-18).

177 García y García, Constitutiones 119-172.

178 Johannes intserted all but c.42, Sicut volumus, relating to secular jurisdiction, and c.71, Ad liberandam Terram sanctam into his Compilatio Quarta; Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 312-313; Alberigo, COD 229; cf. Stephan Kuttner, >Johannes Teutonicus, das vierte Laterankonzil und die Compilatio Quarta=, Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati (ST 125; Vatican City 1946) 608-634; reprinted in Medieval Councils, Decretals, and Collections of Canon Law (London 1980) no.10; cf. >Retractationes=, 9-11; García y García, Constitutiones 4.

179 All but c.42, Sicut volumus, relating to secular jurisdiction, c.49, on unjust excommunications, and part of c.71, Ad liberandam Terram sanctam were received into the Liber Extra in 1234: Alberigo, COD 229, García y García, Constitutiones 4. For their distribution in the Extra, see Friedberg, Decretales xii, s.v. >Conc. Later. IV=.

180 X 1.1.1-2, >De summa Trinitate et fide catholica=..

181 Sixty six manuscripts are still extant, and a further 14 have been lost: see García y García=s chapter in this volume.

182 >Johannis Teutonici apparatus in concilium Lateranense=, ed. García y García, Constitutiones 173-270.

183 >Vincentii Hispani apparatus in concilium quartum Lateranense=, ed. García y García, Constitutiones 271-384. Despite the small number of surviving manuscripts, their geographical spread (Bamberg, Jumièges, Llanthony Secunda, Padua, Signy) suggests wide dissemination.

184 See García y García=s chapter below.

185 Cf. García y García, Constitutiones 187-270, of which pages 223-256 relate to cc.35-48 (Johannes); 287-384, of which pages 331-358 relate to cc.35-48 (Vincentius); 419-458, of which pages 437-447 relate to cc.35-48 (Damasus).

186 C. R. Cheney, English Synodalia of the Thirteenth Century (London 1941; reprinted Oxford 1998); M. Gibbs and J. Lang, Bishops and Reform; 1215-1272, with special reference to the Lateran Council of 1215 (London 1934) 94-179; cf. Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 313-315.

187 Although it did not initiate them: see Cheney, English Synodalia 35-36; Pontal, Les statuts synodaux lxxi-lxxvii, 106; Paul B. Pixton, The German Episcopacy and the Implementation of the Decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1216-1245: Watchmen on the Tower (Studies in the History of Christian Thought 64; Leiden 1995) 7-89; cf. Pontal, Les statuts synodaux 10-82.

188 Alberigo, COD 236 (cf. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 236): >canonicas regulas et maxime quae statuta sunt in hoc generali concilio relegentes=.

189 Councils and Synods 2.1 p. 57, correcting Cheney, English Synodalia 50-51. Richard Poore had attended the Fourth Lateran Council, and he was a friend of Odo de Sully and a pupil of Stephen Langton: ibid., 52, 55-5.

190 Councils and Synods 2.1 pp. 57-96. Direct influence of Lateran IV is found in c.4, De trinitate credenda which ends, >prout in capitulo concilii continetur= (cf. Lat. IV, c.1); c.8, De fornicatione clericorum, with the phrase >in generali concilio statutum est= (cf. Lat. IV, c.14); c. 1, De superbia vitanda in verbo et gestu combines parts of Lat. IV, c.16, Langton, cc.8 and 10, and Lat. III, c.14; c.13, De potatione publica devitanda (cf. Lat. IV, c.15); c.16, De cupiditate clericorum vitanda echoes in part Paris, vii. 4 (Mansi 22.679) and Lat. IV, c.66; c.17, De consuetudine ecclesie laudabili et observanda, with the phrase >sicut in concilio statutum= (cf. Lat. IV, c.66); c.21, Quod nichil exigatur pro baptismate (cf. Paris, iii. 2-3 and Lat. IV, c.20); c.38, Quotiens monendi sunt parochiani ad confitendum et ad communicandum (cf. Lat. IV, c.21); c.51, De premonitione excommunicationis, opens >Sacro approbante concilio= (cf. Lat. IV, c.47); c.55, De sacramento redemptionis (cf. Lat. IV, c.1); c.66, De munditia vasorum et ornamentorum omnium (cf. Lat. IV, c.19); 72, De fraudulenta pensione non danda, includes the phrase, >sicut in concilio prohibitum est= (cf. Lat. IV, c.32); c.81, De fornicatione et adulteriis, includes the phrase, >secundum statuta concilii= (cf. Lat. IV, c.7); c.85, De clandestinis matrimoniis, includes the phrase, >secundum statuta concilii= (cf. Lat. IV, c.51); 90, De gradibus matrimonii, opens >In generali concilio statutum est= (cf. Lat. IV, cc.50-1); 91, De competenti termino contrahendi (cf. Lat. IV, c.51); c.92, De testimonio consanguinitatis in contractu (cf. Lat. IV, c.52); c.98, Ne medici suadeant egris aliquid quod sit in periculo anime, ends >Transgressor huius constitutionis penam in concilio statutam non (evadet)= (cf. Lat. IV, c.22); c.100, De regula religionis (cf. Lat. IV, c.13); 104, De procuratione (visitationis), includes the phrases, >sacri concilii vestigiis inherentes= and >in Laterannsi concilio diffinita=, >secundum statuta concilii= (cf. Lat. IV, cc.33-4); 105, De clericis episcopi suscipiendis, includes the phrase, >in concilio statutum est= (cf. Lat. IV, c.10); c.106, De magistris scolarum (cf. Lat. IV, c.11); c.107, De beneficio indigni privando, includes the phrase, >nuper in generali concilio evidentius fuit expressum= (cf. Lat. IV, c.29); c.109, Ne clerici optineant res laicales, opens, >Sacri concilii auctoritate interdicimus= (cf. Lat. IV, cc.43, 45); c.110, De advocatis et feudatoriis, opens, >Sacri nichilominus concilii provisione diffinitum est= (cf. Lat. IV, c.45); c.111, De stipendiis sacerdotum, includes the phrase, >auctoritate concilii precipimus= (cf. Lat. IV, cc.32). Papal mandates against hereditary succession in benefices, received by the archbishop of York and the bishops of Lincoln, Worcester, London, Carlisle, Salisbury, Coventry, 1221-1235: Councils and Synods 2.1 pp. 98-99.

191 Councils and Synods 2.1 pp. 165-167 (Canterbury) 201 (Durham) 435-445 (Durham peculiars in York) 364-387 (Salisbury) 227-237 (Exeter) 632-658 (London) 451-467 (Chichester); cf. Cheney, English Synodalia 62-89.

192 Ibid. 2.1 pp. 100-125. Sixty manuscript copies are known, testifying to the wide dissemination and enduring relevance of Stephen Langton=s provincial code.

193 Ibid. 2.1 pp. 100-125. Direct influence of Lateran IV is found in: c.11 includes the phrase >cum in generali concilio sit preceptum= (cf. Lat. IV, c.17); c.13, prohibiting clergy from involvement in sentences of blood, opens >Auctoritate quoque generalis concilii= (cf. Lat. IV, c.18); c.14 orders that the appointment of vicars in prebendal churches and in churches belonging to religious houses should be made >secundum formam generalis concilii= (cf. Lat. IV, cc.32, 61); c.24, on the appointment of confessors for the clergy (cf. Lat. IV, c.10); c.27, moderating the trains of archdeacons, refers to the number of packhorses >statutum in concilio generali= (cf. Lat. IV, c.33); c.29. on the duties of an archdeacon, orders archdeacons to see that the eucharist, chrism, and holy oil are securely locked >iuxta formam generalis concilii= (cf. Lat. IV, c.20); c. 31 prohibits charging for burials, baptisms, marriages or any other sacrament >sicut in generali concilio expressius et diffusius est statutum= (cf. Lat. IV, c.66); c. 33, on clerical dress (cf. Lat. IV, c.16); c.34, on clerical behavior (cf. Lat. IV, c.15); c.39, forbidding luxurious dress to nuns, women, monks, and canons regular (cf. Lat. IV, c.16); c.42, forbidding payment for entry into a religious house (cf. Lat. IV, c.64); c.43, forbidding the >farming= of churches (cf. Lat. IV,c.32); c.46, on the Jews (cf. Lat. IV, c.67); c.47, ordering Jews to wear distinctive dress (cf. Lat. IV, c.68); c.33, on payment of tithe and observance of the Lateran constitutions (cf. Lat. IV, cc.53-55).

194 Councils and Synods 2.1 p. 125: >Ut autem omnia fine bono concludantur, Lateranense concilium sub sancte recordationis papa Innocentio iii celebratum, in prestatione decimarum et aliis capitulis precipimus observari, et in synodis episcoporum constitutiones illius concilii una cum istis prout videbitur expedire volumus recitari.=

195 William Lyndwood (Gulielmus Lindwood), Provinciale (seu Constitutiones Angliae) (Oxford: H. Hall, 1679), cf. Tabula, kira; Councils and Synods 2.1 p. 101.

196 Councils and Synods 2.1 pp. 139-154, c.38, on the secure custody of holy oil and chrism (cf. Lat. IV, c.20); c.40, on publishing the banns of marriage, >nuper in concilio super huiusmodi statutam= (cf. Lat. IV, c.51); cc.63-65, on clerical behavior (cf. Lat. IV, cc.14-16); c.77, on the appointment of vicars, >cum in generali concilio nuper statutum esset= (cf. Lat. IV, c.61).

197 I.e. the Fourth: see Cheney, >The Numbering of the Lateran Councils= 206-207.

198 Councils and Synods 2.1 pp. 125-137, at 126.

199 Councils and Synods 2.1 pp. 227-237 (Exeter), 169-181 (Worcester, 1229), 237-259 (Cardinal Otto), 294-325 (Worcester, 1240), 265-278 (Lincoln), 342-364 (Norwich), 586-626 (Bath and Wells); et passim.

200 Councils and Synods 2.1 p. 589, >salvis in omnibus statutis conciliorum Lateranensis, Oxoniensis, et Londoniensis=.

201 For the attribution, see Pontal, Les statuts synodaux français du XIIIe siècle 48-50; for the text, with French translation, see ibid., 52-97; cf. Synodicon Ecclesiae Parisiensis (Paris; F. Muguet, 1674) 3-21; Mansi 22.731-736 (shorter text), under the title >statuta incerti loci=; cf. Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 315. Cf. A. Artonne, >Les statuts synodaux diocésains français du XIIIe s. au concile de Trente=, Revue d=histoire de l=Église de France 36 (1950) 168-181. For the reception of Odo=s statutes in England, see Cheney, English Synodalia 55-56; for their influence in Germany, see n. 206 below. For Portugal, see I. da Rosa Pereira, >Les statutes synodaux d=Eudes de Sully en Portugal=, L=année canonique 15 (1971) 459-480.

202 Text lost: cf. Pontal, Les statuts synodaux 106.

203 Odette Pontal, >Les plus anciens statuts synodux d=Angers et leur expansion dans les diocèses de l=ouest de la France=, Revue d=Histoire de l=Église de France 46 (1960) 54-67; Pontal, Les statuts synodaux 106, 138-239 (with French translation).

204 Pontal, Les statuts synodaux 138-237, c.18, on priestly obligation to say the Office, >Ex concilio lateranensi ultimo= (cf. Lat. IV, c.17); c.22, on the proper care of altar linen and vestments, with the phrase >sicut continetur in concilio (lateranensi)= (cf. Lat. IV, c.19, end); c.23, Ex concilio lateranensi de crismate (cf. Lat. IV, cc.19 [end], 20); c.24, Item de eodem, forbidding the keeping of private possessions in churches, opens with the phrase >In concilio firmiter inhibetur= (cf. Lat. IV, c.19); c.31, Ex concilio lateranensi forbidding clergy from indulging in profane pursuits (cf. Lat. IV, c.16); c.32, on clerical dress (cf. Lat. IV, c.16); c.33, forbidding clergy to participate in sentences of blood, derived from the Council of Tours, 1216 (cf. Lat. IV, c.18); c.34, Ex concilio lateranensi (et turonensi) forbidding clergy from taking paid employment or blessing the elements in ordeals (cf. Lat. IV, c.18); c.37, Ex concilio lateranensi, on clerical behavior (cf. Lat. IV, c.14); c.38, excommunicating clergy who still retained >suspect women= >usque ad concilium lateranense ultimo celebratum= (cf. Lat. IV, c.14); c.39, Ex concilio lateranensi, on illegitimate children of priests and clerical and lay concubinage (falsely attributed to the council; derived from Odo de Sully, c.81); c.40, on reservation of relics, opens with the phrase >Item in concilio est statutum= (cf. Lat. IV, c.62); c.41, Ex concilio lateranensi, on episcopal control of preachers and alms collectors (false attribution; from Odo de Sully, c.68); c.64, allowing marriage from the fifth degree of consanguinity onwards (cf. Lat. IV, c.50); c.65 forbidding clandestine marriages (cf. Lat. IV, c.51); c.69, on clerical duties towards the sick, opens with the phrase >Statutum est in concilio= (cf. Lat. IV, c.22); c.73, In concilio lateranensi, sacraments to be conferred freely (cf. Lat. IV, c.61); c.75, on confession (cf. Lat. IV, c.21); c.73, In concilio lateranensi, sacraments to be conferred freely (cf. Lat. IV, c.61); c.75, on confession (cf. Lat. IV, c.21); c.76, on confession (cf. Lat. IV, c.21); c.80, Ex concilio lateranensi, on penance (mistaken attribution).

205 Compiled by Pierre de Sampson and widely disseminated, it was adopted in Arles, Béziers, Uzès, and Lodève, and its influence can be traced in the work of Guillaume Durand (Mende) and Raymond de Calmont d=Olt (Rodez) and in synodal statutes in northern Spain and Italy. Manuscript copies survive in Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and Germany; see Odette Pontal, >Quelques remarques sur l=oeuvre canonique de Pierre de Sampzon=, AHC 8 (1976) 126-142, especially 127-132; cf. Mansi, 24.521-566 (wrongly attributed to Bishop Bertrand de Languisel and mis dated 1284).

206 Pontal, >Les plus anciens statuts= 57-59 and Les statuts synodaux 106-108, 136. According to Odette Pontal (p.136), >pour toute la France du Moyen Age il [the synodal book of Angers] reste le synodal de base jusqu=au Concile de Trente.= For manuscript and bibliographical details, see A. Artonne, L. Guixard, Odette Pontal, Répertoire des statuts synodaux des diocèses de l=ancienne France du xiiie à la fin du xviiie siècle (Documents, Études et Répertoires publiés par l=Institut de Recherche et d=Histoire des Textes 8; 2nd edition; Paris 1969) 80-81 (Autun, 115-116 (Bayeux), 205 (Clermont Ferrand), 213-214 (Coutances), 257 (Langres), 297 (Le Mans), 279 (Lisieux), 287 (Lyon), 316-317 (Nantes), 337 (Noyon), 342-343 (Orléans), 378-379 (Rouen), 409 (Saintes), 421 (Sisteron), 453 (Tours); cf. Raymonde Foreville, >Les statuts synodaux et le renouveau pastoral du XIIIe siècle dans le Midi de la France=, Le Credo, la morale et l=Inquisition (Cahiers de Fanjeaux 6; Toulouse 1971) 119-150 (reprinted in idem, Gouvernement et vie de l=Église au Moyen Âge [London 1979] no.15).

207 Bessin, Concilia Rothomagensis 1.130-132: c.1 declares, >auctoritate sacri Concilii LateranensisYhaec potissimum volumus observari quae in ipso Concilio constituta noscuntur=; cc.1-19 = Lat. IV, cc.6, 10, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15-16, 19-20, 21, 10, 27, 30, 31, 32, 47, 51, 53-54, 55, 59; cf. Raymonde Foreville, >La réception des conciles généraux dans l=église et la province de Rouen au XIIIe siècle=, Droit privé et institutions régionales: Études historiques offertes à Jean Yver (Paris 1976) 245 (reprinted in Gouvernement et vie de l=Église au Moyen Âge [London 1979] no. 9).

208 Bremen, Cologne, Magdeburg, Mainz, Salzburg, Trier.

209 Peter Johanek, >Die Pariser Statuten des Bischofs Odo von Sully und die Anfänge der kirchlichen Statutengesetzgebung in Deutschland=, Proceedings Cambridge 327-347, especially 345-347, for the Latin text; cf. Pixton, The German Episcopacy 149-151 (with English translation).

210 Pixton, The German Episcopacy 84-85. For the Utrecht statutes, see Concilia Germaniae, ed. J. F. Schannat and J. Hartzheim (11 vols. Cologne: Krakamp and Simonis, 1759-1775; reprinted Aalen 1970) 3 (1760) 488-490; cf. Anton Joseph Binterim, Pragmatische Geschichte der deutschen National  Provincial  und vorzüglichsten Diöcesanconcilien vom vierten Jahrhundert bis auf das Concilium zu Trient (7 vols. Mainz 1835-1848) 4 (1840) 458-465 (German translation).

211 For German attendance at the council, see Hermann Krabbo, >Die Deutschen Bischöfe auf dem Laterankonzil 1215', QF 10 (1907) 275-300: 7 from the province of Mainz, 3 from Trier, 2 from Cologne, 4 from Salzburg, 2 from Bremen, 3 from Magdeburg, as well as the patriarch of Aquileia and the bishops of Trent, Basel, Cambrai, Riga, and Estonia; cf. Pixton, The German Episcopacy 190. For monastic and capitular representation, >perhaps forty or fifty other clerics=, see ibid., 190-193.

212 Pixton, The German Episcopacy 223-234: cc.8-9, on abuse by lay advocates (cf. Lat. IV, cc.44-45); c.11, compelling subdeacons and deacons who have married to return to the clerical state (cf. Lat. IV, c.14); c.14, on appointment of vicars (cf. Lat. IV, cc.30 and 61; confirmed by Pope Honorius III, Dec. 1217. Potthast 5635).

213 Pixton, The German Episcopacy 234, 240-241, 415-418. A council in 1216 is inferred; for the 1238 council see Mansi 23.477-86. 12 of its 45 decrees reflect Lateran legislation: 10-13, 15-16, 21, regulating clerical dress and tonsure (cf. Lat. IV, c.16); 14, forbidding clergy to frequent taverns, except on pilgrimages and journeys (cf. Lat. IV, c.16); c.17-18, forbidding clerical cohabitation with women (cf. Lat. IV, c.14); c.20, forbidding hawking and dicing (cf. Lat. IV, c.16); c.26, on sufficient income for vicars (cf. Lat. IV, c.32); c. 27, on the safe custody of the eucharist >corpus Domini=, holy oil and baptismal fonts (cf. Lat. IV, c.20); c.31, against heresy (cf. Lat. IV, c.3); two reflect that of the Third Lateran: c.9, forbidding clergy to engage in business (cf. Lat. III, c.12); c.34, against usury (cf. Lat. III, c.25; cf. Lat. IV, c.67).

214 Pixton, The German Episcopacy 246-248, 418-419.

215 Ibid., 252-261, 334.

216 Ibid., 225-282, passim, 288-291.

217 Ibid., 282-261.

218 Ibid., 284-285.

219 Albert Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (5 vols. in 6, Leipzig 1896-1920; reprinted Berlin-Leipzig 1954) 5.1 p. 144. For Cologne, see Binterim, Pragmatische Geschichte 5 (1843) 162-178 (Conrad, >1260=) Concilia Germaniae 3.588-597 (>1260=); ibid., 596-615 (Werner, 1261); Mansi, 23.1012-1030 (Conrad, >1260=); for Magdeburg, see Binterim, 5.214-220.

220 Pixton, The German Episcopacy 259-260, 296-300.

221 Ibid., 291-296, 298-299, 300.

222 Mansi 23.1-8, c.14 (col. 7-8), >districte praecipimus, ut archiepiscopi, episcopi, archidiaconi, & decani, in suo singuli concilio annis singulis celebrando eas publicari faciant servari=; cf. Concilia Germaniae 3.520-523; Binterim, 4.471 (German translation); cf. Pixton, The German Episcopacy 345-349.

223 Hauck, Pragmatische Geschichte 5.1 pp. 136-40; cf. Pixton, The German Episcopacy 348.

224 Peter Linehan, The Spanish Church and the Papacy in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge 1971; Spanish translation published in Salamanca 1975) 4-19.

