Decretal Letters of Pope Innocent III
touching on Church and State
"Venerabilem fratrem nostrum"
To Berthold, noble man and duke of Zähringen
We have received with kindness our venerable brother, Eberhard, the archbishop
of Salzburg, and Eberhard, abbot of Salmansweiler, together with the Marchese of the
Eastern March, who were sent to us as nuncios by certain princes. We granted them a
gracious audience. We had the letter carefully read that certain princes had sent to us,
and we have noted all the contents in them. Among other things, these princes have noted
in this letter to us that they objected principally that our venerable brother, the bishop
of Palestrina, legate of the Apostolic See, exercised the office of an elector or of judge
in the election of the emperor. They assert that if he acted as an elector, he inserted
his sickle into the field of another. If he participated in the election he took away
dignity from the princes. If he acted as a judge of the election, he proceeded illegally
since the other party was absent. The opposing party had not been summoned and could not,
therefore, be judged contumacious.
Truly we owe justice to every person because of our obligation to
exercise our apostolic office. Just as we do not want our justice to be usurped by others,
we do not wish to take away the right of the princes. We recognize, as we must, the
princes' right and power to elect the king and afterward to raise him to emperor, which is
known to belong to them by law and ancient custom. This is especially true since the
Apostolic See bestowed this right and power on them when the pope translated Roman
imperium in the person of the great Charles from the Greeks to the Germans.
The princes should recognize as they do (and have in our presence)
that the right and authority of examining the person elected king and of promoting him to
the imperial office pertains to us, since we anoint, consecrate and crown him. It is
regularly and generally observed that the person who places his hands upon a candidate may
examine him. There if the princes would elect a sacrilegious, excommunicated, tyrannical,
fatuous, and heretical, even a pagan, person not in discord but unanimously, ought we
anoint, consecrate and crown a man of this sort? Of course not.
Therefore, we respond to the objection of the princes by stating
that our legate, the bishop of Palestrina, by approving our most beloved son in Christ,
Otto, to be king and by reproving Phillip the duke of Swabia, did not exercise the office
of elector as alleged by some of the princes in their letters to us, since he did not
elect anyone or have anyone elected, and, consequently, did not participate in the
election in any way. He did not usurp or infringe upon the rights of the princes. The
bishop was not a judge of the person, since he was led to confirm or to deny the election
of both. He was, in fact, an officer of the papal court(1)
who declared that the person of the duke was unworthy and the person of the king suitable
for receiving the imperial office. He did not make his decision based on the worthiness of
the electors but on the suitability of the elected. Many of those who had the power of
electing the king and elevating him to emperor by right and by custom consented to Otto.
The supporters of Phillip presumed to elect him with the other electors having been absent
and having ignored their rights. It is clear that they unlawfully held their election,
since it is a principle of law that an election can be held invalid more on account of the
rights of one having been ignored than because of the opposition of many.(2) Whence, because they deserve to lose their privilege who abuse
their power, it does not seem to be without merit that an injury of this sort not
withstanding the others could exercise their rights.
Since Phillip ought not accept the crown and the anointing at that
place and from that person and since Otto received the crown and anointing at Aachen from
our venerable brother the archbishop of Cologne, we consider and name Otto not Phillip
king, as justice demands. In reproving Duke Phillip of Swabia because of manifest defects
of person, we did not accuse him with manifest proofs but we condemned him with manifest
proofs, since condemnations, not accusations, require manifest proofs.
Furthermore, when the wishes of the princes are divided, we can
favor one of the parties after admonishing them and waiting for the results, especially
when both parties ask us for unction, consecration, and coronation. We have this authority
by law and example. If the princes do not or will not reach a decision after warning them
and waiting for their decision, should the Apostolic See suffer the consequences of not
having an advocate and a defender because of their fault?
The princes know and your highness is not unmindful
that when Lothair and Conrad were elected in discord, the Roman pontiff crowned Lothair.
Conrad then returned to the pope's grace.(3) . . .
The manifest defects of the duke of Swabia are his
public excommunication, open perjury, and widely known persecution that his forebearers
and he himself inflicted on the Apostolic See and other churches. Pope Celestine III of
blessed memory, our predecessor, publically and solemnly excommunicated him while he was
in Tuscany because of his invasion and destruction of the Patrimony of St Peter, even
though Phillip had been often admonished to desist. . . .
