Ninth Ecumenical Council Lateran I 1123

8/6/2019 Ninth Ecumenical Council Lateran I 1123

1/15

Back to Medieval Source Book| ORB Main Page | Links to Other Medieval Sites |

Medieval Sourcebook:

Ninth Ecumenical Council: Lateran I 1123

The Canons of the First Lateran Council, 1123

[Note: Fr. Schroeder's notes have been retained here. They are often factually well-informedand useful. But Schroeder's perspective -- basically pro-papacy and clericalist-- is not the only

one possible. He fails to bring out the revolutionary nature of the claims of the Gregorian reformpapacy and accepts, without questioning, the basically monastic approach to Catholicism which

promoted a sexually abstinent clergy and rejected lay involvement in Church governance. It

needs to be emphasized that while such a view may be valid, it represents as much an ideologicalposition much more than a historical one.]

[Schroeder Introduction] History. The chief historical significance of the reign of Pope CallixtusII (1111-24) is his settlement of that long and bitter investiture quarrel. The settlement, though

not entirely satisfactory, was at least sufficient to give assurance of a long-desired and muchneeded peace. The agreement between the Pope and Henry V of Germany was concluded at

Worms, September23, 1122, and is known in history as thePactum Callixtinum, ormorecommonly as the Concordat of Worms. It was the first concordat, that is, the first agreement of

its kind made between the papacy and a civil power. It provided for the Emperor's renunciationof the right of spiritual investiture with ring and crosier, and his receiving instead the right of lay

investiture with the scepter, a symbol of temporal authority. It abolished the arbitrary bestowal ofecclesiastical offices and benefices by laymen; provided for the freedom of episcopal and

abbatial elections and consecrations; drew a sharp line between spiritualities and temporalities;secured recognition of the principle that ecclesiastical jurisdiction can come from the Church

only, and tacitly abolished the unwarranted claim of the Emperor to interfere in papal elections.Moreover, the Emperor promised to protect the Roman Church and to restore to the Holy See

whatever possessions had found their way into his hands. On his part the Pope granted theEmperor the right of presence at elections of bishops and abbots when the vacancy occurred

within the limits of the Kingdom of Germany, with the exclusion, however, of simony andconstraint. In contested elections the Emperor, after hearing the advice and verdict of the

provincial bishops, was to give his support and approval to the better side. In Germany the

elected candidate was to receive investiture with the scepter before consecration, in Italy andBurgundy after consecration. Finally, the Pope agreed not to molest those who during thecontroversy had sided with the Emperor. It was a compromise solution of a vexed problem, and

although the Pope made some important concessions, he remained master of the field.

So great was the satisfaction created by this agreement that the year 1122 was hailed in many

contemporary documents as the beginning of a new era. For its more solemn ratification and in


2/15

deference to the wish of the Archbishop of Mainz, the Pope convened (March, 1123) in Romethe First Lateran Council, the first general council to be held in the West.

Owing to the absence of the official acts, it is impossible to state with any degree of definiteness

what was the procedure of the council or even what was the number of sessions held. It was

opened most probably on March 18, 1123 , the third Sunday of Lent; the canons were drawn upon March 27, and the concluding session was held on April 6. The council was attended by overthree hundred bishops and many abbots from all parts of Europe and was presided over by

Callixtus II in person. It solemnly approved and confirmed the agreement that had been arrivedat with Henry V, and then gave consideration to some other matters of importance. The exact

number of disciplinary canons issued by the council is a matter of uncertainty. So far as weknow, no complete list of them has come down to us. What lists we have are not only incomplete

but they also differ in the arrangement of the canons. The order here followed is that given byMansi [[1]]

Note 1. Mansi, XXI, 277 ff.; Hefele-Leclercq,Hist. des conciles, V, 602-44; Hergenrther,

Handbuch d. allg. Kirchengeschichte, II, 5th ed, 400-404; Robert,Histoire du pape Calixte II,Paris, 1891;Dict. de thol. Cath., VIII, 2628-37.

CANON I

Summary. Ordinations and promotions made for pecuniary considerations are devoid of everydignity.

Text. Following the example of the holy fathers and recognize ng the obligation of our office, we

absolutely forbid in virtue of the authority of the Apostolic See that anyone be ordained orpromoted for money in the Church of God. Has anyone thus secured ordination or promotion in

the Church, the rank acquired shall be devoid of every dignity. [[2]]

Note 2. This and the following canon are a textual reproduction of canons 1 and 2 of the

Synod of Toulouse (1119) presided over by Callixtus in person. Denzinger, no. 359.