225 For the list, see Antonio García y García, >El Concilio IV Lateranense (1215) y la Península Ibèrica=, Iglesia, sociedad y derecho 2.187-208, at 190-192 (reprinted from Revista española de teologia 44 [1984] 355-375).

226 Antonio García y García, >Primeros reflejos del conc. 4 Lateranense en Castilla=, Iglesia, sociedad y derecho 2.209-235 (reprinted from Studio historico ecclesiastica: Festgabe für Prof. Luchesius Spätling OFM, ed. I. Vázquez Janeiro [Bibliotheca Pontificii Athenaei Antoniani 19; Rome 1977] 249-282). The clergy revolted, and Archbishop Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada of Toledo virtually nullified Bishop Gerald=s statutes in 1220 (cf. ibid., 215). Reflections of the Lateran canons are found in 1.1, which refers to the >statutum pape= on interdicts (cf. Lat. IV, cc.57-58), 1.3, clergy to serve in person or appoint perpetual vicars, >seruetur statutum domini pape= (cf. Lat. IV, c.32), 1.11, episcopal elections, >seruetur ius scriptum= (cf. Lat. IV, c.23); 2.3, archdeacon=s procurations (cf. Lat. IV, c.33), 2.11, tithes (cf. Lat. IV, c.53), 2.17, forbidding communication with excommunicates, >seruetur constitutio domini pape Innocentii= (cf. Lat. IV, c.3); 3.1-2, tonsure and clerical dress, 5-6, forbidding gaming and drinking in taverns (cf. Lat. IV, c.16), 3.10, forbidding clergy to hear confessions of non parishioners (cf. Lat. IV, c.21), 3.13, ' 3, archpriests= visitations: small entourage, may not take hunting dogs and hawks (cf. Lat. IV, cc.33, itself citing Lat. III, c.4), 3.16, forbidding Christians to eat or drink Jewish meat or wine (cf. Lat. IV, c.67-9), 3.17, forbidding involvement in sentences of blood (cf. Lat. IV, c.18), 3.21 ' 3, forbidding priests to participate in clandestine marriages (cf. Lat. IV, c.51). For a full discussion of synodal activity in Spain after 1215, see José Sánchez Herrero, >Los concilios provinciales y los sinodos diocesanos españoles 1215-1550', Quaderni Catanesi 3 (1981) 113-177; 4 (1982), 111-197.

227 Although four of the eight the synodal statutes issued by Bernardo II of Santiago de Compostela in 1229 were based on Lateran constitutions, the choice of decrees was highly selective: Synodicon Hispanum, ed. Antonio García y García, et al. (Madrid, 1981-) 1.263-266, cc.2, 6-8 (cf. Lat. IV, cc.10, 32 (bis), 30).

228 Linehan, The Spanish Church 20-34; García y García, >El Concilio IV Lateranense (1215) y la Península Ibèrica=.

229 Josep M. Pons Guri, >Constitucions conciliars Tarraconensis (1229 a 1330)=, Analecta Sacra Tarraconensia 47 (1974) 65-128, 48 (1975) 241-363, especially 47.75-92 (Latin); cf. J. Tejada y Ramiro, Coleccíon de cánones y de todos los concilios de la Iglesia de España y de América (6 vols. Madrid 1861) 3.329-342 (Latin and Spanish); Manuel Guallar Perez. Los concilios Tarraconensis celebrados en Lérida (Siglos VI-XV) (Lérida 1975) 107-147 (Spanish).

230 Linehan, The Spanish Church 28. For Valladolid, cf. Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, ed. Edmond Martène and Ursin Durand (5 vols. Paris 1717) 4.167-174 (a monastic parallel of the Valladolid legislation). On the reaction to John of Abbeville=s legislation, see Linehan, The Spanish Church 35-53.

231 Pons Guri, >Constitucions conciliaris Tarraconensis= 76: >statuta sacri concilii generalis que, pro magna parte, non sine gravi periculo, sunt neglecta, pleniori diligentia de cetero precipimus observari.=

232 Pons Guri, >Constitucions conciliars Tarraconensis= 75-92 (the numeration in Tejada y Ramiro and Perez differs slightly), c.1-2, on holding provincial and diocesan synods (cf. Lat. IV, c. 6); c. 3, on imposition of discipline, >Constitutio de correctione subditorum edita firmius observetur= (cf. Lat. IV, c.8); c.4, on appointment of preachers and confessors, >quia provide statutum est in concilio generali= (cf. Lat. IV, c.10); c. 5, on the appointment of masters to teach theology and >grammar=, opens >Cum in generali concilio pia fuerit constitutione provisum= (Lat. IV, c.11; cf. Lat. III, c.18); c.7, against clerical incontinence (cf. Lat. IV, c.14); c.8, on clerical dress and behavior, forbidding involvement in sentences of blood (cf. Lat. IV, cc.15-18); c.9, on proper maintenance of altars, safe custody of holy oil, chrism, eucharist, >que...pie et provide statuta sunt= (cf. Lat. IV, c.20); c.10, on confession, >districte servantes constitutionem concilii generalis= (cf. Lat. IV, c.21); c.11, against plurality >post generale consilium (sic)Yante conciliumYpost conciliumYante conciliumYsecundum statuta generale conciliiYiuxta statutum generale concilii= (cf. Lat. IV, c.29); c.12, on clerical ordination: none to be ordained without sufficient title, unworthy to be excluded, >amodo districtius observari per penam super hoc in generali concilio constitutam= (cf. Lat. IV, cc.26, 30, 32; Lat. III, cc. 3, 5); c.13, on consanguineous and clandestine marriages (cf. Lat. IV, cc. 50-51); c.14, Jews and Saracens to pay tithes (cf. Lat. IV, c.67); c.15, Jews to wear distinctive clothing (cf. Lat. IV, c.68); c.20, against charges for sacraments, opens >Sicut in generali statutum est concilio= (cf. Lat. IV, c.66); c.21, forbidding payment for ordination (cf. Lat. IV, c.63); c.22, ordering general chapters, >secundum formam generalis concilii= (cf. Lat. IV, c.12); cc.24-5, against improper dress for clerics and monks (cf. Lat. IV, c.16); c.30, if parishes not filled within the legal term, bishop may appoint (cf. Lat. IV, c.23); c.32, against infringement of rights of parish churches (cf. Lat. IV, c.56). Two canons refer back to Alexander III and the Third Lateran Council (1179): c.18, against abuse of lay patronage, >sicut ex constitutionibus tam Lateranensis quam domini Alexandri noscitur institutum= (cf. Lat. III, c.14); c.35, forbidding the sale of military supplies to the Saracens, >Constitutionem domini Alexandri ad memoriam reducentes= (cf. Lat. III, c.24).

233 Linehan, The Spanish Church 54-82; Pons Guri, >Constitucions concilars Tarraconensis= 34-104, especially 104, c.12: >dominus archiepiscopus precepit omnes constitutiones generalis concilii domini Innocentii papae et constitutiones domini Sabinensis Apostolicae Sedis legati [= John of Abbeville] et presentes constitutionesYper totam suam provinciam inviolabiliter observari=; cf. Tejada y Ramiro, Coleccíon de cánones 1.349-361; 3 (1859), 29-32, especially 32. For his subsequent councils at Valencia (1240), Tarragona (1242, 1243, 1244, 1246, 1247, 1250), see Pons Guri, >Constitucions concilars Tarraconensis= 104-128, 241-249.

234 Linehan, The Spanish Church 74-76; for the text, see idem, >Pedro de Albalat, arzobispo de Tarragona y su Asumma septem sacramentorum@=, (Hispania Sacra 22; Barcelona Madrid 1969) 16-30 (reprinted, Spanish Church and Society 1150-1300 [London 1983]) no. 3.

235 Synodicon Hispanum 1.272-280.

236 J. Giménez y Martínez de Carvajal, >San Raimundo de Peñafort y la Siete Partidas de Alfonso X el Sabio=, Anthologica Annua 3 (1955) 201-238 (cited by García y García, Constitutiones 4, n. 4).

237 The archbishop of Esztergom (Gran), and the bishops of Eger, Györ, Veszprém, Vác; the archbishop of Kolocsa and the bishops of Nagyvárad and Csanád; the archbishop of Spalato (Split), and the bishops of Hvar (Lésina) and Nona (Nin): Hefele and Leclercq, Histoire des conciles 5.2 p. 1731; cf. Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 393.

238 Kalocsa (1122, before 1225); Esztergom (1252 [not 1256]; Buda (1263). The alleged council of Esztergom of 1276 is a figment. For these councils and supposed councils, see Lothar Waldmüller, Die Synoden in Dalmatien, Kroatien und Ungarn: Von der Völkerwanderug bis zum Ende der Arpaden (1311) (Paderborn 1987) 173-187, which corrects Gabriel Adriányi, >Die ungarischen Synoden=, AHC 8 (1976) 541-575, especially 544.

239 >In castro Budensi, vesprimiensis Diocesis= (ed. Hube 72). Discussion of this council is complicated by the transmission of two versions of its decrees. The full text, set out in 128 capitula, derived from manuscripts in Warsaw and St. Petersburg, is available only in the now very rare Antiquissimae consitutiones synodales provinciae gneznensis maxima ex parte nunc primum e codicibus manu scriptis typis mandatae, ed. Romuald Hube (Petropoli: Cancellariae imperatoris,1856) 72-164, whereas the most widely available text, Sacra concilia ecclesiae romano catholicae in regno Hungariae celebrata ab anno Christi MXVI usque ad annum MDCCXXXIV, ed. C. Péterffy, S.J. (2 vols. Posony 1741-1742 and Vienna 1742)1.106-126; Mansi, 24.269-308; Hefele and Leclercq, Histoire des conciles 6.1 pp. 247-257 breaks off at the beginning of c.75 (which it numbers 69), provides different rubrics and different numeration, and lacks cc.76-128 and the greater part of c.75. In the following analysis, the Budan decrees are cited according to Hube=s edition, with the alternative numeration in square brackets. For the context, see Michael Szvorény, Synopsis critico historica decretorum synodalium pro ecclesia hungaro catholica editorum (Veszprém 1807) 32-45; Waldmüller, Die Synoden in Dalmatien 188-200; Adriányi, >Die ungarischen Synoden= 545-546; cf. (with caution) Z. J. Kosztolnyik, >Rome and the Church in Hungary in 1279: The Synod of Buda=, AHC 22 (1990) 68-85, especially 76-81.

240 Hube, Antiquissimae constitutiones synodales cc.83, 88 (seven sacraments); cc.84-86 (Incarnation, Ascension, descent of the Holy Spirit); cc.89-96, 98 (baptism, confirmation, penance); cc.99-117 (eucharist, care of altars, etc.) cc.118-120 (matrimony).

241 Ibid., c.9 [8], >ClericiYdiligenter= (cf. Lat. IV, c.16, >ClericiYdiligenter=); c.10 [9], >Nullus clericus sententiam sanguinisYintersit. Nec quisquamYdestinandas, nec illam partem chirugiaeYinducit= (cf. Lat. IV, c.18, >Sententiam sanguinisYintersit=; >nec quisquamYdestinandas=, >nec illam chirurgiae artemYimpendat=); c.24 [21], >Statuimus utYextendi=, >Si vero isYpuniatur= (cf. Lat. IV, c.20, >Statuimus utYextendi=, >Si vero isYultioni=); c.28 [27], >ut a modoYapprobatae= (cf. Lat. IV, c.62, >ut a modoYapprobatae=);

c.43 [41], >ne supellectilia sacerdotisYportentur= (cf. Lat. IV, c.19, >ne huiusmodi supellectiliaYreportentur=); c.97 [-], >districte injunctum medicis corporum...procedatur. Ceterum autem...convertatur= (cf. Lat. IV, c.22, >districte praecipimus medicis corporum...procedatur...Ceterum...convertatur=); and c.123 [-] is a verbal rearrangement of Lat. IV, c.66.

242 Waldmüller, Die Synoden in Dalmatien 194-195; Kosztolnyik, >Rome and the Church in Hungary= 76-80. For texts of these councils, see Mansi, 22.783-794 (Avignon); Bessin, Concilia Rothomagensis 1.134-138; cf. Mansi, 23.213-222 (Rouen); Mansi, 23.1167-1178 (Vienna); Péterffy, Sacra concilia 1.53-62; Mansi, 21.97-112 (Esztergom I). For the date and legislation of Esztergom I, see Waldmüller, Die Synoden in Dalmatien 127-133.

243 Adam Vetulani, >La pénétration du droit des Décrétales dans l=Église Polonaise au XIIIéme siècle=, Acta Congressus Iuridici Internationalis VII saeculo a decretalibus Gregorii IX et XIV a codice Iustiniano promulgatis Romae 12-17 Novembris 1934 (5 vols .Rome 1935-1937) 3.385-405, especially 389-394 (reprinted in Institutions de l=Église et canonistes au Moyen Age: De Strasbourg à Cracovie, ed. Wac»aw Uruszczak [Aldershot 1990] no. 2).

244 The bishops of Kraców, Wroc»aw, W»oc»awek, and Lebus: Hefele and Leclercq, Histoire des conciles 5.2 pp. 1731; cf. Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 393.

245 Hefele and Leclercq, Histoire des conciles 5.2 p. 1428.

246 Concilia Poloniae, ed. Jakub Sawicki, vi (Warsaw 1952) 8.

247 Ignacy Subera, Synody Prowincjonalne Arcybiskupów Gnieïnie½skich (Warsaw 1971) 41-45; cf. Hube, Antiquissimae constitutiones synodales 1-13; Vetulani, >La pénétration= 395-396.

248 Hube, Antiquissimae constitutiones synodales 14-49 (based on early manuscripts in Warsaw and St. Petersburg), which combines two sequences of statutes in a single series numbered 1-31. Canons 1-10 are principally concerned with the cathedral of Gniezno; nos. 11-31 concern the province. Hefele and Leclerq (Histoire des Conciles 5.2 pp. 1707-1709, nos. 1-26) provides a summary of a later, variant and extended version of the provincial decrees, based on Mortimer de Montbach, Statuta synodalia dioecana sanctae ecclesiae Wratislaviensis (Wroc»aw 1855) 307-310 (not available to me). In the following analysis, the legate=s decrees are cited according to Hube=s edition, with the alternative numeration in square brackets. C.11 [1] (cf. Lat. IV, cc.44-5), cc.15-17 [5-7] (cf. Lat. IV, cc.53-54), c.23 [16] (cf. Lat. IV, c.51), c.24 [17] (cf. Lat. IV, c.50), c.27 [21] (cf. Lat. IV, c.20), c.28 [22] (cf. Lat. IV, c.33). For the context, see Johann Heyne, Dokumentierte Geschichte des Bistums und Hochstifts Breslau (3 vols. Breslau 1860; reprinted Aalen 1969) 1.364-371; Vetulani, >La pénétration= 397-398. For the importance of Jacques Pantaléon=s legation for the development of legal institutions in the Polish and Hungarian churches, see Péter ErdÅ, >Diritto canonico e cultura giuridica europea (con particulare riguardo ai APaesi dell=Est@): I tribunali ecclesiastici medievali=, Il Diritto Ecclesiastico 3 (1995) 687-705 at pp. 689-690.

249 Mansi, 23.1155-62 (Bremen) 1161-1166 (Magdeburg) 1167-1178 (Vienna, for Salzburg); Hube, Antiquissimae constitutiones synodales 56-71 (Gniezno).

250 Gniezno, cc.2, 5 (cf. Lat. IV, cc.43-45); c.3 (cf. Lat. IV, c.50); c.4 (cf. Lat. IV, c.29); c.6 (cf. Lat. IV, cc.53-56); c.7 (cf. Lat. IV, c.40); cc.8-9 (cf. Lat. IV, cc. 6, 33); c.11 (cf. Lat. IV, c.6); cc.10, 12-14 (cf. Lat. IV, cc.67-70). Cf. T. Si»nicki, Kardyna» legat Gwido, jego synod wroc»awski z r. 1267 I statuty tegoó synodu (Lwów 1930); Adam Vetulani, >The Jews in Medieval Poland=, trans. M. Wajsblum The Jewish Journal of Sociology 4 (1962) 274-294 at 278, 285-289. Guido=s ordinances were cited by Bishop Thomas of Wroclaw in 1279: Mansi, 24.327-330, >iuxta tenorem Constitutionis (bonae memoriae) domini Guidonis Suaden. quondam in partibus Poloniae Apostolicae sedis Legati=, (on clerical continence); >iuxta tenorem Constitutionis domini Guidonis praefati=, (on lay abuse); cf. Gniezno 1266 (ed. Hube) cc.2, 5-6; Vienna 1267 (for the province of Salzburg: Mansi, 23.1167-1178), cc.1-5, 7.

251 Hube, Antiquissimae consitutiones synodales 165-80 citing the decrees of the legates Philip and Guido against incontinent clergy (c.14). See above, at nn. 236-237; cf. Vetulani, >La pénétration= 399-400; Subera, Synody Prowincjonalne 57-63.

252 L. Boyle, >The Fourth Lateran Council and Manuals of Popular Instruction=, The Popular Literature of Medieval England (Tennessee Studies in Literature 28; Knoxville 1985) 30-43.

Internet History Sourcebooks Project

Medieval Sourcebook:
Twelfth Ecumenical Council:
Lateran IV 1215

---

The Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215

CANON 1Text: We firmly believe and openly confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immense [infinite], omnipotent, unchangeable, incomprehensible, and ineffable, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost [Holy Spirit]; three Persons indeed but one essense, substance, or nature absolutely simple; the Father (proceeding) from no one, but the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Ghost equally from both, always without beginning and end. The Father begetting [engendering], the Son begotten [engendered], and the Holy Ghost proceeding; consubstantial and coequal, co-omnipotent and coeternal, the one principle of the universe, Creator of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporeal, who from the beginning of time and by His omnipotent power made from nothing creatures both spiritual and corporeal, angelic, namely, and mundane, and then human, as it were, common, composed of spirit and body. The devil and the other demons were indeed created by God good by nature but they became bad through themselves; man, however, sinned at the suggestion of the devil. This Holy Trinity in its common essense undivided and in personal properties divided, through Moses, the holy prophets, and other servants gave to the human race at the most opportune intervals of time the doctrine of salvation.

And finally, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God made flesh by the entire Trinity, conceived with the co-operation of the Holy Ghost of Mary ever Virgin, made true man, composed of a rational soul and human flesh, one Person in two natures, pointed out more clearly the way of life. Who according to His divinity is immortal and impassable, according to His humanity was made passable and mortal, suffered on the cross for the salvation of the human race, and being dead descended into hell, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. But He descended in soul, arose in flesh, and ascended equally in both; He will come at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead and will render to the reprobate and to the elect according to their works. Who all shall rise with their own bodies which they now have that they may receive according to their merits, whether good or bad, the latter eternal punishment with the devil, the former eternal glory with Christ.

There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us. And this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors.

But the sacrament of baptism, which by the invocation of each Person of the Trinity, namely of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is effected in water, duly conferred on children and adults in the form prescribed by the Church by anyone whatsoever, leads to salvation. And should anyone after the reception of baptism have fallen into sin, by true repentance he can always be restored. Not only virgins and those practicing chastity, but also those united in marriage, through the right faith and through works pleasing to God, can merit eternal salvation.

CANON 2Text: We condemn, therefore, and reprobate the book or tract which Abott Joachim published against Master Peter Lombard concerning the unity or essense of the Trinity, calling him heretical and insane because he said in his Sentences that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are some supreme entity in which there is no begetting, no begotten, and no proceeding. Whence he asserts that he (Peter Lombard) attributed to God not so much a trinity as a quaternity, namely, three Persons and that common essense as a fourth, clearly protesting that there is no entity that is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, neither is it essense or substance or nature, though he concedes that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one essense, one substance, and one nature. But he says that such a unity is not a true and proper (propriam) unity, but rather a collective one or one by way of similitude, as many men are called one people and many faithful one Church, according to the words: "The multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul" (Acts 4: 32); and, "He who is joined to the Lord, is one spirit" (I Cor. 6: I7); similarly, "He that planteth and he that watereth, are one" (I Cor- 3: 8); and, "So we being many, are one body in Christ" (Rom. 12: 5). Again in the Book of Kings (Ruth): "My people and thy people are one" (Ruth I: i6). To strengthen this teaching he cites that most important word which Christ spoke concerning the faithful in the Gospel: will, Father, that they may be one, as we also are one, that they may be made perfect in one" (John I7: 22 f.). For the faithful of Christ, he says, are not one in the sense that they are some one thing that is common to all, but in the sense that they constitute one Church by reason of the unity of the Catholic faith and one kingdom by reason of the union of indissoluble charity, as we read in the canonical Epistle of St. John: "There are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; nd these three are one" (I John 5: 7). And immediately it is added: "And there are three who give testimony on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one" (I John 5: 8), as it is found in some codices.