Since, therefore, we cannot be moved from our course, but rather we
shall firmly persist in our decision, and since you have often stated in your letters that
we ought nevertheless to favor the Duke, we warn your highness and exhort the Lord through
Apostolic letters that, just as you are confident of our grace and we hope for your
devotion, you should withdraw your loyalty from Duke Phillip, not withstanding your oath
to him, which, if you have sworn it to him for reason of the kingdom, since he has been
found unworthy of obtaining the imperial office, an oath of this sort should not be
observed.
Written at the Lateran ca. 26 March, 1202
Text based on the edition of Friedrich Kempf, Regestum Innocentii III papae super
negotio Romani imperii (Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae, 12; Rome: 1947) No. 62, pp.
166-175 and E. Friedberg, Corpus iuris canonici (Leipzig 1881, reprinted 1959) col.
79-82
Translated by K. Pennington
Political Background of Novit
"Novit ille qui nichil ignorat"
To the Archbishops and bishops of France
He knows, Who is ignorant of nothing, Who is the Examiner of all hearts and Who
has knowledge of all secrets, that we love our most beloved son in Christ, Phillip, the
illustrious king of the Franks, who is pure of heart, is of good conscience, and whose
faith is not feigned. We aspire to increase and augment his honor in all ways and regard
the exaltation of the kingdom of the Franks as the elevation of the Apostolic See itself,
since that kingdom, blessed by God, has always been steadfast in its devotion to the
papacy. The kingdom has never retreated from its devotion to the Apostolic See, although
sometimes from various sides troubles are introduced by evil angels. We, nevertheless, who
know the snares of Satan well, will strive to avoid his traps and believe that the king
will not permit himself to be seduced by Satan's deceitfulness.
May no one presume to think that we wish to diminish or disturb the
jurisdiction and power of the king since he ought not to impede or restrict out
jurisdiction and power. Since we cannot exercise our jurisdiction to its fullest extent,
why would we wish to usurp the jurisdiction of another? The Lord said in the Gospels:
"If your brother shall offend you, go and
complain to him in private. If he listens to you, you will gain a brother. If he does not
listen to you, bring one or two more persons with you. In the testimony of two or three
witnesses, one can find truth.(4) And if he does not heed
them, tell the church. If he does not listen to the church, consider him a heathen and a
publican." [Matthew 18.15-17]
Therefore the king of England has stated and is prepared to
demonstrate fully that the king of the Franks has sinned against him. He has proceeded
against the king of the Franks according to the rules of the Gospel. Because he has not
accomplished his purpose in any way, he now tells the church. How, then, can we, who are
called to govern the universal church by celestial ordination, respect the divine command
if we may not proceed according to Gospel? Unless, perhaps, the king of the Franks may
present sufficient evidence to the contrary to us or to our legate. We do not wish to
judge a case of feudal law that pertains to the king, unless, perhaps, it is exempt from
the king's jurisdiction by a special privilege or a contrary custom that deviates from the
ius commune (common law). But we may judge a
sin that pertains to our jurisdiction without a
doubt, and which we can and ought to exercise over anyone.
Consequently the royal highness should not think it injurious if he
subjects himself to Apostolic judgment, since the glorious Emperor Valentinian said to the
suffragans of the of the church in Milan:(5)
Elect a man to the pontifical see to whom we, who
govern the empire, may sincerely submit ourselves and receive his commands as medicines,
when we, as men sin.
We humbly omit what the Emperor Theodosius ordained(6) and Charles, ancestor of Phillip, the present king of the
Franks, confirmed(7) that:
"If anyone has a complaint or a petition . . .
let him be sent to the bishop,"
since we depend on divine law rather than human constitutions,
because our power arises not from man but from God.
No man of reason cannot know that it is our duty to correct any
Christian for any whatsoever mortal sin. If the sinner rejects our correction, we may
compel him through ecclesiastical sanctions. The pages of the New and Old Testaments
attest to our authority to correct our subjects. When the Lord thundered through the
Prophet:
"Complain and never cease, raise your
voice as if it were a mighty horn, announcing their sins to my people" [Isaiah
58.1] . . .
That we can and ought to compel obedience is clear from what the
Lord said to the Prophet who was one of the priests of Anathoth:
"Behold, I have placed you over nations and
over kingdoms to root up and to pull down, to overthrow and lay in ruins, to build and
plant anew" [Jeremiah 1.10]
There is no doubt that to "root up and to pull down, to
overthrow and lay in ruins" are all mortal sins. Therefore, when the Lord gave the
keys of the kingdom of heaven to Blessed Peter, he said to him:
Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earh shall be loosed in heaven [Matthew 16.19]
Truly no one doubts that the Lord binds every mortal sin in
heaven. Consequently, that Peter may imitate the judgment of the Lord, he ought to
bind those things on earth that are known to have been bound in heaven . .