But we, with the approval of the holy and general council, believe and confess with Peter (Lombard) that there is one supreme entity, incomprehensible and ineffable, which is truly Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, together (simul) three persons and each one of them singly. And thus in God there is only trinity, not quaternity, because each of the three persons is that entity, namely, substance, essense, or divine nature, which alone is the principle of the universe and besides which there is no other. And that entity is not the one begetting or the one begotten or the one proceeding, but it is the Father who begets, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Ghost proceeds, in order that there may be distinctions in the Persons who unity in the nature. Though, therefore, the Father is one (being), and the Son is another, and the Holy Ghost is another, yet they are not different (non tamen aliud); but that which is the Father that is the Son and the Holy Ghost, absolutely the same, since according to the Orthodox and Catholic faith they are believed to be consubstantial. For the Father begetting the Son from eternity imparted to Him His own substance, as He Himself testifies: "That which my father hath given me, is greater than all" (John IO: 29). And it cannot- be said that He gave to Him a part of His substance and retained a part for Himself, since the substance of the Father is indivisible, that is, absolutely simple. But neither can it be said that Father in begetting transferred His substance to the Son, as if gave it to the Son without retaining it for Himself, otherwise He would cease to be a substance. It is evident, therefore, that the Son in being begotten received without any diminution the substance of the Father and thus the Father and Son as well as the Holy Ghost proceeding from both are the same entity. When therefore the Truth prays to the Father for the faithful, saying: "I will that they be one in us, even as we are one" (John 7: 22), this term "one" is understood first for the faithful, as implying a union of charity in grace, then for the divine persons, as implying a unity of identity in nature; as the Truth says in another place: "Be you perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5: 48); as if He would say more clearly: be perfect by the perfection of grace as your heavenly Father is perfect by the perfection of nature, namely, each in his own way, because between the Creator and the creature there cannot be a likeness so great that the unlikeness is not greater. If therefore anyone presume to defend or approve the teaching of the aforesaid Joachim on this point, let him be repressed by all as a heretic.

In this, however, we do not wish to derogate in anything from the monastery of Flora, which Joachim himself founded, since therein is both the regular life and salutary observance, but chiefly because the same Joachim ordered that his writings be submitted to us to be approved or corrected by the judgment of the Apostolic See, dictating a letter which he subscribed with his own hand, in which he firmly confesses that he holds that faith which the Roman Church holds, which by the will of God is the mother and mistress of all the faithful. We also reprobate and condemn the perverse teaching of he impious Amaury (Almaricus, Amalricus) de Bene, whose mind the father of lies has so darkened that his teaching is to be regarded not so much heretical as insane.

CANON 3Text. We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained; condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known, for while they have different faces they are nevertheless bound to each other by their tails, since in all of them vanity is a common element. Those condemned, being handed over to the secular rulers of their bailiffs, let them be abandoned, to be punished with due justice, clerics being first degraded from their orders. As to the property of the condemned, if they are laymen, let it be confiscated; if clerics, let it be applied to the churches from which they received revenues. But those who are only suspected, due consideration being given to the nature of the suspicion and the character of the person, unless they prove their innocence by a proper defense, let them be anathematized and avoided by all 1-intil they have made suitable satisfaction; but if they have been under excommunication for one year, then let them be condemned as heretics. Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.

We decree that those who give credence to the teachings of the heretics, as well as those who receive, defend, and patronize them, are excommunicated; and we firmly declare that after any one of them has been branded with excommunication, if he has deliberately failed to make satisfaction within a year, let him incuripso jure the stigma of infamy and let him not be admitted to public offices or deliberations, and let him not take part in the election of others to such offices or use his right to give testimony in a court of law. Let him also be intestable, that he may not have the free exercise of making a will, and let him be deprived of the right of inheritance. Let no one be urged to give an account to him in any matter, but let him be urged to give an account to others. If perchance he be a judge, let his decisions have no force, nor let any cause be brought to his attention. If he be an advocate, let his assistance by no means be sought. If a notary, let the instruments drawn up by him be considered worthless, for, the author being condemned, let them enjoy a similar fate. In all similar cases we command that the same be observed. If, however, he be a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, that the greater the fault the graver may be the punishment inflicted.

If any refuse to avoid such after they have been ostracized by the Church, let them be excommunicated till they have made suitable satisfaction. Clerics shall not give the sacraments of the Church to such pestilential people, nor shall they presume to give them Christian burial, or to receive their alms or offerings; otherwise they shall be deprived of their office, to which they may not be restored without a special indult of the Apostolic See. Similarly, all regulars, on whom also this punishment may be imposed, let their privileges be nullified in that diocese in which they have presumed to perpetrate such excesses.

But since some, under "the appearance of godliness, but denying the power thereof," as the Apostle says (II Tim. 3: 5), arrogate to themselves the authority to preach, as the same Apostle says: "How shall they preach unless they be sent?" (Rom. 10:15), all those prohibited or not sent, who, without the authority of the Apostolic See or of the Catholic bishop of the locality, shall presume to usurp the office of preaching either publicly or privately, shall be excommunicated and unless they amend, and the sooner the better, they shall be visited with a further suitable penalty. We add, moreover, that every archbishop or bishop should himself or through his archdeacon or some other suitable persons, twice or at least once a year make the rounds of his diocese in which report has it that heretics dwell, and there compel three or more men of good character or, if it should be deemed advisable, the entire neighborhood, to swear that if anyone know of the presence there of heretics or others holding secret assemblies, or differing from the common way of the faithful in faith and morals, they will make them known to the bishop. The latter shall then call together before him those accused, who, if they do not purge themselves of the matter of which they are accused, or if after the rejection of their error they lapse into their former wickedness, shall be canonically punished. But if any of them by damnable obstinacy should disapprove of the oath and should perchance be unwilling to swear, from this very fact let them be regarded as heretics.

We wish, therefore, and in virtue of obedience strictly command, that to carry out these instructions effectively the bishops exercise throughout their dioceses a scrupulous vigilance if they wish to escape canonical punishment. If from sufficient evidence it is apparent that a bishop is negligent or remiss in cleansing his diocese of the ferment of heretical wickedness, let him be deposed from the episcopal office and let another, who will and can confound heretical depravity, be substituted.

CANON 4Summary. Those baptized by the Latins must not be rebaptized by the Greeks.
Text. Though we wish to favor and honor the Greeks who in our days are returning to the obedience of the Apostolic See by permitting them to retain their customs and rites in so far as the interests of God allow us, in those things, however, that are a danger to souls and derogatory to ecclesiastical propriety, we neither wish nor ought to submit to them. After the Church of the Greeks with some of her accomplices and supporters had severed herself from the obedience of the Apostolic See, to such an extent did the Greeks begin hating the Latins that among other things which they impiously committed derogatory to the Latins was this, that when Latin priests had celebrated upon their altars, they would not offer the sacrifice upon those altars till the altars had first been washed, as if by this they had been defiled. Also, those baptized by the Latins the Greeks rashly presume to rebaptize, and even till now, as we understand, there are some who do not hesitate to do this. Desirous, therefore, of removing such scandal from the Church of God, and advised by the holy council, we strictly command that they do not presume to do such things in the future, but conform themselves as obedient children to the Holy Roman Church, their mother, that there may be "one fold and one shepherd." If anyone shall presume to act contrary to this, let him be excommunicated and deposed from every office and ecclesiastical benefice.


CANON 5Summary. The council approves the existing order of the patriarchal sees and affirm, three of their privileges: their bishops may confer the pallium and may have the cross borne before them, and appeals may be taken to them.
Text. Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree with the approval of the holy and ecumenical council, that after the Roman Church, which by the will of God holds over all others pre-eminence of ordinary power as the mother and mistress of all the faithful, that of Constantinople shall hold first place, that of Alexandria second, that of Antioch third, and that of Jerusalem fourth, the dignity proper to each to be observed; so that after their bishops have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the distinguishing mark of the plenitude of the pontifical office, and have taken the oath of fidelity and obedience to him, they may also lawfully bestow the pallium upon their suffragans, receiving from them the canonical profession of faith for themselves, and for the Roman Church the pledge of obedience. They may have the standard of the cross borne before them everywhere, except in the city of Rome and wherever the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of Apostolic dignity is present. In all provinces subject to their jurisdiction appeals may be taken to them when necessary, saving the appeals directed to the Apostolic See, which must be humbly respected.


CANON 6SUMMARY Provincial synod, for the correction of abuses and the enforcement of canonical enactments must be held annually. To ensure this, reliable persons are to be appointed who will investigate such thin as need correction.
Text. In accordance with the ancient provisions of the holy Fathers, the metropolitans must not neglect to hold with their suffragans the annual provincial synods. In these they should be actuated with a genuine fear of God in correcting abuses and reforming morals, especially the morals of the clergy, familiarizing themselves anew with the canonical rules, particularly those that are enacted in this general council, that they may enforce their observance by imposing due punishment on transgressors. That this may be done more effectively, let them appoint in each and every diocese prudent and upright persons, who throughout the entire year shall informally and without any jurisdiction diligently investigate such things as need correction or reform and faithfully present them to the metropolitan, suffragans, and others in the following synod, so that they may give prudent consideration to these and other matters as circumstances demand; and in reference to those things that they decree, let them enforce observance, publishing the decisions in the episcopal synods to be held annually in each diocese. Whoever shall neglect to comply with this salutary statute, let him be suspended from his office and benefits till it shall please his superior to restore him.


CANON 7Summary No custom or appeal shall hinder prelates from correcting abuses and reforming the morals of their subjects. If the chapter neglects to correct the excesses of the canons, it shall devolve upon the bishop to do so. Prelates shall not use this statute as means of pecuniary gain.
Text. By an irrefragable decree we ordain that prelates make a prudent and earnest effort to correct the excesses and reform the morals of their subjects, especially of the clergy, lest their blood be demanded at their hands. But that they may perform unhindered the duty of correction and reform, we decree that no custom or apeal shall stand in the way of their efforts, unless they shall have exceeded the form to be observed in such cases. The abuses, however, of the canons of the cathedral church, the correction of which has by custom belonged to the chapter, shall, in those churches in which such a custom has hitherto prevailed, by the advice or command of the bishop be corrected within a reasonable time specified by the bishop. Otherwise the bishop, having in mind the interests of God, opposition notwithstanding, shall not delay to correct them means of ecclesiastical censure according as the cura animarum demands. Nor shall he neglect to correct the excesses also of the other clerics (those assisting the canons) according as the cura animarumrequires, due order, however, being observed in all things. If the canons without a manifest and reasonable cause, chiefly through contempt for the bishop, discontinue divine services, the bishop may, if he wishes, celebrate in the cathedral church, and on his complaint the metropolitan, as delegated by us in this matter, shall so punish them with ecclesiastical censure that for fear of a repetition of the punishment they will not presume to do such things in the future. Let the prelates of the churches, therefore, be diligently on their guard that they do not convert this salutary decree into a means of personal profit or other objectionable conduct, but let them enforce it earnestly and faithfully if they wish to escape canonical punishment, for in this matter the Apostolic See, on the authority of the Lord, will be most vigilant.


CANON 8SUMMARY: Reports of serious irregularities by prelates and inferior clerics must be investigated bv the superior. The accused must be given occasion to defend himself and, ii-found 'guilty, must be punished accordingly.
Text:. How and when a prelate ought to proceed in the inquiry and punishment of the excesses of subjects (that is, of clerics), is clearly deduced from the authority of the New and Old Testaments, from which the canonical decrees were afterward drawn, as we have long since clearly pointed out and now with the approval of the holy council confirm. For we read in the Gospel that the steward who was accused to his master of wasting his goods, heard him say: "How is it that I hear this of thee? Give an account of thy stewardship, for now thou canst be steward no longer" (Luke i6: 2). And in Genesis the Lord said: "I will go down and see whether they have done according to the cry that is come to me" (Gen. i8: 2i). From these authorities it is clearly proved that not only when a subject (that is, a cleric of a lower rank) but also when a prelate is guilty of excesses and these should come to the ears of the superior through complaint and report, not indeed from spiteful and slanderous persons, but from those who are prudent and upright persons, and not only once but often, he must in the presence of the seniors of the church carefully inquire into the truth of such reports, so that if they prove to be true, the guilty party may be duly punished without the superior being both accuser and judge in the matter. But, while this is to be observed in regard to subjects, the observance must be stricter in reference to prelates, who are, as it were, a ,target for the arrow. Because they cannot please all, since by their very office they are bound not only to rebuke but also at times to loose and bind, they frequently incur the hatred of many and are subject to insidious attacks. The holy fathers, therefore, wisely decreed that accusations against prelates must be accepted with great reserve lest, the pillars being shattered, the edifice itself fall unless proper precaution be exercised by which recourse not only to false but also malicious incrimination is precluded. They wished so to protect prelates that on the one hand they might not be unjustly accused, and on the other hand that they might be on their guard, lest they should become haughtily delinquent; finding a suitable remedy for each disease in the provision that a criminal accusation which calls for a diminutio capitis, that is, degradation, is by no means to be accepted, nisi legitima praecedat inscriptio. But when anyone shall have been accused on account of his excesses, so that the reports and whisperings arising therefrom cannot any longer be ignored without scandal or tolerated without danger, then steps, inspired not by hatred but by charity, must be taken without scruple toward an inquiry and punishment of his excesses. If it is a question of a grave offense, though not one that calls for adegradatio ab ordine, the accused must be deprived absolutely of all administrative authority, which is in accordance with the teaching of the Gospel, namely, that the steward who cannot render a proper account of his office as steward be deprived of his stewardship. He about whom inquiry is to be made must be present, unless he absents himself through stubbornness; and the matter to be investigated must be made known to him, that he may have opportunity to defend himself. Not only the testimony of the witnesses but also their names must be made known to him, that he may be aware who testified against him and what was their testimony; and finally, legitimate exceptions and replications must be admitted, lest by the suppression of names and by the exclusion of exceptions the boldness of the defamer and the false witness be encouraged. The diligence of the prelate in correcting the excesses of his subjects ought to be in proportion to the blameworthiness of allowing the offense to go unpunished. Against such offenders, to say nothing of those who are guilty of notorious crimes, there can be a threefold course of procedure, namely, by accusation, by denunciation, and by inquiry, in all of which, however, proper precaution must be exercised lest perchance by undue haste grave detriment should result. The accusation must be preceded by the legitima inscriptio,denunciation by the caritativa admonitio, and the inquiry by the clamosa insinuatio (diffamatio); such moderation to be always used that the forma sententiae be governed by the forma judicii. The foregoing, however, does not apply to regular clerics, who, when a reason exists, can be removed from their charges more easily and expeditiously.


CANON 9SUMMARY: In cities and dioceses where there are people of different languages, the bishop must provide suitable priests to minister to them. If necessity requires, let him appoint a vicar who shall be responsible to him. There may not, however, be two bishops in -the same diocese.
Text: Since in many places within the same city and diocese there are people of different languages having one faith but various rites and customs, we strictly command that the bishops of these cities and dioceses provide suitable men who will, according to the different rites and languages, celebrate the divine offices for them, administer the sacraments of the Church and instruct them by word and example. But we absolutely forbid that one and the same city or diocese have more than one bishop, one body, as it were, with several heads, which is a monstrosity. But if by reason of the aforesaid conditions an urgent necessity should arise, let the bishop of the locality after due deliberation appoint a prelate acceptable to those races, who shall act as vicar in the aforesaid matters and be subject to him all things. If anyone shall act otherwise, let him consider himself excommunicated; and if even then he will not amend, let him be deposed from every ecclesiastical ministry, and if need be, let the secular arm be employed, that such insolence may be curbed.


CANON 10SUMMARY: Bishops who are unable to preach the word of God to the people are to provide suitable men to do it for them. They must see to it that the needs of the clergy so appointed are supplied, otherwise their work will prove a failure.
Text: Among other things that pertain to the salvation of the Christian people, the food of the word of God is above all necessary, because as the body is nourished by material food, so is the soul nourished by spiritual food, since "not in bread alone doth man live but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God" (Matt. 4: 4). It often happens that bishops, on account of their manifold duties or bodily infirmities, or because of hostile invasions or other reasons, to say nothing of lack of learning, which must be absolutely condemned in them and is not to be tolerated in the future, are themselves unable to minister the word of God to the people, especially in large and widespread dioceses. Wherefore we decree that bishops provide suitable men, powerful in work and word, to exercise with fruitful result the office of preaching; who in place of the bishops, since these cannot do it, diligently visiting the people committed to them, may instruct them by word and example. And when they are in need, let them be supplied with the necessities, lest for want of these they may be compelled to abandon their work at the very beginning. Wherefore we command that in cathedral churches as well as in conventual churches suitable men be appointed whom the bishops may use as coadjutors and assistants, not only in the office of preaching but also in hearing confessions, imposing penances, and in other matters that pertain to the salvation of souls. If anyone neglect to comply with this, he shall be subject to severe punishment.


CANON 11SUMMARY In every cathedral church and other churches also that have sufficient means, a master is to be appointed to instruct gratis the clerics and poor students. The metropolitan church ought to have a theologian who shall teach the clergy whatever pertains to the cura animarum (i.e. care of souls).
Text. Since there are some who, on account of the lack of necessary means, are unable to acquire an education or to meet opportunities for perfecting themselves, the Third Lateran Council in a salutary decree provided that in every cathedral church a suitable benefice be assigned to a master who shall instruct gratisthe clerics of that church and other poor students, by means of which benefice the material needs of the master might be relieved and to the students a way opened to knowledge. But, since in many churches this is not observed, we, confirming the aforesaid decree, add that, not only in every cathedral church but also in other churches where means are sufficient, a competent master be appointed by the prelate with his chapter, or elected by the greater and more discerning part of the chapter, who shall instruct gratis and to the best of his ability the clerics of those and other churches in the art of grammar and in other branches of knowledge. In addition to a master, let the metropolitan church have also a theologian, who shall instruct the priests and others in the Sacred Scriptures and in those things especially that pertain to the cura animarum. To each master let there be assigned by the chapter the revenue of one benefice, and to the theologian let as much be given by the metropolitan; not that they thereby become canons, but they shall enjoy the revenue only so long as they hold the office of instructor. If the metropolitan church cannot support two masters, then it shall provide for the theologian in the aforesaid manner, but for the one teaching grammar, let it see to it that a sufficiency is provided by another church of its city or diocese.


CANON 12SUMMARY: Provincial chapters of regulars are to be held every three years. All not canonically impeded must-attend. The chapters to be under the guidance of two Cistercians, and careful attention is to be given to the reform of the order and to regular observance. Visitation of monasteries and nunneries. Ordinaries must strive to ref'orm monasteries and ward off molestation of them by lay officials.
Text: In every ecclesiastical province there shall be held every three years, saving the right of the diocesan ordinaries, a general chapter of abbots and of priors having no abbots, who have not been accustomed to celebrate such chapters. This shall be held in a monastery best adapted to this purpose and shall be attended by all who are not canonically impeded, with this restriction, however, that no one bring with him more than six horses and eight persons. In inaugurating this new arrangement, let two neighboring abbots of the Cistercian order be invited to give them counsel and opportune assistance, since among them the celebration of such chapters is of long standing. These two Cistercians shall without hindrance choose from those present two whom they consider the most competent, and these four shall preside over the entire chapter, so that no one of these four may assume the authority of leadership; should it become expedient, they may be changed by prudent deliberation. Such a chapter shall be celebrated for several consecutive days according the custom of the Cistercian order. During its deliberations careful attention is to be given to the reform of the order and to regular observance, and what has been enacted with the approval of the four shall be observed inviolably by all, excuses, contradictions, and appeals to the contrary notwithstanding. In each of these chapters the place for the holding of the following one is to be determined. All those in attendance, even if f or want of room many must occupy other houses, must live the vita communis and bear proportionately all common expenses. In the same chapter religious and prudent persons should be appointed who, in our name, shall visit every abbey in the province, not only of monks but also of nuns, according to a form prescribed for them, correcting and reforming those things that need correction and reform; so that, if they should know that the rector of a locality ought to be removed from office, let them make it known to his bishop, that he may procure his removal; but if he should neglect to do it, then the appointed visitors shall refer the matter to the attention of the Apostolic See. We wish and command that canons regular observe this according to their order. But if in this new arrangement a difficulty should arise which cannot be disposed of by the aforesaid persons, let it be referred without scandal to the judgment of the Apostolic See; in the meantime let the other things that have been accomplished by amicable deliberation be in. violably observed. Moreover, the diocesan ordinaries must strive so to reform the monasteries subject to them, that when the aforesaid visitors come to them they will find in them more that is worthy of commendation than of correction, taking special care lest the monasteries be oppressed by them with undue burdens. For, while we wish that the rights of the superiors be respected, we do not on that account wish that injury be sustained by inferiors. We strictly command diocesan bishops and persons attending the chapters, that with ecclesiastical censure-every appeal being denied-they restrain advocates, patrons, vicegerents, rulers, consuls, nobles, and soldiers, and all others, from molesting the monasteries either in persons or properties and if perchance these persons should so molest, let the aforesaid bishops and chapter members not neglect to compel these latter to make satisfaction, that the monasteries may serve Almighty

God more freely and peacefully.

CANON 13SUMMARY: The founding of new religious orders is forbidden. New monasteries must accept a rule already approved. A monk may not reside in different monasteries nor may one abbot preside over several monasteries.
Text. Lest too great a diversity of religious orders lead to grave confusion in the Church of God, we strictly forbid anyone in the future to found a new order, but whoever should wish to enter an order, let him choose one already approved. Similarly, he who would wish to found a new monastery, must accept a rule already proved. We forbid also anyone to presume to be a monk in different monasteries (that is, belong to different monasteries), or that one abbot preside over several monasteries.


CANON 14Summary: Clerics, especially those in sacred orders, shall live chastely and virtuously. Anyone suspended for incontinency who presumes to celebrate the divine mysteries shall be forever deposed.
Text: That the morals and general conduct of clerics may be better let all strive to live chastely and virtuously, particularly those in sacred orders, guarding against every vice of desire, especially that on account of which the anger of God came from heaven upon the children of unbelief, so that in the sight of Almighty God they may perform their duties with a pure heart and chaste body. But lest the facility to obtain pardon be an incentive to do wrong, we decree that whoever shall be found to indulge in the vice of incontinence, shall, in proportion to the gravity of his sin, be punished in accordance with the canonical statutes, which we command to be strictly and rigorously observed, so that he whom divine fear does not restrain from evil, may at least be withheld from sin by a temporal penalty. If therefore anyone suspended for this reason shall presume to celebrate the divine mysteries, let him not only be deprived of his ecclesiastical benefices but for this twofold offense let him be forever deposed. Prelates who dare support such in their iniquities, especially in view of money or other temporal advantages, shall be subject to a like punishment. But if those. who according to the practice of their country have not renounced the conjugal bond, fall by the vice of impurity, they are to be punished more severely, since they can use matrimony lawfully.


CANON 15SUMMARY Clerics, who after being warned do not abstain from drunkenness, shall be suspended from their office and benefice.
Text. All clerics shall carefully abstain from drunkenness. Wherefore, let them accommodate the wine to themselves, and themselves to the wine. Nor shall anyone be encouraged to drink, for drunkenness banishes reason and incites to lust. We decree, therefore, that that abuse be absolutely abolished by which in some localities the drinkers bind themselves suo modo to an equal portion of drink and he in their judgment is the hero of the day who out drinks the others. Should anyone be culpable in this matter, unless he heeds the warning of the superior and makes suitable satisfaction, let him be suspended from his benefice or office.

We forbid hunting and fowling to all clerics; wherefore, let them not presume to keep dogs and birds for these purposes.

CANON 16SUMMARY Clerics are not to engage in secular pursuits, attend unbecoming exhibitions, visit taverns, or play games of chance. Their clothing must be in keeping with their dignity.
Text. Clerics shall not hold secular offices or engage in secular and, above all, dishonest pursuits. They shall not attend the performances of mimics and buffoons, or theatrical representations. They shall not visit taverns except in case of necessity, namely, when on a journey. They are forbidden to play games of chance or be present at them. They must have a becoming crown and tonsure and apply themselves diligently to the study of the divine offices and other useful subjects. Their garments must be worn clasped at the top and neither too short nor too long. They are not to use red or green garments or curiously sewed together gloves, or beak-shaped shoes or gilded bridles, saddles, pectoral ornaments (for horses), spurs, or anything else indicative of superfluity. At the divine office in the church they are not to wear cappas with long sleeves, and priests and dignitaries may not wear them elsewhere except in case of danger when circumstances should require a change of outer garments. Buckles may under no condition be worn, nor sashes having ornaments of gold or silver, nor rings, unless it be in keeping with the dignity of their office. All bishops must use in public and in the church outer garments made of linen, except those who are monks, in which case they must wear the habit of their order; in public they must not appear with open mantles, but these must be clasped either on the back of the neck or on the bosom.


CANON 17SUMMARY. Prelates and clerics are commanded in virtue of obedience to celebrate diligently and devoutly the diurnal and nocturnal offices.
Text: It is a matter for regret that there are some minor clerics and even prelates who spend half of the night in banqueting and in unlawful gossip, not to mention other abuses, and in giving the remainder to sleep. They are scarcely awakened by the diurnal concerts of the birds. Then they hasten through matins in a hurried and careless manner. There are others who say mass scarcely four times a year and, what is worse, do not even attend mass, and when they are present they are engaged outside in conversation with lay people to escape the silence of the choir; so that, while they readily lend their ears to unbecoming talk, they regard with utter indifference things that are divine. These and all similar things, therefore, ,we absolutely forbid under penalty of suspension, and strictly command in virtue of obedience that they celebrate diligently and devoutly the diurnal and nocturnal offices so far as God gives them strength.


CANON 18SUMMARY Clerics may neither pronounce nor execute a sentence of death. Nor may they act as judges in extreme criminal cases, or take pa in matters connected with judicial tests and ordeals.
Text. No cleric may pronounce a sentence of death, or execute such a sentence, or be present at its execution. If anyone in consequence of this prohibition (hujusmodi occasions statuti) should presume to inflict damage on churches or injury on ecclesiastical persons, let him be restrained by ecclesiastical censure. Nor may any cleric write or dictate letters destined for the execution of such a sentence. Wherefore, in the chanceries of the princes let this matter be committed to laymen and not to clerics. Neither may a cleric act as judge in the case of the Rotarrii, archers, or other men of this kind devoted to the shedding of blood. No subdeacon, deacon, or priest shall practice that part of surgery involving burning and cutting. Neither shall anyone in judicial tests or ordeals by hot or cold water or hot iron bestow any blessing; the earlier prohibitions in regard to dueling remain in force.


CANON 19SUMMARY: Household goods must not be stored in churches unless there be an urgent necessity. Churches, church vessels, and the like must be kept clean.
Text: We do not wish to leave uncorrected the practice of certain clerics who convert the churches into storehouses for their own household goods and also for those of others,"' so that the churches have the appearance of the houses of lay people rather than of the house of God, not considering that the Lord does not permit the carrying of a vessel through the temple. There are also others who not only neglect to keep the churches clean but also leave the vessels, vestments, palls, and corporals so unclean that sometimes they are a source of aversion. Wherefore, since the zeal of the house of God hath eaten us up (John 2: I 7), we strictly forbid that household goods be placed in the churches, unless by reason of hostile invasion, sudden fire, or other urgent reasons it should become necessary to store them there. When, however, the necessity no longer exists, let them be returned to their proper place. We command also that the aforesaid churches, vessels, corporals, and vestments be kept clean and bright. For it is absurd to tolerate in sacred things a filthiness that is unbecoming even in profane things.


CANON 20SUMMARY: In all churches the Eucharist and the chrism must be kept under lock and .key. Those who neglect to do this, are to be suspended.
Text: We decree that in all churches the chrism and the Eucharist be kept in properly protected places provided with locks and keys, that they may not be reached by rash and indiscreet persons and used for impious and blasphemous purposes. But if he to whom such guardianship pertains should leave them unprotected, let him be suspended from office for a period of three months. And if through his negligence an execrable deed should result, let him be punished more severely.


CANON 21SUMMARY Everyone who has attained the age of reason is bound to confess his sins at least once a year to his own parish pastor with his permission to another, and to receive the Eucharist at least at Easter. A priest who reveals a sin confided to him in confession is to be deposed and relegated to a monastery for the remainder of his life.
Text. All the faithful of both sexes shall after they have reached the age of discretion faithfully confess all their sins at least once a year to their own (parish) priest and perform to the best of their ability the penance imposed, receiving reverently at least at Easter the sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perchance at the advice of their own priest they may for a good reason abstain for a time from its reception; otherwise they shall be cut off from the Church (excommunicated) during life and deprived of Christian burial in death. Wherefore, let this salutary decree be published frequently in the churches, that no one may find in the plea of ignorance a shadow of excuse. But if anyone for a good reason should wish to confess his sins to another priest, let him first seek and obtain permission from his own (parish) priest, since otherwise he (the other priest) cannot loose or bind him.

Let the priest be discreet and cautious that he may pour wine and oil into the wounds of the one injured after the manner of a skilful physician, carefully inquiring into the circumstances of the sinner and the sin, from the nature of which he may understand what kind of advice to give and what remedy to apply, making use of different experiments to heal the sick one. But let him exercise the greatest precaution that he does not in any degree by word, sign, or any other manner make known the sinner, but should he need more prudent counsel, let him seek it cautiously without any mention of the person. He who dares to reveal a sin confided to him in the tribunal of penance, we decree that he be not only deposed from the sacerdotal office but also relegated to a monastery of strict observance to do penance for the remainder of his life.

CANON 22SUMMARY. Physicians of the body called to the bedside of the sick shall before all advise them to call for the physician of souls, so that, spiritual health being restored, bodily health will follow.
Text: Since bodily infirmity is sometimes caused by sin, the Lord saying to the sick man whom he had healed: "Go and sin no more, lest some worse thing happen to thee" (John 5: I4), we declare in the present decree and strictly command that when physicians of the body are called to the bedside of the sick, before all else they admonish them to call for the physician of souls, so that after spiritual health has been restored to them, the application of bodily medicine may be of greater benefit, for the cause being removed the effect will pass away. We publish this decree for the reason that some, when they are sick and are advised by the physician in the course of the sickness to attend to the salvation of their soul, give up all hope and yield more easily to the danger of death. If any .physician shall transgress this decree after it has been published by bishops, let him be cut off (arceatur) from the Church till he has made suitable satisfaction for his transgression. And since the soul id far more precious than the body, we forbid under penalty of anathema that a physician advise a patient to have recourse to sinful means for the recovery of bodily health.


CANON 23SUMMARY If those to whom it Pertains neglect to elect a bishop for a cathedral within three months, then this duty devolves upon the next immediate superior. If he neglects to do so within three months, he shall be punished.
Text. That the ravenous wolf may not invade the Lord's flock that is without a pastor, that a widowed church may not suffer grave loss in its properties, that danger to soul may be averted, and that provision may be made for the security of the churches, we decree that a cathedral or regular church must not be without a bishop for more than three months. If within this time an election has not been held by those to whom it pertains, though there was no impediment, the electors lose their right of voting, and the right to appoint devolves upon the next immediate superior. Let the one upon whom this right to appoint devolves, having God before his eyes, not delay more than three months to provide canonically and with the advice of the chapter and other prudent men the widowed church with a suitable pastor, if he wishes to escape canonical punishment. This pastor is to be chosen from the widowed church itself, or from another in case a suitable one is not found therein.


CANON 24SUMMARY. Three forms or methods of election are recognized: the normal one by ballot, by compromise, and by quasi-inspiration. No one may vote by proxy.
Text. Since, on account of the different forms of elections which some endeavor to employ, many impediments arise and great danger threatens the widowed churches, we decree that when an election is to take place and all are present who ought, wish, and are able tobe present, let three trustworthy members of the assembly be chosen who shall with care collect secretly and one by one the votes of all; and when these have been written down, he is to be considered elected who has obtained all or the majority of the votes of the chapter, absolutely no appeal being allowed. Or the authority of making the choice may be entrusted to some confidential persons, who in the place of all may provide a pastor for the widowed church. An election in any other form is not valid, unless perchance there is absolute unanimity among the electors, as if by divine inspiration. Whoever shall attempt to hold an election contrary to the aforesaid forms, shall for this time be deprived of his vote. We absolutely forbid that anyone appoint a representative in the matter of an election (that is, vote by proxy), unless he be canonically impeded and cannot come, in which case, if need be, let him declare himself to that effect on oath, and then he may choose one of his colleagues at the assembly to represent him. We also disapprove of clandestine elections, and decree that as soon as an election has it must be solemnly made public.


CANON 25Summary. He who consents to the election of himself with the aid of the secular power becomes thereby ineligible, and the election is null.
Text. Whoever shall presume to consent to the election of himself through the abusive intervention of the secular authorities contrary to canonical liberty, shall lose the advantage he has gained therefrom and shall be ineligible in the future, nor may he be chose,, or raised to any other dignity without a dispensation. Those who presume to hold an election of this kind (that is, those who allow themselves to be influenced by secular authorities), we declare to be ipso jure invalid, let them be absolutely suspended from offices and benefices for a period of three years, and during this time let them be deprived of the right of voting.


CANON 26Summary. If a prelate through negligence has confirmed the election of an unworthy candidate for the guidance of souls, he is to lose the right of confirming the first successor of such a one and is also to be deprived of the revenue of his benefice, and the the one unworthily promoted is to be removed. If his action was prompted by malice, a severer penalty is to be imposed on him.
Text. Nothing is more injurious to the Church of God than the selection of unworthy prelates for the direction of souls. Wishing, therefore, to apply the necessary remedy to this evil, we decree by an irrefragable ordinance that when anyone has been elected for the guidance of souls, he to whom the confirmation of the election belongs shall carefully investigate the process and circumstances of the election as well as the person of the one elected, and only when everything proves to be satisfactory may he confirm. If through carelessness the contrary should take place, then not only the one unworthily promoted is to be removed, but the one also who furthered such promotion (by confirmation) is to be punished. The latter's punishment, we decree, shall consist in this, that when it is agreed that through negligence he confirmed a person who lacks sufficient knowledge or is wanting in integrity of morals or is not of legitimate age, not only is he to lose the right of confirming the first successor of such a person, but, that he may not in some case escape punishment, he is also to be deprived of the revenues of his benefice till he be deemed worthy of pardon. If, however, the evidence shows that his action was inspired by malice, a severer punishment is to be imposed on him. Bishops also, if they wish to escape canonical punishment, shall take the necessary precaution to promote to sacred orders and ecclesiastical dignities only such as are qualified to discharge worthily the duties of the office committed to them. Those who are immediately subject to the Roman pontiff, must appear personally before him for confirmation if this can be done conveniently, otherwise they may send suitable persons from whom may be ascertained the necessary information regarding the process of the election and the person of the one elected; so that only after a thorough investigation by the pope will those elected obtain the plenitude of their office, provided, of course, there be no canonical obstruction. Those who live at a great distance, that is outside of Italy, if they have been elected unanimously, may in the meantime and by way of exception (dispensative), on account of the needs of the churches, administer the respective offices in matters spiritual and temporal, so, however that they alienate absolutely nothing belonging to the churches. The consecration or benediction let them receive as has so far been the custom."


CANON 27SUMMARY Incompetent persons must not be promoted to the priesthood or given the direction of souls.
Text. Since the direction of souls is the art of arts, we strictly command that bishops, either themselves or through other qualified men, diligently prepare and instruct those to be elevated to the priesthood in the divine offices and in the proper administration of the sacraments of the Church. If in the future they presume to ordain ignorant and unformed men (a defect that can easily be discovered), we decree that both those ordaining and those ordained be subject to severe punishment. In the ordination of priests especially, it is better to have a few good ministers than many who are no good, for if the blind lead the blind both will fall into the pit (Matt. 15:14).


CANON 28SUMMARY: He who seeks and obtains permission to resign must do so.
Text: There are some who urgently seek permission to resign and after obtaining such permission neglect to do so. But since in requesting a resignation they seemed to have in view the needs of the churches over which they preside or their own salvation, neither of which we wish to be impeded, whether by the sophistication of self-seeking or by mere instability, we decree that they be compelled to resign.


CANON 29SUMMARY Anyone having a benefice with the cura animarum annexed, if he accepts another, shall lose the first; and if he attempts to retain it, he shall lose the other also. After the reception of the second benefice, the first may be freely conferred on another. If he to whom that collation belongs should delay beyond six months, then it shall devolve on another and the form shall indemnify the church for the losses incurred during the vacancy
Text. With much foresight it was prohibited in the Lateran Council that no one should, contrary to the sacred canons, accept several ecclesiastical dignities or several parochial churches; otherwise the one receiving should lose what he received, and the one who bestowed be deprived of the right of collation. But since, on account of the boldness and avarice of some, the aforesaid statute has thus far produced little or no fruit, we, wishing to meet the situation more clearly and emphatically, declare in the present decree that whoever shall accept a benefice to which is annexed the cura animamm after having previously obtained such a benefice, shall ipso jure be deprived of this (the first one); and if perchance he should attempt to retain it, let him be deprived of the other one also. He to whom the collation of the first benefice belongs may freely confer it, after the incumbent has accepted a second, on anyone whom he may deem worthy; should he delay to do so beyond a period of six months, then in accordance with the decree of the Lateran Council, let not only its collation devolve on another, but also let him be compelled to indemnify the church in question from his own resources equal to the amount of the revenues drawn from it during its vacancy. The same we decree is to be observed in regard to dignities (personatus), adding, that no one may presume to have several dignities in the same church, even though they have not the cura animarum annexed. Only in the case of eminent and learned persons who are to be honored with major benefices, can the Apostolic See, if need be, grant a dispensation.


CANON 30Summary. The provincial synod is to suspend from the collation of benefices those who after two admonitions confer benefices on unworthy persons. The removal of this suspension the pope reserves to himself or to the patriarch of the one suspended.
Text. It is a very inconsistent and grave matter that some bishops, when they can promote suitable men to ecclesiastical benefices, do not fear to choose unworthy ones, who lack integrity of morals and sufficient knowledge, following the carnal and inordinate affections for their kindred rather than the judgment of reason. The great detriment that thus accrues to the churches no one of sound mind is ignorant of. Wishing, therefore, to cure this disease, we command that unworthy persons be rejected and suitable ones, who will and can render to God and the churches an acceptable service, be chosen; and let a careful investigation in regard to this matter be made in the annual provincial synod. Anyone who has been found culpable after the first and second admonition, let him be suspended by the synod from conferring benefices, and in the same synod let a prudent and upright person be appointed who may take the place of the one suspended. The same is to be observed in regard to the chapters that prove delinquent in this matter. An offense of this kind on the part of a metropolitan must be made known by the synod to a higher superior. That this salutary provision may be more effectively observed, such a sentence of suspension may by no means e removed except by the authority of the Roman pontiff or by the patriarch of the one suspended, that in this matter also the four patriarchal sees may be specially honored.


CANON 31Summary. Illegitimate sons of canons may not be appointed heir fathers serve. Such appointments are invalid.
Text. To destroy that worst of corruptions that grown up in many churches, we strictly forbid that the sons of canons, especially the illegitimate ones be made canons in the same secular churches in which their fathers have been appointed. Such appointments, we decree are invalid; those who presume to make them, let them be suspended from their benefices

****

CANON 32Summary. The rector of a church, notwithstanding the custom of bishops and patrons must have a sufficient portion of the revenues of the church. He who has a parochial church must serve it-himself. If another be annexed to it, a vicar must be the latter, who shall enjoy a portio congruens of its revenues.
Text. In some localities a vice has grown up, namely, that patrons of parochial churches and some other persons (including bishops), arrogate to themselves the revenues of those churches, leaving to the priests attached to them such a meager portion as to deprive them of a decent subsistence. For we have learned from a source, the authority of which is unquestionable that in some places the parochial clergy receive for sustenance only a quarta quartae, that is one sixteenth of the tithes. Whence it is that in these localities there seldom is found a parochial priest who possesses more than a very limited knowledge of letters. Since therefore the mouth of the ox that threshes should not be muzzled, and he who serves the altar should live by the altar, we decree that no custom on the part patron, or anybody else shall stand in the way of priests receiving a portio sufficiens.