. Perhaps it might be argued that kings ought to be treated differently from
other Christians. Yet it is written in divine law:
You shall judge the great as you would the humble;
you shall not judge according to a person's status [Cf. Deuteronomy 1.17]
which blessed James affirmed when he said:
If you say to him who is dressed in fine garments,
"you should sit here well," and to a poor person, "you stand there" or
"you sit at my feet on a footstool" <you become judges with evil thoughts>
[James 2.3]
We may proceed in this way against any criminal sin and we shall
call the sinner back from error to truth, from vice to virtue, especially when he has
sinned against peace, which is the bond of love. . . .
Furthermore, when anyone lays legitimate sanctions of law upon a person, the other person
may use the same sanctions against the first, as the wise man might say: "Obey the
law that you have made!" . . . When the kings had
concluded a peace treaty and both had sworn to uphold the pact, which, nevertheless, was
not upheld for the stipulated length of time, can we not intervene in a case where a oath
has been sworn? Oaths belong without a doubt to the judgment of the church, in order
to reestablish peace treaties that have been broken.
Written at the Lateran, April 1204
Innocent III, Pope. Die Register Innocenz' III. 7: 7. Pontifikatsjahr,
1204/1205, Texte und Indices. Ed. Othmar Hageneder, Andrea Sommerlechner, with the
collaboration of Christoph Egger and Rainer Murauer. Publikationen des Historischen
Instituts beim Österreichischen Kulturinstitut in Rom. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1997, No. 43(42), p. 72-76
Translated by K. Pennington
Political Background of Magna
Carta
Magna Carta
(Yale Law School Translation)
Magna Carta
(Manuscript and Translation)
"Etsi Karissimus in Christo filius noster Johannes"
Innocent, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to all the
faithful of Christ who will read this letter, greeting and apostolic benediction.
John, the king of England, our dearest
and illustrious son in Christ, has greatly offended God and church, and we have
excommunicated him and placed his kingdom under ecclesiastical interdict. Under the
inspiration of Him who does not wish the death of a sinner but a conversion that the
sinner may live, has now had a change of heart. He has humbly rendered satisfaction
to God and the Church. He has granted his kingdom and that of Ireland to
blessed Peter and the Roman church. He has received it back from us as a fief
[feudum] having promised us a tribute of one thousand marks each year. He has taken
the oath of fealty to us. . . . And even wishing to please omnipotent
God more has also taken the sign of the living cross and is making magnificient
preparations to go to the aid of the Holy Land. But Satan, who is always envious of
good deeds, has stirred up the barons of England against him with his deceitful
strategems. . . . These vassals conspired
against their lord and swore oaths publically against him. They joined with his
enemies and others and presumed to wage war against him. They occupied and ravaged his
lands and captured the city of London, the chief seat of the kingdom.
The king appealed to our court and informed them that he would grant them justice before
us, to whom this case belongs by reason of feudal lordship [ratione dominii
pertinebat]. They completely refused to submit. Consequently John was
compelled by force and fear, that would cause the most reasonable of men to fail [vir
constantissimus], to enter an agreement with them that was not only vile and base,
but illegal and iniquitous. This agreement diminished and derogated his rights
together with his honor. Because the Lord has said to us through the prophet:
I have placed you over nations and over kingdoms to
root up and to pull down, to overthrow and lay in ruins, to build and plant anew"
[Jeremiah 1.10]
and also through another prophet:
Destroy the conspiracies of impiety and relieve
those torments that wear the people down [Isaiah 58.6]
. . . With the counsel of our
brothers the cardinals, we completely reject and condemn this agreement (Magna Carta) and
order under the penalty of excommunication that the king should not obey it and that the
barons with their accomplices should not ask that it be obeyed. .
. .We declare that the charter and all things connected to it is null and void
forever.