He who has a parochial church must serve it himself and not entrust its administration to a vicar, unless perchance there be a parochial church annexed to the prebend or dignity, in which case we grant that he who has such a prebend or dignity, since it behooves him to serve in the major church, may ask to have appointed for the parochial church a suitable and irremovable vicar, who, as was said before, shall enjoy aportio congruens of the revenues of that church; otherwise by the authority of this decree let him be deprived of it and let it be conferred on another who will and can fulfil the aforesaid requirements. We also absolutely forbid that anyone presume to confer fraudulently on another a pension as a benefice from the revenues of a church that ought to have its own priest (proprius saceraos).

CANON 33Summary. Prelates may demand procurations only when they conduct visitations and then they must observe the restrictions of the Lateran Council. On their visitations they should devote themselves to preaching and reform.
Text. The procurationes [the hospitality or procuration extended to a bishop and his assistants in the course of his canonical vistation] which by reason of visitation are due to bishops, archdeacons, and others, also to legates and nuncios of the Apostolic See, are, except in a case of manifest and urgent necessity, to be demanded only when they personally conduct the visitation, and then they must observe the restrictions made by the Lateran Council [III Lat, canon 4] in regard to the number of horses and persons accompanying them. This restriction being observed, should the legates and nuncios of the Apostolic See find it necessary to make a delay in any place, to avoid being too great a burden on the place, let them receive moderate procurations from other churches or persons who have not yet been burdened in the way of supplying such sustenance; so that the number of procurations may not exceed the number of days of the delay, and should some procuration by itself not suffice, let two or more be united in one. Moreover, those conducting the visitation shall not seek their own interests, but those of Jesus Christ, devoting themselves to preaching, exhortation, correction, and reform, that they may bring back fruit that perishes not. Whoever shall presume to act contrary to this decree, shall not only return what he received, but to the church that he so op pressed he shall also make compensation equivalent to his injustice.


CANON 34Summary. Prelates are not to take from their subjects more than is due to them. Those who act contrary to this must make restitution and also give an equal amount to the poor.

9The hospitality or procuration extended to the bishop and his assistants in the course of his canonical (fiocesan visitation.

Text. Since very many prelates, that they may provide papal legates and others with procurations and the like, extort from their subjects more than they hand over to them (to the legates), and, chasing after gain to their own damnation, seek among their subjects plunder rather than help, we forbid that this be done in the future. If anyone perchance should presume to act contrary to this decision, he shall not only restore what he has thus extorted, but he shall also be compelled to give an equal amount to the poor. If the superior with whom a complaint in regard to this matter has been lodged, proves negligent in the execution of this decree, let him be subject to canonical punishment.


CANON 35Summary. An appellant, feeling that he has good grounds for an appeal before sentence, must make those grounds known to the judgc of the first instance. If sufficient, this is to be made known to the superior judge; if insufficient, the latter must return the appellant to the judge of the first instance.
Text. That proper respect may be shown the judges and that the interests of the litigants in the matter of labor and expenses may be duly considered, we decree that when anyone proceeds against an adversary before a competent judge, he shall not without good reason appeal to a higher judge before sentence is pronounced, but shall continue his case before the same judge (that is, of the first instance), even if he say that he has sent a message to the superior judge or has received letters from the same, as long as the letters have not been given to the delegated judge. But if he thinks he has sufficient ground for an appeal, he must make known this ground to the same judge, and, if it be found legal, let it be made known to the superior judge; if the superior judge finds the ground for an appeal insufficient, he must return the appellant to the judge of the first instance, who shall condemn him to pay the expenses also of the other party. Otherwise let him proceed, saving, of course, the ordinances governing the causae majores, which must be referred to the Apostolic See.


CANON 36Summary. If a judge from whose interlocutory sentence an appeal has been taken does not execute it, he can proceed with the principal cause.
Text. When an ordinary or delegated judge has pronounced a interlocutory sentence, the execution of which would be oppressive to to one of the litigants, but following prudent counsel from carrying into effect this threat or interlocutory sentence. He can proceed with the principal cause, even if an appeal been taken from such a threat or interlocutory sentence (provided he be not suspected from another legitimate source), so that the progress of the case may not be delayed by trifling circumstances.


CANON 37Summary. No one may by means of Apostolic letters be summoned before a judge who is distant more than two days from his diocese, except with the consent of both parties or express mention is made of this decree. Without an order from the other party, such letters are invalid.
Text. Some, abusing the good will of the Apostolic See, attempt to obtain from it letters whereby their disputes may be referred to judges residing at a remote distance. This they do to fatigue the accused with labor and expenses, that thus he may be compelled to yield in the matter under dispute or by payment free himself from the vexations of the plaintiff. Since however a legal trial ought not to open the door to injustice, as is forbidden by the law, we decree that no one may by means of Apostolic letters be summoned before a judge who is distant more than two days from his diocese, except with the consent of both parties or express mention is made of this decree.

There are also others who, turning themselves to a new kind of commercialism, that they may revive old complaints or introduce new questions, fabricate causes, on the strength of which they seek letters from the Apostolic See without a mandate from the person for whom they act, which letters they offer for sale either to the accused party that with their aid he may not be exposed to the loss of labor and expenses, or to the plaintiff that with these he may fatigue his opponent by undue vexations. Since, however, disputes are to be restricted in number rather than multiplied, we decree that if anyone shall in the future presume to seek Apostolic letters upon any question without a special mandate from the person for whom he is acting, such letters shall be regarded as invalid, and he shall be punished as a falsifier, unless perchance it be a question of persons from whom a mandate ought not be legally required.

CANON 38Summary. A judge must employ a notary or two competent men to put in writing the acts of the judicial process, so that if a dispute arise regarding any action of the judge, the truth can be established by referring to these documents. If any difficulty should arise because of a neglect of this, let the judge be punished.
Text. Since against the false assertion of an unjust judge the innocent party sometimes cannot prove the truth of a denial, because by the very nature of things there is no direct proof of one denying a fact, that falsity may not prejudice the truth, and injustice may not prevail over justice, we decree that in an ordinary as well as extraordinary inquiry (judicium) let the judge always employ either a public person (if he can be had) or two competent men who shall faithfully take down in writing all the acts of the inquiry, namely, citations and delays, refusals and exceptions, petitions and replies, interrogations and confessions, the depositions of witnesses and preesentation of documents, interlocutions, appeals, renunciations, decisions, and other acts which take place must be written down in convenient order, the time, places, and persons to be designated. A copy of everything thus written is to be handed to each of the parties, the originals are to remain in possession of the writers; so at if a dispute should arise in regard to any action of the judge, the truth can be established by a reference to these documents. This provision is made to protect the innocent party against judges who areimprudent and dishonest. A judge who neglects to observe this decree, if on account of this neglect some difficulty should arise, let him be duly punished by a superior judge; nor is there any presumption in favor of doing things his way unless it be evident from legitimate documents in the case.


CANON 39Summary. Anyone who knowingly accepts a stolen article must restore it to the one from whom it was taken.
Text. It often happens that a thief transfers to another what he has unjustly taken, and the one robbed is rendered helpless in any process against the possessor to obtain restitution, because the claim of possession having vanished on account of the difficulty or lack of proof, the right of ownership ceases. Wherefore, notwithstanding the rigor of the civil law, we decree that if anyone in the future shall knowingly accept such an article, thus becoming a participant in the theft-for after all there is little difference, especially when it is a question of danger to the soul, whether one holds unjustly or takes what belongs to another-the one robbed is to be assisted to obtain restitution from such a possessor.


CANON 40Summary. The plaintiff is still the owner of the article that has for one year by violence or deceit been withheld from him.
Text. It sometimes happens that the plaintiff to whom, in consequence of the non-appearance (contumacia,that is, disobedience) of the opposing party, the possession of the object in dispute is judicially awarded, cannot on account of the violence or deceit of the accused obtain actual possession for a whole year, and thus, since in the opinion of many he is not after the lapse of a year to be regarded as the owner, the malice of the accused gains the advantage. Therefore, that the condition of the disobedient may not be better than that of the obedient, we decree that in the aforesaid case even after the lapse of a year the plaintiff is the true owner.

In general we forbid that decisions in ecclesiastical matters be referred to a layman, because it is not becoming that a layman should arbitrate in much matters.

CANON 41Summary. No prescription is valid unless it rests on good faith.
Text. Since all that is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14: 23), we decree that no prescription, whether canonical or civil, is valid unless it rests on good faith; because in a general way a prescription that cannot be maintained without mortal sin is in conflict with all law and custom. Wherefore it is essential that he who holds a prescription should at no time be aware of the fact that the object belongs to another.


CANON 42SUMMARY No cleric may so extend his jurisdiction as to become detrimental to secular justice.
Text. As desirous as we are that laymen do not usurp the rights of clerics, we are no less desirous that clerics abstain from arrogating to themselves the rights of laymen. Wherefore we forbid all clerics so to extend in the future their jurisdiction under the pretext of ecclesiastical liberty as to prove detrimental to secular justice; but let them be content with the laws and customs thus far approved, that the things that are Caesar's may be rendered to Caesar, and those that are God's may by a just division be rendered to God.


CANON 43Summary. Clerics under no obligation to laymen in matters temporal are not bound to take an oath of fidelity to them.
Text. Some laymen (that is, princes) attempt to usurp too much of the divine right when they compel ecclesiastical persons who are under no obligation to them in matters temporal, to take an oath of fidelity to them. Wherefore, since according to the Apostle, "To the Lord the servant standeth or falleth" (Rom. 14: 4), we forbid by the authority of the sacred council that such clerics be forced by secular persons to take an oath of this kind.


CANON 44Summary. Alienation of ecclesiastical properties by laymen without the legitimate 3sent of ecclesiastical authority is forbidden.
Text. Since no power to dispose of ecclesiastical properties has been given to laymen, even though they be pious, their duty being to obey, not to command, we regret that in some of them charity has grown so cold that they do not fear in their laws or rather monstrosities (confictionibus) to attack the immunity of ecclesiastical property, which not only the holy fathers but also the secular princes have fortified with many privileges; presuming illicitly that power not only in the matter of the alienation of fiefs and other ecclesiastical possessions and of the usurpation of jurisdictions, but also in the matter of mortuaries and other things that seem annexed to the spiritual right. Wishing, therefore, in this matter to secure the churches against loss and to provide against such injustice, we decree with the approval of the sacred council that laws of this kind and appropriations of fiefs and other ecclesiastical properties made without the legitimate consent of ecclesiastical persons under pretext of lay power, do not hold, since they cannot be called laws but rather want of law or destruction and usurpation of jurisdiction, and those having recourse to such presumptions are to be checked ecclesiastical censure.


CANON 45Summary. Patrons and others who exceed their rights in the matter of church government are to be restrained by censures. If they kill or mutilate a cleric, they shall lose their rights and to the fourth generation their posterity shall be excluded from clerical state.
Text. In some provinces patrons, vicegerents, and advocates of churches have so far advanced in insolence that not only do they create difficulties and mischief when vacant churches are to be provided with competent pastors, but they also presume to administer the possessions and other ecclesiastical goods at their own will; and what is worse, they do not fear to put the prelates to death. Since, therefore, what has been ordained as a means of defense must not br perverted into an instrument of destruction, we expressly forbid patrons, advocates, and vicegerents in the future to extend their jurisdiction in the aforesaid matter beyond what is permitted them by law. and should they act contrary to this, let them be restrained by canonical penalties. With the approval of the holy council we decree that if patrons, advocates, feudal tenants, vicegerents, or other beneficiaries should presume either per se or per alios to kill or mutilate the rector of some church or another cleric of that church, the patrons shall lose absolutely their right of patronage, the advocates their office of counselor, the feudal tenants their fief, the vicegerents their vicegerency, and beneficiaries their benefice. That the punishments may not be impressed upon the memory less deeply than the excesses, not only shall their heirs be deprived of all favors accruing to them from the aforesaid offices, but to the fourth generation the posterity of such shall be absolutely excluded from the clerical state, nor may they hold the office of prelate it, religious houses, unless by an act of mercy they have received a dispensation.


CANON 46Summary. Clerics should not contribute to the needs of cities and other localities, even where the resources of the lay people do not suffice, without first consulting the Roman pontiff. Laws by those excommunicated are null. Rulers remain excommunicated after the expiration of their term of office till they have made satisfaction.

Text. Against magistrates and rulers of cities and others who strive to oppress churches and ecclesiastical persons with taxes and other exactions, the Lateran Council, [III Lat, canon 9] desiring to protect ecclesiastical immunity, prohibited actions of this kind under penalty of anathema, commanding that transgressors and their abetters punished with excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction. But, if the bishop with his clergy should perceive such necessity or utility and without compulsion decide that the aid of the churches ought to be enlisted to meet the needs where the resources of the lay people do not suffice, let the aforesaid lay people accept such assistance humbly, devoutly, and with gratitude. However, on account of the boldness of some, let them first consult the Roman pontiff, to whom it belongs to attend to common needs. But, if even this does not allay the malice of some toward the Church of God, we add that the laws and enactments which have been promulgated by excommunicated persons in this matter or by their orders, be considered null and void and at no time whatever

be regarded as valid. But, since fraud and deception ought not to protect anyone, let no one be deceived by the illusion that, although a ruler may incur anathema during the period of his incumbency, yet on the expiration of his term of office there will be no compulsion to make due satisfaction. For both he who refuses to make satisfaction and his successor, if they do not make satisfaction within a month, we decree that they remain bound by ecclesiastical censure until they have made suitable satisfaction, since he assumes the burden who is successor in the honor.

CANON 47Summary. Prelates are not to excommunicate subjects without a previous warning and without a reasonable cause; those guilty of this shall be punished. A subject also shall be punished who falsely protests that he has been unjustly excommunicated.
Text. With the approval of the holy council we prohibit the promulgation of the sentence of excommunication against anyone without a previous warning and in the presence of suitable persons by whom, if need be, such admonition can be proved. Should anyone act contrariwise, even if the sentence of excommunication is a just one, let him know that he is forbidden entrance to the church for a period of one month, which punishment, however, is to be altered should it be deemed advisable. Let also proper precaution be taken against excommunicating anyone without a just and reasonable cause; should this perchance have happened and he who imposed the sentence does not care to withdraw it without complaint, then the one injured may take his complaint of unjust excommunication to a superior, who, if there be no danger in delay, shall send him back to the excommunicator with the command that he absolve him within a specified time; otherwise he himself, should it seem fit, after the presentation of a sufficient reason, will grant him the required absolution either per se or per alium. When it is an evident case against the excommunicator of unjust excommunication, let him again be condemned to pay all the expenses and to repair all the damages incurred by the one unjustly excommunicated; if, however, the gravity of his fault demands it, let him be punished in accordance with the judgment of the superior, since it is not a trivial fault 'to impose such a punishment on an innocent person, unless per chance he erred from a probable cause, especially if there was apparently good ground for his action. But if against the sentence of excommunication no reasonable proof was offered by the complainant, then for the unjust annoyance of his complaint let him condemned to pay the expenses and repair the damages, or else, let him be punished in accordance with the decision of the superior, unless perchance probable error likewise excuses him; and in regard to the matter for which he was excommunicated, through an adequate pledge let him be compelled to make satisfaction, or let the original sentence be reimposed even for the purpose of forcing him to make condign satisfaction. But if the judge, recognizing his error, is prepared to revoke such a sentence, and he on whom it was imposed appeals against such a revocation unless satisfaction is made, let him not heed the appeal unless it be an error about which there can be a just doubt, and then on the receipt of a satisfactory pledge that he will obey the summons of him to whom the appeal has been made, or of one delegated by him, let him absolve the one excommunicated and thus he will in no way incur the penalties prescribed; let him be careful, however, not to forge an error to the detriment of another if he wishes to escape canonical punishment.


CANON 48Summary. Provision is made that no one may through frivolous refusal deny or reject the jurisdiction of his judge.
Text. By a special prohibition it has been provided that a sentence of excommunication be promulgated against no one without a previous warning. Wishing to forestall any attempt on the part of the one thus warned to avoid, under pretext of deceitful refusal or appeal, the inquiry of the one giving the admonition, we decree that, should he assert that he entertains a suspicion in regard to the judge, let him in the presence of the judge indicate the cause of his just suspicion, and let him with his opponent, or if he has no opponent, with the judge, conjointly choose arbiters, or if together they cannot agree, let them choose without ill will two, he one and the judge the other, who may inquire into the cause of the suspicion; and if they cannot come to an agreement, let them ask for a third party, so that what two of them decide may obtain greater weight. Let them know also that, by reason of a strict precept enjoined by us in virtue of obedience under witness of the divine judge, they are bound to execute this faithfully. If the true cause of the suspicion has not been proved by them within a reasonable period of time, let the judge use his jurisdiction; but if it has been legitimately proved, then let the judge with the consent of the one who suspected him commit the matter to a competent person, or let him submit it to the superior, that the latter may take such action in his regard as should be taken.

Moreover, in case the one warned should resort to an appeal, let no heed be given to a provocation of this kind if from the evidence of the case or from his confession or from another source his guilt has been clearly established, since the remedy of appeal was not instituted for the defense of iniquity but for the protection of the innocent. If his guilt is doubtful, that he may not impede the process of the judge by recourse to a frivolous appeal, let him explain in the judge's presence the probable ground of the appeal, namely, such a ground as, if proved, would be regarded as valid. If he has an opponent, the cause of the appeal is to be continued within a period fixed by the same judge, due consideration being given to the distance, time, and nature of the business; if h does not care to continue it, then, notwithstanding the appeal, let the judge proceed with it. If there is no opponent and the cause of the appeal has been proved before the superior judge, let the latter exercise his jurisdiction. But, if the appellant fails in his proof, then he case is to be returned to the judge from whom he deceitfully 'appealed.

These two aforesaid decrees, however, we do not wish to be applied to regulars, who have their own special observances.

CANON 49Summary. The sentence of excommunication is not to be imposed with a view of satisfying greed, and anyone so guilty is to be severely punished.
Text. Under threat of the divine judge we absolutely forbid that anyone, impelled solely by greed, dare bind one with the chain of excommunication or absolve one so bound, especially in those regions where it is customary, when the one excommunicated is absolved impose a pecuniary punishment on him; and we decree that when it is agreed that the sentence of excommunication was an unjust one. The excommunicator be compelled by ecclesiastical censure to restore the money thus extorted; and, unless he was deceived by a probable error, let him make full compensation for the injury sustained. If he fails to do this, let other penalties be imposed.


CANON 50Summary. The prohibitions against marriage in the second and third degrees of affinity and against the union of the offspring from second marriages to a relative of the first usband, are removed. This prohibition does not apply beyond the fourth degree of consanguinity and affinity.
Text. It must not be deemed reprehensible if human statutes change sometimes with the change of time, especially when urgent necessity or common interest demands it, since God himself has changed in the New Testament some things that He had decreed in the Old. Since, therefore, the prohibition against the contracting of marriage in secundo et tertio genere affinitatis and that against the union of the offspring from second marriages to a relative of the first husband, frequently constitute a source of difficulty and sometimes are a cause of danger to souls, that by a cessation of the proibition the effect may cease also, we, with the approval of the holy council, revoking previous enactments in this matter, decree in the resent statute that such persons may in the future contract marriage without hindrance. The prohibition also is not in the future to affect marriages beyond the fourth degree of consanguinity and affinity; since in degrees beyond the fourth a prohibition of this kind cannot be generally observed without grave inconvenience. This quaternary number agrees well with the prohibition of corporal wedlock of which the Apostle says that "the wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband; and in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife" (I Cor. 7: 4); because there are four humors in the body, which consists of four elements. Since therefore the prohibition of conjugal union is restricted to the fourth degree, we wish that it remain so in perpetuum, notwithstanding the decrees already issued relative to this matter either by others or by ourselves, and should anyone presume to contract marriage contrary to this prohibition, no number of years shall excuse him, since duration of time does not palliate the gravity of sin but rather aggravates it, and his crimes are the graver the longer he holds his unhappy soul in bondage .[ cf. I Lat, canon 5].


CANON 51Summary. Clandestine marriages and witness to them by a priest are forbidden. Marriages to be contracted must be published in the churches by the priests so that, if legitimate impediments exist, they may be made known. If doubt exists, let the contemplated marriage be forbidden till the matter is cleared up.
Text. Since the prohibition of the conjugal union in the three last degrees has been revoked, we wish that it be strictly observed in the other degrees. Whence, following in the footsteps of our predecessors, we absolutely forbid clandestine marriages; and we forbid also that a priest presume to witness such. Wherefore, extending to other localities generally the particular custom that prevails in some, we decree that when marriages are to be contracted they must be announced publicly in the churches by the priests during a suitable and fixed time, so that if legitimate impediments exist, they may be made known. Let the priests nevertheless investigate whether any impediments exist. But when there is ground for doubt concerning the contemplated union, let the marriage be expressly forbidden until it is evident from reliable sources what ought to be done in regard to it. But if anyone should presume to contract a clandestine or forbidden marriage of this kind within a prohibited degree, even through ignorance, the children from such a union shall be considered illegitimate, nor shall the ignorance of the parents be pleaded as an extenuating circumstance in their behalf, since they by contracting such marriages appear not as wanting in knowledge but rather as affecting ignorance. In like manner the children shall be considered illegitimate if both parents, knowing that a legitimate impediment exists, presume to contract such a marriage in conspectu ecclesiae (not clandestinely) in disregard of every prohibition. The parochial priest who deliberately neglects to forbid such unions, or any regular priest who presumes to witness them, let them be suspended from office for a period of three years and, if the nature of their offense demands it, let them be punished more severely. On those also who presume to contract such marriages in a lawful degree, a condign punishment is to be imposed. If anyone maliciously presents an impediment for the purpose of frustrating a legitimate marriage, let him not escape ecclesiastical punishment.


CANON 52Summary. In the matter of consanguinity and affinity, hearsay evidence is not to be relied on unless it comes from reputable persons to whom uprightness is a precious asset.
Text. Through some necessity the common mode of procedure in computing the degree of consanguinity and affinity has been re placed by another, namely, hearsay testimony, since on account of the shortness of human life eye-witnesses cannot be had in the matter of reckoning to the seventh degree. But, since we have learned from many instances and from experience that, in consequence of this, legitimate marriages are beset with many dangers, we decree that in this matter hearsay witnesses be not received in the future, since the prohibition now does not extend beyond the fourth degree, unless they be reputable persons to whom uprightness is a precious asset and who before the dispute arose obtained their testimony from those gone immediately before, not from one indeed, since he would not suffice if he were living, but from two at least, who must have been reliable persons, beyond suspicion and of good faith, since it would be absurd to admit them if their informants were worthy only of rejection. Not even if one person has obtained his testimony from many, or if an unreliable person has obtained his from men of good faith, must they be admitted as many and suitable witnesses, since even in the ordinary judicial processes the statement of one witness does not suffice, even though he shine in all the splendor of gubernatorial dignity, and, moreover, legitimate acts are denied to persons of a disreputable character. Witnesses of this kind must declare on oath that in giving their testimony they are not actuated by hatred, fear, love, or self interest; let them designate persons by their names or by a satisfactory description or circumlocution, and distinguish by a clear computation each degree on both sides, and let them include in their oath that they obtained their information from their forefathers and believe it to be so. But neither do such witnesses suffice unless they declare on oath that they have seen persons who belonged to at least one of the aforesaid degrees and who acknowledged themselves blood relatives. For it is more tolerable that some who have been united contrary to the laws of men be separated than that those who have been legitimately united separate in violation of the laws of God.


CANON 53Summary. Owners who commit their estates to people that pursuant of their rites do not pay tithes, must be compelled to pay them in full.
Text. In some localities there dwell people who according to their rites are not accustomed to pay tithes, though they are considered Christians. To these some owners entrust the cultivation of their estates, in order to defraud the churches of tithes and thus realize greater profits. Wishing, therefore, to safeguard the churches against loss in this matter, we decree that the owners may entrust to such people and in such a manner the cultivation of their estates, but they must without argument pay to the churches the tithes in full, and to this let them be compelled, if necessary, by ecclesiastical censure. All tithes due by reason of the divine law or by reason of an approved local custom must be paid.


CANON 54Summary. The payment of tithes takes precedence over the payment of taxes and other expenses, and those who invert this order are to be punished.
Text. Since it is not in the power of man that the seed yield a return to the sower, because according to the words of the Apostle, "Neither he that planteth is anything, nor he that watereth; but God who giveth the increase" (I Cor. 3: 7), the decayed seed producing much fruit, some impelled too much by avarice strive to defraud in the matter of tithes, deducting from the profits and first fruits taxes and other expenses on which at times they thus escape the payment of tithes. But since the Lord, as a sign of His universal dominion, formerly reserved tithes to Himself by a special title, we, wishing to safeguard the churches against loss and souls against danger, decree that by the prerogative of general dominion the payment of tithes precedes the payment of taxes and other expenses, or at least they to whom the taxes and other expenses are paid but from which the tithes have not been deducted, should be compelled by ecclesiastical censure to pay the tithes to the churches to which they are legally due, since the obligation that attaches to a thing passes with the thing from one possessor to another.


CANON 55Summary. The Cistercians and other monks must pay tithes to the churches from strange lands or from lands they may acquire in the future, even if they cultivate them with their own hands.
Text. Lately the abbots of the Cistercian order in general chapter assembled wisely decided in reference to our warning, that in the future the brethren of that order purchase no property on which tithes are due to the churches, unless it be for the purpose of establishing new monasteries. And if such possessions have been given to them through the pious generosity of the faithful or bought for them for the purpose of founding new monasteries, they may commit their cultivation to others by whom the tithes will be paid to the churches, lest by reason of their privileges the churches be further oppressed. We decree, therefore, that from strange lands or from lands that they may acquire in the future, though they cultivate them with their own hands or at their own expense, they pay the tithes to the churches to which they were formerly paid, unless they make some other arrangement with those churches. We therefore, holding this decree acceptable and accepted, wish it to be extended also to other regulars who enjoy similar privileges, and we ordain that the prelates of the churches be more willing and energetic in punishing evil doers and strive to observe their privileges better and more perfectly.
[Note by Schroeder: By the common law monks as well as laymen were obliged pay tithes from the fruits of their estates. This was the ancient discipline of the Church. The first who absolved monks from the obligation of paying tithes from their landed possessions seems to have been Gregory VII. Later, Paschal II exempted monks and canons regular from the payment of tithes from lands that they cultivated with their own hands. This privilege of Paschal was granted primarily in favor of the Cistercian Order, which in its beginnings was very poor. When later the order became immensely wealthy, especially in landed possessions, this privilege became the fruitful source of conflict between the Cistercian Order and the bishops. Hence it was enacted in this decree that from all strange lands and lands that may be acquired in the future, even if cultivated with their own hands or at their own expense, tfie Cistercians as well as other regulars who enjoy similar privileges, must pay tithes to the churches to which they were formerly paid or make some other arrangement with those churches. Thomassin, Vetus et nova ecclesiae discipline, P. III, lib. 1, cap. 9.]


CANON 56Summary. It is forbidden to make contracts prejudicial to parochial churches.
Text. Many regular and secular clerics, we understand, when i sometimes they lease houses or grant fiefs, make a contract prejudicial to parochial churches, namely, that the administrator or feudal tenants pay the tithes to them and choose burial among them. But, since this is prompted by avarice, we absolutely condemn a contract of this kind and declare that whatever has been received by means of such a contract must be returned to the parochial church.


CANON 57Summary. Only members of a religious order and those who have given their possessions to the order, retaining for themselves only the usufruct, may be buried during the period of an interdict. To religious coming to an interdicted locality, only one church may be opened, and that merely once a year.
Text. That the privileges which the Roman Church has granted to some religious may be maintained in their entirety, we take occasion to make clear some things in regard to them, lest being misunderstood they lead to abuse, by reason of which they may be rightly revoked, because he deserves to lose privileges who abuses the benefits which they confer. The Apostolic See has granted permission to some regulars that to those who have become members of their order, ecclesiastical burial may not be denied if the churches to which they belong should be under interdict, provided they themselves are not excommunicated or nominally interdicted; and they may, therefore, take their brethren, whom the prelates of the churches are not permitted to bury from their churches, to their own churches for burial, if they (the deceased confrères) were not nominally under excommunication or interdict. By brethren we understand both those who, having lived in the world, gave themselves to their order and accepted its habit, and those who gave their possessions to the order, retaining for their own maintenance during life only the usufruct, who, however, may be buried from non interdicted churches of regulars or others in which they may choose to be buried; it is not, however, to be understood of those who join their fraternity and contribute annually no more than two or three denarii, for this would upset ecclesiastical order and discipline. Yet these also obtain a certain remission granted to them by the Apostolic See.

That other privilege also that has been granted to some regulars, namely, that when any of their brethren who have been sent by them to collect (alms), arrive in any city, fortified town, or village, if perchance that place be under interdict, in view of their joyful arrival the churches may be opened once a year for the celebration of the divine offices for those not under excommunication, we wish tt) be understood thus: that in each city, fortified town, or village, only one church of the same order may, as has been said, be opened to the brethren once a year; for though the statement, that on their joyful arrival the churches may be opened, is plural, yet it is not to be understood as referring to the churches of the same place separately, but to the churches of the aforesaid places collectively otherwise, if they should visit each church of the same place, the interdict would be too much disregarded. Whoever shall presume to act contrary to these enactments, let him be subject to severe penalties.[cf. III Lat, canon 9]

CANON 58Summary. During a general interdict the bishops may within closed doors celebrate the divine services for those not affected by the interdict.
Text. The privilege that has been granted to some religious we concede also to bishops, that, when the entire territory is under Interdict, those excommunicated and interdicted being excluded, they may sometimes with the doors closed, in a low voice and without the ringing of bells, celebrate the divine offices, unless this is expressly covered by the interdict. But we grant this to those only who in no way shared in the cause of the interdict or injected treachery or fraud, drawing out such a brief period to iniquitous loss.


CANON 59Summary. Religious are forbidden to go security for or to borrow money from anyone beyond a fixed sum without the consent of the abbot or the greater part of the chapter.
Text. What has been forbidden by the Apostolic See to some religious orders, we wish and command to be extended to all, namely, that no religious may, without the permission of the abbot and of the greater part of his chapter, go security for anyone or borrow money from anyone beyond an amount fixed by common agreement; otherwise the convent is not held in any degree responsible for such things, unless perchance it is evident that his action would redound to the advantage of the convent. Anyone who presumes to act contrary to this, let him be subject to severe discipline.


CANON 60Summary. Abbots are forbidden to interfere in matters that belong to the jurisdiction of the bishops.

Text. From different parts of the world complaints of bishops come to us in regard to grave excesses of some abbots, who, not content within their own spheres, extend their hands to those things that concern the episcopal office, deciding matrimonial cases, imposing public penances, granting letters of indulgences, and similar things, whence it sometimes happens that the episcopal authority is looked upon by many as something of trifling importance. Wishing, therefore, in these matters to safeguard the dignity of the bishops and the welfare of the abbots, we absolutely forbid in the present decree that abbots presume to overreach themselves in such matters if they wish to escape canonical penalties, unless they can by a special concession or other legitimate reason defend themselves in matters of this kind.

CANON 61Summary. Religious are forbidden to receive churches and tithes from laymen without the consent of the bishops. In churches that do not belong to them pleno jure, the priests must be appointed by the bishops on presentation.
Text. In the Lateran Council regulars were forbidden to receive churches and tithes from the hands of laymen without the consent of the bishops, and under no circumstances to admit ad divina those excommunicated or nominally under interdict. [cf. III Lat, canon 9] Wishing to curb this evil more effectively and provide that transgressors meet with condign punishment, we decree that in churches that do not pleno jure belong to them, they present to the bishops priests to be appointed in accordance with the statutes of that council, that they may be responsible to them in those things that pertain to the cura animarum; in temporal affairs, however, let them render a satisfactory account to the monasteries. Those who have been appointed, let them not dare remove without the approval of the bishops. We add, moreover, that care be taken to present such priests as are known for their uprightness and ability or whom the probable testimony of the bishops recommends.


CANON 62Summary. Relics are not to be sold or put on exhibition, lest the people be deceived in regard to them. Seekers of alms are not to be admitted unless they can exhibit letters of the Apostolic See or of the bishops, and they may not preach anything not contained in the letters. On the occasion of the dedication of a-church, an indulgence of not more than one year may be granted; on the anniversary of the dedication-, it may not exceed forty days.

Text. From the fact that some expose for sale and exhibit promiscuously the relics of saints, great injury is sustained by the Christian religion. That this may not occur hereafter, we ordain in the present decree that in the future old relics may not be exhibited outside of a vessel or exposed for sale. And let no one presume to venerate publicly new ones unless they have been approved by the Roman pontiff. In the future prelates shall not permit those who come to their churches causa venerationis to be deceived by worthless fabrications or false documents as has been done in many places for the sake of gain. We forbid also that seekers(quaestores) of alms, some of whom, misrepresenting themselves, preach certain abuses, be admitted, unless they exhibit genuine letters either of the Apostolic See or of the diocesan bishop, in which case they may not preach anything to the people but what is contained in those letters. We give herewith a form which the Apostolic See commonly uses in granting such letters, that the diocesan bishops may model their own upon it. The following is the form:

Forma litterarum praedicatorum

Quoniam, ut ait Apostolus, omnes stabimus ante tribunal Christi, recepturi prout in corpore gessimus, sive bonum sive malum fuerit, oportet nos diem messionis extremae misericordiae operibus praevenire, ac aeternorum intuitu seminare in terris quod reddente Domino cum multiplicato fructu colligere debeamus in caelis; firmain spem, fiduciamque tenentes, quoniam "qui parce seminat, parce et metet, et qui seminat in benedictionibus, de benedictionibus et metet in vitam aeternam." Cum igitur ad sustentationem fratrum et egenorum ad tale confluentium hospitals propriae non suppetant facultates, universitatem vestram monemus et exhortamur in Domino atque in remissionem vobis in' jungimus peccatorum, quatenus de bonis a Deo vobis collatis pias eleemosynas et grata eis caritatis subsidia erogatis, ut per subventionem vestram ipsorum inopiae consulatur, et vos per haec et per alia bona, quae Domino inspirante feceritis, ad aeterna possitis gaudia pervenire.

Those who are assigned to collect alms must be upright and discreet, must not seek lodging for the night in taverns or in other unbecoming places, nor make useless and extravagant expenses, and must avoid absolutely the wearing of the habit of a false religious.

Since, through indiscreet and superfluous indulgences which some prelates of churches do not hesitate to grant, contempt is brought on the keys of the Church, and the penitential discipline is weakened, we decree that on the occasion of the dedication of a church an indulgence of not more than one year be granted, whether it be dedicated by one bishop only or by many, and on the anniversary of the dedication the remission granted for penances enjoined is not to exceed forty days. We command also that in each case this number of days be made the rule in issuing letters of indulgences which are granted from time to time, since the Roman pontiff who possesses the plenitude of power customarily observes this rule in such matters .

CANON 63Summary. It is simoniacal to demand something for the consecration of bishops, the blessing of abbots, and the ordination of clerics; nor is custom any excuse.
Text. We have learned with certainty that in many places and by many persons exactions and base extortions are made for the consecration of bishops, the blessing of abbots, and the ordination of clerics, and that a tax is fixed as to how much this one or that one is to receive and how much this one or that one is to pay; and what is worse, some endeavor to defend such baseness and depravity by an appeal to a custom of long standing. Therefore, wishing to abolish such abuse, we absolutely condemn a custom of this kind, which ought rather to be called corruption, firmly decreeing that neither for those conferring nor for the things conferred shall anyone presume to demand or to extort something under any pretext whatsoever. Otherwise both he that has received and he that has given a price of this kind, shall share the condemnation of Giezi and Simon. [cf. IV Kings 5:20-27, and Acts 8:9-24].


CANON 64Summary. Religious are not to be received for a price. If this happens, both the one receiving and the one received shall, without hope of restoration, be removed from the community. Those who were received in such a manner before the publication of this decree, must be placed in other communities of the same order.
Text. Since the stain of simony has so infected many nuns that scarcely any are received into the community without a price, doing this on the plea of poverty to conceal that evil, we strictly forbid that this be done in the future, decreeing that whoever in the future shall be guilty of such irregularity, both the one receiving and the one received, whether subject or superioress, shall, without hope of restoration, be removed from their monastery to one of stricter observance to do penance for the remainder of their life. Those nuns, however, who have been so received before the publication of this decree, are to be removed from the monasteries which they entered in a wrong manner and placed in others of the same order. But if on account of lack of room they cannot perchance be conveniently placed elsewhere, lest they should to their own loss become wanderers in the world, let them be received anew per modum dispensationis in the same monastery, and from the priority of places which they held in the community let them be assigned to lower ones. This we decree is to be observed also with regar d to monks and other regulars. But, lest they should attempt to excuse themselves on grounds of simplicity or ignorance, we command the bishops to see to it that this decree is published every year throughout their diocese.


CANON 65Summary. Bishops are not to demand anything for the appointment of pastors. Entrance into a monastery and burial must be free.
Text. We have heard it said of some bishops that on the death of rectors of churches they place the churches under interdict and will not allow any persons to be appointed to the vacancies till a certain sum of money has been paid them. Moreover, when a soldier or cleric enters a monastery or chooses to be buried among religious, though he has left nothing to the religious institution, difficulties and villainy are forced into service till something in the nature of a gift comes into their hands. Since, therefore, according to the Apostle we must abstain not only from evil but also from every appearance of evil, we absolutely forbid exactions of this kind. If any transgressor be found, let him restore double the amount exacted; this is to be placed faithfully at the disposal of those localities to whose detriment the exactions were made.


CANON 66Summary. The sacraments must be administered freely. The bishops should exhort the people to retain pious customs.
Text. It has frequently come to the ears of the Apostolic See that some clerics demand and extort money for burials, nuptial blessings, and similar things, and, if perchance their cupidity is not given satisfaction, they fraudulently interpose fictitious impediments. On the other hand, some laymen, under the pretext of piety but really on heretical grounds, strive to suppress a laudable custom introduced by the pious devotion of the faithful in behalf of the church (that is, of giving freely something for ecclesiastical services rendered). Wherefore, we forbid that such evil exactions be made in these matters, and on the other hand command that pious customs be observed, decreeing that the sacraments of the Church be administered freely and that those who endeavor maliciously to change a laudable custom be restrained by the bishops of the locality when once the truth is known.


CANON 67Summary. Jews should be compelled to make satisfaction for the tithes and offerings e churches, which the Christians supplied before their properties fell into of the Jews.
Text. The more the Christians are restrained from the practice of usury, the more are they oppressed in this matter by the treachery of the Jews, so that in a short time they exhaust the resources of the Christians. Wishing, therefore, in this matter to protect the Christians against cruel oppression by the Jews, we ordain in this decree that if in the future under any pretext Jews extort from Christians oppressive and immoderate interest, the partnership of the Christians shall be denied them till they have made suitable satisfaction for their excesses. The Christians also, every appeal being set aside, shall, if necessary, be compelled by ecclesiastical censure to abstain from all commercial intercourse with them. We command the princes not to be hostile to the Christians on this account, but rather to strive to hinder the Jews from practicing such excesses. Lastly, we decree that the Jews be compelled by the same punishment (avoidance of commercial intercourse) to make satisfaction for the tithes and offerings due to the churches, which the Christians were accustomed to supply from their houses and other possessions before these properties, under whatever title, fell into the hands of the Jews, that thus the churches may be safeguarded against loss.


CANON 68Summary. Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province must be distinguished from the Christian by a difference of dress. On Passion Sunday and the last three days of Holy Week they may not appear in public.
Text: In some provinces a difference in dress distinguishes the Jews or Saracens from the Christians, but in certain others such a confusion has grown up that they cannot be distinguished by any difference. Thus it happens at times that through error Christians have relations with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews and Saracens with Christian women. Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress. Particularly, since it may be read in the writings of Moses [Numbers 15:37-41], that this very law has been enjoined upon them.

Moreover, during the last three days before Easter and especially on Good Friday, they shall not go forth in public at all, for the reason that some of them on these very days, as we hear, do not blush to go forth better dressed and are not afraid to mock the Christians who maintain the memory of the most holy Passion by wearing signs of mourning.