Written at Agnani, August 24, 1215, in the eighteenth year of our pontificate
Latin text taken from Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III Concerning England (1198-1216),
edited and translated by C.R. Cheney and W.H. Semple (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons,
1953), pp. 212-216
Translated by K. Pennington
"Per venerabilem"
Innocent III to the noble man, William of
Montpellier
Your nobleness has humbly requested, via our
venerable brother the archbishop of Arles, that we see fit to bestow on your sons a title
of legitimacy so that the issue of their birth should not be a problem in their succeeding
you. That the apostolic see has the plenitude of power in these matters seems clear from
the fact that in various cases it has made legitimate not only naturally born sons but
also those born of adultery, so that they may perform spiritual acts and thus be promoted
to be bishops. Thus it is seems more believable and is reputed that the See has the power
to legitimize children for secular functions, particularly if they recognize no power
greater than the Roman pontiff, who has the power to legitimate, since greater care and
authority is required in spiritual matters than secular ones and thus is seems that what
is permissible in greater matters is lawful in lesser ones. Similarly, also, the same
child seems able to be legitimized and elevated to the highest episcopal authority since
he himself is freed from the power of his father. Besides this, even if a single bishop
should knowingly ordain a servus of another as a priest, the ordainer is allowed to make
satisfaction to the lord according to the canonical form that is binding; nevertheless,
however, having been ordained, the servus evades the yoke of servitude. It seems strange
that he who has been legitimized for the purpose of spiritual acts remains illegitimate
with regard to secular actions. What is arranged in spiritual matters is consequently
understood to be arranged in temporal matters. The apostolic see, moreover, is able to
make this arrangement in the patrimony of St. Peter in which it exercises authority as the
popes and power as the supremi principis. Since, therefore, authority seems to reside in
the possession of the Roman Church not only in spiritual matters but in temporal ones as
well, such that we may excuse the above matter of your sons, on account of yours and your
progenitors’ merit, who have always persisted in devotion to the apostolic see, the
archbishop humbly requested the same for your part.
He seemed, moreover, from this request, to draw on greater daring,
because he was able to allege that not long before he was compelled to seek an example,
and in favor of this petition today, that he said we ourselves had made in a similar case.
Indeed, when, our dear son in Christ, Philip, illustrious king of the Franks, repudiated
Ingeburga, our daughter in Christ, the illustrious queen of the Franks and took up with
another soon after and having put above the son and daughter of another, and you similarly
having excluded legitimate children placing others of another above them, from whom you
placed those sons above: just as with the sons of the same king, thus with you it is
believed to have been arranged through the benevolence of the apostolic see; especially
when the greater necessity compelled it and you were more particularly subject to us. And
so the king of the Franks, from this famous recollection, hereafter accepted the
legitimate heir of the queen of the Franks, who he wished and believed to have succeeded
him to the throne of the kingdom; in truth you, from your legitimate wife, do not have a
male heir, who may succeed you both in our devotion and proper heredity. Since the above
mentioned king subjected himself to us in spiritual matters, you must indeed subject
yourself in temporal matters, since you possess part of you lands from the church of
Magalonensis, which itself recognizes the temporality of the apostolic see; therefore the
church of Magolonensis ….
Indeed, if the truth is examined more closely, the matter appears
not similar but rather dissimilar. For the king himself had been judged to be separated
from the aforementioned queen, of good memory, by the archbishop of Reims, (who was also)
the legate of the apostolic see. Indeed, you, as it is said, have separated your wife from
you by your own rashness. He also, before having been prohibited to marry another had
become known to him had done so, from whom it was known to have been born a set of twins;
but you, in contempt of the Church, have attempted to marry another, on account of the
fact that that revenge exercised that sword against you according to ecclesiastical law.
The king himself, moreover, held up as a defense against the marriage the impediment of
affinity with the aforementioned queen and openly brought witnesses before the
aforementioned bishop, the judgement of whom because it had been made null only because of
the custom of the courts was not upheld, and we after the restitution of the
aforementioned wife to him over (the judgement) of this venerable brother, our Octavius,
bishop of Ostia, and our esteemed son John, cardinal priest of the holy titular church at
Priscus (?), instructed the attorneys to assent. You have objected, as it is asserted, to
nothing concerning your wife that would lead to a divorce. Since faithfulness to the
marriage bed is one of the three virtues of marriage, this violation of the marriage bed
would not, nevertheless, destroy the conjugal bond. Concerning the sons of the same queen,
whether they were legitimate or not, as long as the question of affinity is pending, it
can, not without merit, be doubted.
The king of France recognizes no temporal superior. Because of this
he could submit himself to our judgement without injuring another’s right. It seemed
to some that not as himself as a father to his children but rather as the prince that he
could issue a dispensation to himself. You, however, know that you are subject to another
and so you may not appeal to us, and not injure them, without first obtaining consent. Nor
do you have the authority to grant such a dispensation yourself.
By this rationale, therefore, we granted the favor the
aforementioned king had requested, in consideration of the fact that in both the Old and
New Testaments, we possessed the fullness of power not only in the temporal matters of the
patrimony of the church, but also in other regions, after examining certain cases. We do
not want to prejudice another’s right nor do we wish to usurp for ourselves a power
to which we have no right, for we are not ignorant of Christ’s saying "Render
unto Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God’s" (Luke 20:25). On account of
this, having been asked to divide an inheritance between two men he asked, "Who made
me a judge over you?" (Luke 12:14) In Deuteronomy, however, we find "If you find
an ambiguity or difficulty in a judgement between blood and blood, cause and cause or
leprosy and leprosy, and you perceive that the words of the judges within your gates vary,
arise and go to that place where the Lord God shall choose, and going to the priests of
Levi and the judge of the moment, inquire of them. They shall weigh the truth of the
judgement and you shall do whatever they, who reside in that place whom He elected, say.
They will teach you according to His law and you shall follow their judgement, leaning
neither towards the left hand nor towards the right. He, moreover, who shall be proud and
refuses to obey the order of the priest who ministers in that time to the Lord God, and
refuses to obey the decree of the judge, shall die and (by this) you shall take the evil
from Isreal." (Deuteronomy 17:8-12) Similarly, since "Deuteronomy" is
interpreted as "second law", it was established from the force of the word that
what is instituted there ought also to be followed in the New Testament. For the place
which God selected is known to be the Apostolic See, which the Lord founded on himself as
a corner stone …
Moreover, the Levitical priests are our brothers, who, by Levitical
law, function as our co-judges in the execution of the priestly office. Indeed there
exists above them a priest or judge to whom the Lord said to Peter, "Whatsoever you
shall bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven and whatsoever you shall loose on earth
shall also be loosed in heaven." (Matt. 16:19). He is the vicar of the one who is an
eternal priest according to the order of Melchisedech, a judge established by God over the
living and the dead. Thus are three judgments are differentiated: the first between blood
and blood, understood as being between civil matters, and the second is between cause and
cause, which refers to both civil and ecclesiastical matters and the third is between
leper and leper, that is, ecclesiastical matters. In these matters if there is a
difficulty or ambiguity, they are referred to the judgment of the Apostolic See. If
anyone, being prideful, holds this judgment in contempt, he shall be condemned to death
in order to take away the evil from Israel. That is, he shall be separated from the
community of the faithful by a sentence of excommunication, as though he were dead. For
Paul, explaining the fullness of ecclesiastical power (while) writing to the Corinthians,
said, "Do you not know that we shall judge the angels? How much more the things of
this world?" (1 Corinthians 6:3) Accordingly, the Apostolic See is accustomed to
exercise the office of secular power sometimes and in some things by itself, and sometimes
and in some matters, through others.
We therefore allowed the petition of the aforementioned king of the
Franks with those sons, concerning whose legitimacy was doubted from the beginning because
the Mosaic law as much as canon law detests the offshoot of adultery, as in the testament
of the Lord: "A bastard and his offspring up to the tenth generation may not enter
into the Church. Indeed canon law prohibits such persons from entering holy orders, and
also in secular laws, not only are these men prevented from succeeding their fathers, but
they are also kept from spiritual food. And so, we will not give our assent to your
petition, though were it able to be done, both a lesser fault and a freer authority would
be exhibited; we embrace you with arms of particular affection, and will tender to you any
special favor which we may according to God’s will and our honor.
Written in 1202
Translated by Shannon Williamson
The translations of letters may be used in the classroom without asking
my permission
© 1998 K. Pennington
Notes to the text of Venerabilem
1. Officer of the papal court: the Latin word is "denunciator." A
"denunciator" was a Roman official who was responsible for bringing criminal
charges against defendants in the late Empire. It is difficult to know what Innocent had
in mind when he used this technical term taken from Roman law.
2. "cum explorati sit iuris quod electioni plus contemptus unius quam contradictio
multorum obsistat": Innocent discusses the legal rights of "contempti" in 3
Comp. 1.6.13 (X 1.6.28) and his discussion in this decretal on episcopal elections is
repeated here.
3. The election of Lothair of Supplinburg in 1125 was followed in 1127 by the election
of Conrad of Hohenstaufen. Pope Innocent II crowned Lothair in 1133.
4. Matt. 18.15-17. The text "in ore duorum vel trium testium stet omne
verbum" was a fundamental argument for medieval jurists that no one could be
convicted of a crime with only one witness.
5. D.63 c.3
6. C.9 q.1 c.35
7. C.9 q.1 c.37