This, however, we forbid most severely, that any one should presume at all to break forth in insult to the Redeemer. And since we ought not to ignore any insult to Him who blotted out our disgraceful deeds, we command that such impudent fellows be checked by the secular princes by imposing them proper punishment so that they shall not at all presume to blaspheme Him who was crucified for us.

[Note by Schroeder: In 581 the Synod of Macon enacted in canon 14 that from Thursday in Holy Week until Easter Sunday, .Jews may not in accordance with a decision of King Childebert appear in the streets and in public places. Mansi, IX, 934; Hefele-Leclercq, 111, 204. In 1227 the Synod of Narbonne in canon 3 ruled: "That Jews may be distinguished from others, we decree and emphatically command that in the center of the breast (of their garments) they shall wear an oval badge, the measure of one finger in width and one half a palm in height. We forbid them moreover, to work publicly on Sundays and on festivals. And lest they scandalize Christians or be scandalized by Christians, we wish and ordain that during Holy Week they shall not leave their houses at all except in case of urgent necessity, and the prelates shall during that week especially have them guarded from vexation by the Christians." Mansi, XXIII, 22; Hefele-Leclercq V 1453. Many decrees similar to these in content were issued by synods before and after this Lateran Council. Hefele-Leclercq, V and VI; Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the XIlIth Century, Philadelphia, 1933.]


CANON 69Summary. Jews are not to be given public offices. Anyone instrumental in doing this is to be punished. A Jewish official is to be denied all intercourse with Christians.
Text. Since it is absurd that a blasphemer of Christ exercise authority over Christians, we on account of the boldness of transgressors renew in this general council what the Synod of Toledo (589) wisely enacted in this matter, prohibiting Jews from being given preference in the matter of public offices, since in such capacity they are most troublesome to the Christians. But if anyone should commit such an office to them, let him, after previous warning, be restrained by such punishment as seems proper by the provincial synod which we command to be celebrated every year. The official, however, shall be denied the commercial and other intercourse of the Christians, till in the judgment of the bishop all that he acquired from the Christians from the time he assumed office be restored for the needs of the Christian poor, and the office that he irreverently assumed let him lose with shame. The same we extend also to pagans. [Mansi, IX, 995; Hefele-Leclercq, III, 7.27. This canon 14 of Toledo was frequently renewed.]


CANON 70Summary. Jews who have received baptism are to be restrained by the prelates from returning to their former rite.
Text. Some (Jews), we understand, who voluntarily approached the waters of holy baptism, do not entirely cast off the old man that they may more perfectly put on the new one, because, retaining remnants of the former rite, they obscure by such a mixture the beauty of the Christian religion. But since it is written: "Accursed is the man that goeth on the two ways" (Ecclus. 2:14), and "a garment that is woven together of woolen and linen" (Deut. 22: ii) ought not to be put on, we decree that such persons be in every way restrained b the prelates from the observance of the former rite, that, having given themselves of their own free will to the Christian religion, salutary coercive action may preserve them in its observance, since not to know the way of the Lord is a lesser evil than to retrace one's steps after it is known.


HOLY LAND DECREESSummary. A series of decrees dealing with the preparation of a crusade to the Holy Land.
Text. Desiring with an ardent desire to liberate the Holy Land from the hands of the ungodly, we decree with the advice of prudent men who are fully familiar with the circumstances of the times, and with the approval of the council, that all who have taken the cross and have decided to cross the sea, hold themselves so prepared that they may, on June 1 of the year after next (1217), come together in the Kingdom of Sicily, some at Brundusium and others at Messana, where, God willing, we (the Pope) will be present personally to order and to bestow on the Christian army the divine and Apostolic blessing. Those who decide to make the journey by land, should strive to hold themselves prepared for the same time; for their aid and guidance we shall in the meantime appoint a competent legate a latere. Priests and other clerics who are with the Christian army, subjects as well as prelates, must be diligent in prayer and exhortation, teaching them (the crusaders) by word and example that they have always before their eyes the fear and love of God, lest they say or do something that might offend the majesty of the eternal King. And should any have fallen into sin, let them quickly rise again through true repentance, practicing humility both interiorly and exteriorly, observing moderation in food as well as in clothing, avoiding dissensions and emulations, and divesting themselves of all malice and ill will, that being thus fortified with spiritual and material arms, they may fight with greater success against the enemies of the faith, not indeed relying on their own strength but putting their trust in the power of God. To the clerics we grant for a period of three years as complete an enjoyment of their benefices as if they actually resided in them, and they may, if necessary, even give them as pledges during this time. Therefore, that this undertaking may not be impeded or retarded, we strictly command all prelates that each one in his own territory induce those who have laid aside the crusader's cross to resume it, and carefully to admonish them and others who have taken the cross, as well as those who happen to be engaged for this purpose, to renew their vows to God, and if necessary to compel them by excommunication and interdict to abandon all delay.

Moreover, that nothing connected with the affairs of our Lord Jesus Christ be omitted, we wish and command that patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, abbots, and others who have the care of souls, diligently explain the meaning of the crusade to those committed to them, adjuring-through the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one, only true, and eternal God-kings, dukes, princes, marquises, counts, barons, and other prominent men, as well as cities, villages, and towns, that those who cannot go personally to the Holy Land, will furnish a suitable number of soldiers and, for a period of three years, in proportion to their resources, will bear the necessary expenses connected therewith for the remission of their sins, as we have made known in the general letters already sent over the world and as will be,exprcssed in greater detail below. In this remission we wish not only those to participate who for this purpose furnish their own ships, but those also who undertake to build ships. To those declining to render aid, if perchance any should be found to be so ungrateful to God, the Apostolic See firmly protests that on the last day they will be held to render an account to us in the presence of a terrible judge. Let them first consider with what security they can appear in the presence of the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, into whose hands the Father has given all things, if in this matter they refuse to serve Him who was crucified for sinners, by whose favor they live, by whose benefits they are sustained, and by whose blood they were redeemed.

But, lest we should seem to place grave and unbearable burdens on the shoulders of the people, we ourselves (the Pope) donate to the cause what we have been able to save by strict economy, 30,000 pounds, besides a ship to convey the crusaders from Rome and vicinity and 3,000 marks silver, the remnant of alms received from the faithful. The remainder we have given to Albert patriarch of Jerusalem, and to the masters of the Temple and Hospital for the necessities of the Holy Land. With the approval of the council we further decree that absolutely all clerics, subjects as well as superiors, shall, in aid of the Holy Land and for a period of three years, pay into the hands of those appointed by the Apostolic See for this purpose, one twentieth part of ecclesiastical revenues; some religious orders only being excepted and those (clerics) also who take or already have taken the crusader's cross and are about to set out personally. We and our brethren, the cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, will pay one-tenth of our revenues. All are bound to the faithful observance of this under penalty of excommunication, so that those who deliberately commit fraud in this matter will incur that penalty.

Since by the just judgment of the heavenly King it is only right that those who are associated with a good cause should enjoy a special privilege, we exempt the crusaders from collections, taxes, and other assessments. Their persons and possessions, after they have taken the cross, we take under the protection of Blessed Peter and our own, decreeing that they stand under the protection o f the archbishops, bishops, and all the prelates of the Church. Besides, special protectors will be appointed, and, till their return or till their death shall have been certified, they shall remain unmolested, and if anyone shall presume the contrary, let him be restrained by ecclesiastical censure.

In the case of crusaders who are bound under oath to pay interest, we command that their creditors be compelled to cancel the oath given and to cease exacting interest. Should any creditor force the payment of interest, we command that he be similarly forced to make restitution. We command also that Jews be compelled by the secular power to cancel interest, and, till they have done so, intercourse with them must be absolutely denied them by all Christians under penalty of excommunication. For those who cannot be their departure pay their debts to the Jews, the secular princes shall provide such a delay that from the time of their departure till their return or till their death is known, they shall not be embarrassed with the inconvenience of paying interest. If a Jew has received security (for example, a piece of ground) for such a debt, he must, after deducting his own expenses, pay to the owner the income from such security. Prelates who manifest negligence in obtaining justice for the crusaders and their servants, shall be subject to severe penalty.

Since the corsairs and pirates too vehemently impede assistance to the Holy Land by capturing and robbing those who go there and those returning, we excommunicate them and their principal abetters and protectors, forbidding under threat of anathema that anyone knowingly hold intercourse with them in any contract of buying and selling, and enjoin upon the rulers of cities and their localities that they check and turn them away from this iniquity. And since an unwillingness to disturb the perverse is nothing else than to favor them, and is also an indication of secret association with them on the part of those who do not resist manifest crime, we wish and command that severe ecclesiastical punishment be imposed by the prelates on their persons and lands. We excommunicate and anathematize, moreover, those false and ungodly Christians who furnish the enemies of Christ and the Christian people with arms, iron, and wood for the construction of ships; those also who sell them ships and who in the ships of the Saracens hold the post of pilot, or in any other way give them aid or advice to the detriment of the Holy Land; and we decree that their possessions be confiscated and they themselves become the slaves of their captors. We command that this sentence be publicly announced in all maritime cities on all Sundays and festival days, and that to such people the church be not opened till they return all that they have obtained in so reprehensible a traffic and give the same amount of their own -in aid of the Holy Land. In case they are not able to pay, then let them be punished in other ways, that by their chastisement others may be deterred from undertaking similar pursuits.

Furthermore, under penalty of anathema, we forbid all Christians for a period of four years to send their ships to Oriental countries, inhabited by the Saracens, in order that a greater number of ships may be available to those who wish to go to the aid of the Holy Land, and that to the Saracens may be denied the benefits that they usually reap from such commercial intercourse.

Though tournaments have been, under certain penalties, generally forbidden by different councils, since however at this time they are a serious obstacle to the success of the crusade, we strictly prohibit em under penalty of excommunication for a period of three years.

But, since for the success of this undertaking it is above all else necessary that princes and Christian people maintain peace among themselves, we decree with the advice of the holy council that for four years peace be observed in the whole Christian world, so that through the prelates discordant elements may be brought together in the fulness of peace, or at least to the strict observance of the truce. Those who refuse to acquiesce in this, are to be compelled by excommunication and interdict, unless the malice that inspired their wrongdoings was such that they ought not to enjoy such peace. But, if by chance they despise ecclesiastical censure, they have every reason to fear lest by the authority of the Church the secular power will be invoked against them as disturbers of the affairs of the One crucified.

We, therefore, by the mercy of the omnipotent God, trusting in the authority of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, in virtue of that power of binding and loosing which God has conferred on us, though unworthy, grant to all who aid in this work personally and at their own expense, a full remission of their sins which they ,have sincerely repented and orally confessed, and promise them when the just shall receive their reward an increase of eternal happiness. To those who do not personally go to the Holy Land, but at their own expense send there as many suitable men as their means will permit, and to those also who go personally but at the expense of others, we grant a full remission of their sins. Participants of this remission are, moreover, all who in proportion to their means contribute to the aid of the Holy Land, or in regard to what has been said give opportune advice and assistance. Finally, to all who in a spirit of piety aid in bringing to a successful issue this holy under. taking, this holy and general council imparts the benefits of its prayers and blessings that they may advance worthily to salvation. Amen.

---

From H. J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: Text, Translation and Commentary, (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1937). pp. 236-296.

NOTE 1: B. Herder's list was bought by TAN books, of Rockford IL. TAN confirmed that US copyright was not renewed after the statuary 28 years and that the text is now in the public domain in the US.]

NOTE 2: Fr. Schroeder accompanied the text with a commentary which, while well informed, was dominated by a concern to defend Catholic positions of his own time, and contained, moreover, a number of verbal attacks on the Orthodox churches. This commentary has not been reproduced here.]

---

This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.

Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.

(c)Paul Halsall Mar 1996
halsall@murray.fordham.edu

_________________________________________________________


Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent

Fourth Session (8 April 1546):
Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of Sacred Books
Sixth Session (13 January 1547):
Decree on Justification
Decree on Reformation
Seventh Session (3 March 1547):
Decree on the Sacraments
Decree on Reformation
Thirteenth Session (11 October 1551):
Decree Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist
Fourteenth Session (25 November 1551):
On the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance
Twenty-first Session (16 July 1562):
On Communion under Both Species, and on the Communion of Infants 
Twenty-third Session (15 July 1563):
On the Sacrament of the Order 
Decree on Reformation
Twenty-fourth Session (11 November 1563):
On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Decree on Reformation
Twenty-fifth Session (4 December 1563):
Decree Concerning Purgatory
On the Invocation, Veneration, and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images
Decree Concerning Indulgences
On the Index of Books; on the Catechism, Breviary, and Missal

---

Fourth Session (8 April 1546)

Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of Sacred Books

[...] The same sacred and holy Synod, considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic , ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine…presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church […] Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint—thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them—print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press of times unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author’s name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; [this Synod] ordains and decrees, that […] it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran […]

---

Sixth Session (13 January 1547)

Decree on Justification

CANON I. If any one says, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema […].

CANON III. If any one says, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

CANON IV. If any one says, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, in no wise cooperates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

CANON V. If any one says, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema […].

CANON VII. If any one says, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; or that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins: let him be anathema […].

CANON XI. If any one says, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favor of God; let him be anathema. […]

CANON XIV. If any one says, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

CANON XV. If any one says, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema […]

CANON XVII. If any one says, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

CANON XVIII. If any one says, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.

CANON XIX. If any one says, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.

CANON XX. If any one says, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema […]

Decree on Reformation

CHAPTER I. It is meet that prelates reside in their own churches; if they act otherwise, the penalties of the ancient law are renewed against them, and fresh penalties decreed […]

CHAPTER II. It is not lawful for any one who holds a benefice requiring personal residence to absent himself, save for a just cause to be approved of by the bishop, who even then shall, for the cure of souls, substitute a vicar in his stead, withdrawing a portion of the fruits […]

CHAPTER IV. Bishops and other greater prelates shall visit any churches whatsoever, as often as there shall be need; everything which might hinder this decree being abrogated.

---

Seventh Session (3 March 1547)

Decree on the Sacraments

CANON I. If any one says, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema […]

CANON IV. If any one says, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification; though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

CANON V. If any one says, that these sacraments were instituted for the sake of nourishing faith alone; let him be anathema.

CANON VI. If any one says, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema […].

CANON VIII. If any one says, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema […].

CANON X. If any one says, that all Christians have power to administer the word, and all the sacraments; let him be anathema […].

CANON XII. If any one says, that a minister, being in mortal sin—if so be that he observe all the essentials which belong to the effecting, or conferring of, the sacrament—neither effects, nor confers the sacrament; let him be anathema.

Decree on Reformation

CHAPTER I. Who is capable of governing Cathedral churches.

No one shall be assumed unto the government of Cathedral churches, but one that is born of lawful wedlock, is of mature age, and endowed with gravity of manners, and skill in letters, agreeably to the constitution of Alexander III., which begins, Cum in cunctis, promulgated in the Council of Lateran.

CHAPTER II. The holders of several Cathedral churches are commanded to resign all but one, in a given manner and time.

No one, by whatsoever dignity, grade, or pre-eminence distinguished, shall presume, in contravention of the institutes of the sacred canons, to accept and to hold at the same time several Metropolitan, or Cathedral, churches, whether by title, or in commendam, or under any other name whatsoever; seeing that he is to be accounted exceedingly fortunate whose lot it is to rule one church well and fruitfully, and unto the salvation of the souls committed to him. But as to those who now hold several churches contrary to the tenor of the present decree, they shall be bound, retaining the one which they may prefer, to resign the rest, within six months if they are at the free disposal of the Apostolic See, in other cases within the year; otherwise those churches, the one last obtained only excepted, shall be from that moment deemed vacant […].

CHAPTER IV. The retainer of several Benefices contrary to the Canons, shall be deprived thereof.

Whosoever shall for the future presume to accept, or to retain at the same time several cures, or otherwise incompatible Ecclesiastical Benefices, whether by way of union for life, or in perpetual commendam, or under any other name or title whatsoever, in contravention of the appointment of the sacred Canons, and especially of the Constitution of Innocent III, beginning, De multa, shall be ipso jure deprived of the said benefices, according to the disposition of the said constitution, and also by virtue of the present Canon […].

CHAPTER VIII. Churches shall be repaired: the cure of souls sedulously discharged.

The Ordinaries of the places shall be bound to visit every year, with apostolic authority, all churches whatsoever, in whatsoever manner exempted; and to provide by suitable legal remedies that whatever needs repairs, be repaired; and that those churches be not in any way defrauded of the Cure of souls, if such be annexed thereunto, or of other services due to them;-all appeals, privileges, customs, even those that have a prescription from time immemorial, commission of judges, and inhibitions from the same, being utterly set aside […].

---

Thirteenth Session (11 October 1551)

Decree Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist

CHAPTER I. On the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist.

In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. […]

CHAPTER II. On the reason of the Institution of this most holy Sacrament.

Wherefore, our Savior, when about to depart out of this world to the Father, instituted this Sacrament, in which He poured forth as it were the riches of His divine love towards man, making a remembrance of his wonderful works; and He commanded us, in the participation thereof, to venerate His memory, and to show forth his death until He come to judge the world. And He would also that this sacrament should be received as the spiritual food of souls, whereby may be fed and strengthened those who live with His life who said, He that eats me, the same also shall live by me; and as an antidote, whereby we may be freed from daily faults, and be preserved from mortal sins. He would, furthermore, have it be a pledge of our glory to come, and everlasting happiness, and thus be a symbol of that one body whereof He is the head, and to which He would fain have us as members be united by the closest bond of faith, hope, and charity, that we might all speak the same things, and there might be no schisms amongst us […].

CHAPTER IV. On Transubstantiation.

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation […].

CHAPTER V. On the cult and veneration to be shown to this most holy Sacrament.

Wherefore, there is no room left for doubt, that all the faithful of Christ may, according to the custom ever received in the Catholic Church, render in veneration the worship of latria, which is due to the true God, to this most holy sacrament. For not therefore is it the less to be adored on this account, that it was instituted by Christ, the Lord, in order to be received: for we believe that same God to be present therein, of whom the eternal Father, when introducing him into the world, says; And let all the angels of God adore him; whom the Magi falling down, adored; who, in fine, as the Scripture testifies, was adored by the apostles in Galilee.

The holy Synod declares, moreover, that very piously and religiously was this custom introduced into the Church, that this sublime and venerable sacrament be, with special veneration and solemnity, celebrated, every year, on a certain day, and that a festival; and that it be borne reverently and with honor in processions through the streets, and public places. For it is most just that there be certain appointed holy days, whereon all Christians may, with a special and unusual demonstration, testify that their minds are grateful and thankful to their common Lord and Redeemer for so ineffable and truly divine a benefit, whereby the victory and triumph of His death are represented. And so indeed did it behoove victorious truth to celebrate a triumph over falsehood and heresy, that thus her adversaries, at the sight of so much splendor, and in the midst of so great joy of the universal Church, may either pine away weakened and broken; or, touched with shame and confounded, at length repent.

On the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist

CANON I. If any one denies, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but says that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON II. If any one says, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood—the species only of the bread and wine remaining—which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema […].

CANON VI. If any one says, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolaters; let him be anathema […].

CANON VIII. lf any one says, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.

CANON IX. If any one denies, that all and each of Christ’s faithful of both sexes are bound, when they have attained to years of discretion, to communicate every year, at least at Easter, in accordance with the precept of holy Mother Church; let him be anathema […].

CANON XI. lf any one says, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.

---

Fourteenth Session (25 November 1551)

On the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance

CANON I. If any one says, that in the Catholic Church Penance is not truly and properly a sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord for reconciling the faithful unto God, as often as they fall into sin after baptism; let him be anathema.

CANON II. If any one, confounding the sacraments, says that baptism is itself the sacrament of Penance, as though these two Sacraments were not distinct, and that therefore Penance is not rightly called a second plank after shipwreck; let him be anathema […].

CANON IV. If any one denies, that, for the entire and perfect remission of sins, there are required three acts in the penitent, which are as it were the matter of the sacrament of Penance, to wit, contrition, confession, and satisfaction, which are called the three parts of penance; or says that there are two parts only of penance, to wit, the terrors with which the conscience is smitten upon being convinced of sin, and the faith, generated by the gospel, or by the absolution, whereby one believes that his sins are forgiven him through Christ; let him be anathema […].

CANON VIII. If any one says, that the confession of all sins, such as it is observed in the Church, is impossible, and is a human tradition to be abolished by the godly; or that all and each of the faithful of Christ, of either sex, are not obliged thereunto once a year, conformably to the constitution of the great Council of Lateran, and that, for this cause, the faithful of Christ are to be persuaded not to con fess during Lent; let him be anathema.

CANON XIV. If any one says, that the satisfaction, by which penitents redeem their sins through Jesus Christ, are not a worship of God, but traditions of men, which obscure the doctrine of grace, and the true worship of God, and the benefit itself of the death of Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON XV. If any one says, that the keys are given to the Church, only to loose, not also to bind; and that, therefore, priests act contrary to the purpose of the keys, and contrary to the institution of Christ, when they impose punishments on those who confess; and that it is a fiction, that, after the eternal punishment, has, by virtue of the keys, been removed, there remains for the most part a temporal punishment to be discharged; let him be anathema.

---

Twenty-first Session (16 July 1562)

On Communion under Both Species, and on the Communion of Infants

CANON I. If any one says, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema.

CANON II. If any one says, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be anathema.

CANON III. If any one denies, that Christ whole and entire -the fountain and author of all graces--is received under the one species of bread; because that-as some falsely assert--He is not received, according to the institution of Christ himself, under both species; let him be anathema.

CANON IV. If any one says, that the communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children, before they have arrived at years of discretion; let him be anathema.

As regards, however, those two articles, proposed on another occasion, but which have not as yet been discussed; to wit, whether the reasons by which the holy Catholic Church was led to communicate, under the one species of bread only, laymen, and also priests when not celebrating, are in such wise to be adhered to, as that on no account is the use of the chalice to be allowed to any one soever; and, whether, in case that, for reasons beseeming and consonant with Christian charity, it appears that the use of the chalice is to be granted to any nation or kingdom, it is to be conceded under certain conditions ; and what are those conditions: this same holy Synod reserves the same to another time—for the earliest opportunity that shall present itself—to be examined and defined.

---

Twenty-third Session (15 July 1563)

On the Sacrament of the Order

CANON I. If any one says, that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood; or that there is not any power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of the Lord, and of forgiving and retaining sins; but only an office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, or, that those who do not preach are not priests at all; let him be anathema.

CANON II. If any one says, that, besides the priesthood, there are not in the Catholic Church other orders, both greater and minor, by which, as by certain steps, advance is made unto the priesthood; let him be anathema.

CANON III. If any one says, that order, or sacred ordination, is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord; or, that it is a kind of human figment devised by men unskilled in ecclesiastical matters; or, that it is only a kind of rite for choosing ministers of the word of God and of the sacraments; let him be anathema.

CANON IV. If any one says, that, by sacred ordination, the Holy Ghost is not given; and that vainly therefore do the bishops say, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; or, that a character is not imprinted by that ordination; or, that he who has once been a priest, can again become a layman; let him be anathema.

CANON V. If any one says, that the sacred unction which the Church uses in holy ordination, is not only not required, but is to be despised and is pernicious, as likewise are the other ceremonies of Order; let him be anathema.

CANON VI. If any one says, that, in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy by divine ordination instituted, consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers; let him be anathema.

CANON VII. If any one says, that bishops are not superior to priests; or, that they have not the power of confirming and ordaining; or, that the power which they possess is common to them and to priests; or, that orders, conferred by them, without the consent, or vocation of the people, or of the secular power, are invalid; or, that those who have neither been rightly ordained, nor sent, by ecclesiastical and canonical power, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII. If any one says, that the bishops, who are assumed by authority of the Roman Pontiff, are not legitimate and true bishops, but are a human figment; let him be anathema.

Decree on Reformation

The same sacred and holy Synod of Trent, prosecuting the matter of reformation, resolves and decrees that the things following be at present ordained.

CHAPTER VI. The age of fourteen years is required for an ecclesiastical benefice; who is to enjoy the privilege of the (ecclesiastical) court.

No one, after being initiated by the first tonsure, or even after being constituted in minor orders, shall be able to hold a benefice before his fourteenth year. Further, he shall not enjoy the privilege of the (ecclesiastical) court, unless he have an ecclesiastical benefice; or, wearing the ecclesiastical dress and tonsure, he serves in some church by the bishop’s order, or lives with the bishop’s permission in an ecclesiastical seminary, or in some school, or university, on the way as it were to receive the greater orders […].

CHAPTER VII. Those to be ordained are to be examined by persons versed in divine and human laws.

The holy Synod, adhering to the traces of the ancient canons, ordains, that when a bishop has arranged to hold an ordination, all who may wish to be received into the sacred ministry shall be summoned to the city, for the Thursday before the said ordination, or for such other day as the bishop shall think fit. And the bishop, calling to his assistance priests and other prudent persons, well skilled in the divine law, and of experience in the constitutions of the church, shall diligently investigate and examine the parentage, person, age, education, morals, learning, and faith of those who are to be ordained.

CHAPTER XIV. Who are to be raised to the Priesthood: their office

Those who have conducted themselves piously and faithfully in their precedent functions, and are promoted to the order of priesthood, shall have a good testimonial, and be persons who not only have served in their office of deacon during at least an entire year—unless for the utility and the necessity of the Church, the bishop should judge otherwise—but who have also been approved to be, by a careful previous examination, capable of teaching the people those things which it is necessary for all to know unto salvation, as also fit to administer the sacraments; and so conspicuous for piety and chasteness of morals, as that a shining example of good works and a lesson how to live may be expected from them. The bishop shall take care that they celebrate mass at least on the Lord’s Days, and on solemn festivals; but, if they have the cure of souls, so often as to satisfy their obligation. The bishop may, for a lawful cause, grant a dispensation to those who have been promoted per saltum, provided they have not exercised the ministry (of that order).

---

Twenty-fourth Session (11 November 1563):

On the Sacrament of Matrimony

CANON I. If any one says, that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelic law, (a sacrament) instituted by Christ the Lord; but that it has been invented by men in the Church; and that it does not confer grace; let him be anathema.

CANON II. If any one says, that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not prohibited by any divine law; let him be anathema.

CANON III. If any one says, that those degrees only of consanguinity and affinity, which are set down in Leviticus, can hinder matrimony from being contracted, and dissolve it when contracted; and that the Church cannot dispense in some of those degrees, or establish that others may hinder and dissolve it ; let him be anathema.

CANON IV. If any one says, that the Church could not establish impediments dissolving marriage; or that she has erred in establishing them; let him be anathema.

CANON V. If any one says, that on account of heresy, or irksome cohabitation, or the affected absence of one of the parties, the bond of matrimony may be dissolved; let him be anathema.

CANON VI. If any one says, that matrimony contracted, but not consummated, is not dissolved by the solemn profession of religion by one of the married parties; let him be anathema.

CANON VlI. If any one says, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolic doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII. If any one says, that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema.

CANON IX. If any one says, that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or Regulars, who have solemnly professed chastity, are able to contract marriage, and that being contracted it is valid, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law, or vow; and that the contrary is no thing else than to condemn marriage; and, that all who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even though they have made a vow thereof, may contract marriage; let him be anathema: seeing that God refuses not that gift to those who ask for it rightly, neither does He suffer us to be tempted above that which we are able.

CANON X. If any one says, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.

CANON XI. If any one says, that the prohibition of the solemnization of marriages at certain times of the year, is a tyrannical superstition, derived from the superstition of the [Page 196] heathen; or, condemn the benedictions and other ceremonies which the Church makes use of therein; let him be anathema.

CANON XII. If any one says, that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges; let him be anathema.

Decree on Reformation

CHAPTER II. A Provincial Synod to be celebrated every third year, a Diocesan Synod every year: who are to convoke, and who to be present thereat.

Provincial councils, wheresoever they have been omitted, shall be renewed, for the regulating of morals, the correcting of excesses, the composing of controversies, and for the other purposes allowed of by the sacred canons. Therefore, the metropolitans in person, or if they be lawfully hindered, the oldest suffragan bishop shall not fail to assemble a Synod, each in his own province, within a year at latest from the termination of the present council, and afterwards, at least every third year, [Page 208] either after the octave of the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, or at some other more convenient time, according to the custom of the province; at which council all the bishops and others, who, by right or custom, ought to be present thereat, shall be absolutely bound to assemble, those excepted who would have to cross the sea at their imminent peril. The bishops of the province shall not, for the future, be compelled, under the pretext of any custom whatsoever, to repair against their will to the metropolitan church. Those bishops likewise who are not subject to any archbishop, shall once for all make choice of some neighboring metropolitan, at whose provincial Synod they shall be bound to be present with the other bishops, and shall observe, and cause to be observed, whatsoever shall be therein ordained. In all other respects, their exemption and privileges shall remain whole and entire.

Diocesan Synods also shall be celebrated every year; to which all those even who are exempted, but who would otherwise, that exemption ceasing, have to attend, and who are not subject to general Chapters, shall be bound to come; understanding however that, on account of parochial, or other Secular churches, even though annexed, those who have charge thereof must needs, whosoever they may be, be present at the said Synod. But if any, whether metropolitans, or bishops, or the others above-named, shall be negligent in these matters, they shall incur the penalties enacted by the sacred canons.

CHAPTER III. In what manner Prelates are to make their visitation.

Patriarchs, primates, metropolitans, and bishops shall not fail to visit their respective dioceses, either personally, or, if they be lawfully hindered, by their Vicar-general, or visitor; if they shall not be able on account of its extent, to make the visitation of the whole annually, they shall visit at least the greater part thereof, so that the whole shall be completed in two years, either by themselves, or by their visitors. Metropolitans, however, even after having made a complete visitation of their own proper diocese, shall not visit the cathedral churches, or the dioceses of the bishops of their province, except for a cause taken cognizance and approved of in the provincial Council […].

But the principle object of all these visitations shall be to lead to sound and orthodox doctrine, by banishing heresies; to maintain good morals, and to correct such as are evil; to animate the people, by exhortations and admonitions, to religion, peacefulness, and innocence; and to establish such other things as to the prudence of the visitors shall seem for the profit of the faithful, according as time, place and opportunity shall allow. And to the end that all this may have a more easy and prosperous issue, all and each of the aforesaid, to whom the right of visitation belongs, are admonished to treat all persons with fatherly love and Christian zeal; and with this view being content with a modest train of servants and horses, they shall endeavor to complete the said visitation as speedily as possible, though with due carefulness […].

CHAPTER IV. By whom, and when, the office of preaching is to be discharged: the Parish Church to be frequented in order to hear the word of God. No one shall preach in opposition to the will of the Bishop.

The holy Synod, desirous that the office of preaching, which peculiarly belongs to bishops, may be exercised as frequently as possible […] ordains, that the bishops shall themselves in person, each in his own church, announce the sacred Scriptures and the divine law, or if lawfully hindered, it shall be done by those whom they shall appoint to the office of preaching; and in the other churches by the parish priests, or, if they be hindered, by others to be deputed by the bishop, whether it be in the city, or in any other part whatsoever of the diocese wherein they shall judge such preaching expedient, at the charge of those who are bound, or who are accustomed, to defray it, and this at least on all Lord’s Days and solemn festivals; but, during the season of the fasts, of Lent and of the Advent of the Lord, daily, or at least on three days in the week, if the said bishop shall deem it needful; and, at other times, as often as they shall judge that it can be opportunely done. And the bishop shall diligently admonish the people, that each one is bound to be present at his own parish church, where it can be conveniently done, to hear the word of God. But no one, whether Secular or Regular, shall presume to preach, even in churches of his own order, in opposition to the will of the bishop.

CHAPTER VII. The virtue of the Sacraments shall, before being administered to the people, be explained by Bishops and Parish Priests; during the solemnization of mass, the sacred oracles shall be explained.

In order that the faithful people may approach to the reception of the sacraments with greater reverence and devotion of mind, the holy Synod enjoins on all bishops, that, not only when they are themselves about to administer them to the people, they shall first explain, in a manner suited to the capacity of those who receive them, the efficacy and use of those sacraments, but shall endeavor that the same be done piously and prudently by every parish priest; and this even in the vernacular tongue, if need be, and it can be conveniently done; and in accordance with the form which will be prescribed for each of the sacraments, by the holy Synod, in a catechism which the bishops shall take care to have faithfully translated into the vulgar tongue, and to have expounded to the people by all parish priests; as also that, during the solemnization of mass, or the celebration of the divine offices, they explain, in the said vulgar tongue, on all festivals, or solemnities, the sacred oracles, and the maxims of salvation; and that, setting aside all unprofitable questions, they endeavor to impress them on the hearts of all, and to instruct them in the law of the Lord.

CHAPTER XIII. In what manner provision is to be made for the more slightly endowed Cathedral and Parish Churches: Parishes are to be distinguished by certain boundaries.

Forasmuch as very many cathedral churches have so slight a revenue, and are so small, that they by no means correspond with the episcopal dignity, nor suffice for the necessities of the churches; the provincial Council, having summoned those whose interests are concerned, shall examine and weigh with care, what churches it may be expedient, on account of their small extent, and their poverty, to unite to others in the neighborhood, or to augment with fresh revenues; and shall send the documents prepared in regard thereof to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff […].

In parish churches also, the fruits of which are in like manner so slight that they are not sufficient to meet the necessary charges, the bishop—if unable to provide for the exigency by a union of benefices, not however those belonging to Regulars—shall make it his care, that, by the assignment of first fruits, or tithes, or by the contributions and collections of the parishioners, or in some other way that shall seem to him more suitable, as much be amassed as may decently suffice for the necessities of the rector and of the parish.

CHAPTER XVIII. Upon a Parish Church becoming vacant, a Vicar is to be deputed thereunto by the Bishop, until it be provided with a Parish Priest: in what manner and by whom those nominated to Parochial Churches ought to be examined.

It is most highly expedient for the salvation of souls, that they be governed by worthy and competent parish priests. To the end that this may with greater care and effect be accomplished, the holy Synod ordains, that when a vacancy occurs in a parish church, whether by death, or by resignation […] it shall be the duty of the bishop […] to appoint, if need be, a competent vicar to the same [parish]—with a suitable assignment, at his own discretion, of a portion of the fruits thereof—to support the duties of the said church, until it shall be provided with a rector. Moreover, the bishop […] shall, within ten days […] nominate, in the presence of those who shall be deputed as examiners, certain clerics as capable of governing the said church. It shall nevertheless be free for others also, who may know any that are fit for the office, to give in their names, that a diligent scrutiny may be afterwards made as to the age, morals, and sufficiency of each. […] When the time appointed has transpired, all those whose names have been entered shall be examined by the bishop, or, if he be hindered, by his Vicar-general, and by the other examiners, who shall not be fewer than three; to whose votes, if they should be equal, or given to distinct individuals, the bishop, or his vicar, may add theirs, in favor of whomsoever they shall think most fit […].

Then, after the examination is completed, a report shall be made of all those who shall have been judged, by the said examiners, fit by age, morals, learning, prudence, and other suitable qualifications, to govern the vacant church; and out of these the bishop shall select him whom he shall judge the most fit of all; and to him, and to none other, shall the church be collated by him unto whom it belongs to collate thereunto. But, if the church be under ecclesiastical patronage, and the institution thereunto belongs to the bishop, and to none else, whomsoever the patron shall judge the most worthy from amongst those who have been approved of by the examiners, him he shall be bound to present to the bishop, that he may receive institution from him: but when the institution is to proceed from any other than the bishop, then the bishop alone shall select the worthiest from amongst the worthy, and him the patron shall present to him unto whom the institution belongs […].

If, however, the said parish churches should possess so slight a revenue, as not to allow of the trouble of all this examination; or should no one seek to undergo this examination; or if, by reason of the open factions, or dissensions, which are met with in some places, more grievous quarrels and tumults may easily be excited thereby; the Ordinary may, omitting this formality, have recourse to a private examination, if, in his conscience, with the advice of the (examiners) deputed, he shall judge this expedient; observing however the other things as prescribed above. It shall also be lawful for the provincial Synod, if It shall judge that there are any particulars which ought to be added to, or retrenched from, the above regulations concerning the form of examination, to provide accordingly.

---

Twenty-fifth Session (4 December 1563)

Decree Concerning Purgatory

Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught, in sacred councils, and very recently in this ecumenical Synod, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar; the holy Synod enjoins on bishops that they diligently endeavor that the sound doctrine concerning Purgatory, transmitted by the holy Fathers and sacred councils, be believed, maintained, taught, and every where proclaimed by the faithful of Christ. But let the more difficult and subtle questions, and which tend not to edification, and from which for the most part there is no increase of piety, be excluded from popular discourses before the uneducated multitude. […] [And] let the bishops take care, that the suffrages of the faithful who are living, to wit the sacrifices of masses, prayers, alms, and other works of piety, which have been wont to be performed by the faithful for the other faithful departed, be piously and devoutly performed, in accordance with the institutes of the church; and that whatsoever is due on their behalf, from the endowments of testators, or in other way, be discharged, not in a perfunctory manner, but diligently and accurately, by the priests and ministers of the church, and others who are bound to render this (service).

On the Invocation, Veneration, and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images

The holy Synod enjoins on all bishops, and others who sustain the office and charge of teaching, that […] they especially instruct the faithful diligently concerning the intercession and invocation of saints; the honor (paid) to relics; and the legitimate use of images: teaching them, that the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up their own prayers to God for men; that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, (and) help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our alone Redeemer and Savior; but that they think impiously, who deny that the saints, who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invocated; or who assert either that they do not pray for men; or, that the invocation of them to pray for each of us even in particular, is idolatry; or, that it is repugnant to the word of God; and is opposed to the honor of the one mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus; or, that it is foolish to supplicate, vocally, or mentally, those who reign in heaven. Also, that the holy bodies of holy martyrs, and of others now living with Christ […] are to be venerated by the faithful; through which (bodies) many benefits are bestowed by God on men; so that they who affirm that veneration and honor are not due to the relics of saints; or, that these, and other sacred monuments, are uselessly honored by the faithful; and that the places dedicated to the memories of the saints are in vain visited with the view of obtaining their aid; are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned, and now also condemns them […].

And that these things may be the more faithfully observed, the holy Synod ordains, that no one be allowed to place, or cause to be placed, any unusual image, in any place, or church, howsoever exempted, except that image have been approved of by the bishop: also, that no new miracles are to be acknowledged, or new relics recognized, unless the said bishop has taken cognizance and approved thereof; who, as soon as he has obtained some certain information in regard to these matters, shall, after having taken the advice of theologians, and of other pious men, act therein as he shall judge to be consonant with truth and piety. But if any doubtful, or difficult abuse has to be extirpated; or, in fine, if any more grave question shall arise touching these matters, the bishop, before deciding the controversy, shall await the sentence of the metropolitan and of the bishops of the province, in a provincial Council; yet so, that nothing new, or that previously has not been usual in the Church, shall be resolved on, without having first consulted the most holy Roman Pontiff.

Decree Concerning Indulgences

Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of [Page 278] by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesiastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honorable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, It ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,--whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,--be wholly abolished. But as regards the other abuses which have proceeded from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from whatsoever other source, since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the said abuses are committed, they cannot conveniently be specially prohibited; It commands all bishops, diligently to collect, each in his own church, all abuses of this nature, and to report them in the first provincial Synod; that, after having been reviewed by the opinions of the other bishops also, they may forthwith be referred to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence that which may be expedient for the universal Church will be ordained; that this the gift of holy Indulgences may be dispensed to all the faithful, piously, holily, and incorruptly.

On the Index of Books; on the Catechism, Breviary, and Missal

The sacred and holy Synod, in the second Session celebrated under our most holy lord, Pius IV, commissioned certain chosen Fathers to consider what ought to be done touching various censures, and books either suspected or pernicious, and to report thereon to the said holy Synod; hearing now that the finishing hand has been put to that labor by those Fathers, which, however, by reason of the variety and multitude of books cannot be distinctly and conveniently judged of by the holy Synod; It enjoins that whatsoever has been by them done shall be laid before the most holy Roman Pontiff, that it may be by his judgment and authority terminated and made public. And it commands that the same be done in regard of the Catechism, by the Fathers to whom that work was consigned, and as regards the missal and breviary.

source: http://pages.uoregon.edu/dluebke/Reformations441/CouncilofTrent--Excerpts.html