Comment. The council opened its series of canons with a condemnation of simony. The social

conditions and the ecclesiastic0-political relations existing in Western Europe under the feudalsystem, contributed in no small measure to the growth of two notorious evils that afflicted the

Church during that period, namely, simony and clerical incontinency and of the two the formerwas productive of the greater real detriment to the Church. Efforts of civil and ecclesiastical

authorities during and after the time of Charlemagne availed little to banish the evil from thesanctuary. It grew, and its growth kept pace with the increase of the civil power of the bishops

and the consequent ever increasing influence that the state exercised over the affairs of theChurch. The episcopal office gradually came to be regarded as much a civil office as an

ecclesiastical one. The Church was the holder of great landed possessions. In Germany three ofthe seven electors of the Empire were churchmen. Moreover, within the Empire was a number of

prince-bishops and mitered abbots whose temporal rule was more powerful and more extensivethan that of many secular barons. Nor was Germany an isolated instance. True, Germany was the


3/15

greatest offender, but the same conditions prevailed in France, Spain, England, Scotland, andother countries. The result was the enslavement of the Church by the state. Rulers who endowed

the Church with crown lands in gratitude for her work in bringing order out of chaos in WesternEurope, thought they thereby acquired a right to have something to say in the nomination of

those who were to be set over these lands. They claimed the right of investiture of spiritual

offices. Elections were disputed. Church offices were obtained at the price of money, and noblefamilies sought by dishonest methods, by bribery, intimidation, and other species of corruption toplace their own members in episcopal and abbatial offices and at times even on the papal throne.

Simony reached the highest point of its career in the eleventh century, which may well be termedits classic period. Papal and synodal decrees had indeed been issued against it but with little or

no effect. The gigantic struggle initiated by Leo IX and Gregory VII and continued by theirsuccessors to restore the independence of the Church by freeing her from the demoralizing

clutches of the state, was the beginning of the fall of simony. Enactments against the evil bypopes and synods during the eleventh and, twelfth centuries are very numerous. [[4]]

Note 4. Mention may be made of Clement II in the Roman synod, 1047 (Mansi, XIX, 627); Leo

IX, Rome, 1049 (id., XIX, 721); Reims, I049 (id., XIX, 741); Mainz, 1049 (id., XIX, 749);Nicholas II, Rome, 1059 (id., XIX, 909); Alexander II, Rome, 1063 (id., XIX, 1023); Gregory

VII, Rome, 1073 (id., XX, 173); Rome, 1074 (id., XX, 408); Rome, 1078 (id., XX, 503); Rome,1078 (id., XX, 509); Urban II, Melfi, 1089 (id., XX, 721); Piacenza, 1095 (id., XX, 805);

Clermont, 1095 (id., XX, 916); Rome, 1099 (id., XX, i); Callixtus II, Toulouse, 1119 (id., XXI,225); Reims, 1119 (id., XXI, 235); Second Lateran (1139), canons 1 and 7.; Third Lateran

(1179), canons 7 and 15; Fourth Lateran (1215), canon 63.

CANON 2

Summary. Only a priest may be made provost, archpriest, and dean; only a deacon ay be

archdeacon.

Text.No one except a priest shall be promoted to the dignity of ,provost, archpriest, or d

ean; and no one shall be made archdeacon unless he is a deacon.

Comment. The purpose of this canon was to put an end to the intrusion of laymen and of personswho had not received any major orders into the offices mentioned. The prohibition had already

found frequent expression in earlier synods. Because of their importance, not only from thestandpoint of revenue but also from that of political expediency, the higher ecclesiastical offices

offered an excellent vantage-ground for the realization of secular ambitions. Members of royal

and noble families who had not received any sacred orders intruded themselves. Many of themen promoted by Charles Martel to the principal offices of the Church were laymen, who wereeither totally unworthy or else had naught but their military qualifications to recommend them;

some of them refused afterwards to receive sacred orders.

CANON 3


4/15

Summary. Priests, deacons, and subdeacons are forbidden to live with women other than suchas were permitted by the Nicene Council.

Text. We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, and subdeacons to associate with concubines and

women, or to live with women other than such as the Nicene Council (canon 3) for reasons of

necessity permitted, namely, the mother, sister, or aunt, or any such person concerning whom nosuspicion could arise.[[5]]

Note 5. In content this canon is closely related to that which in conciliar collections is given ascanon 21 of this series. Denzinger, no 360.

CANON 4

Summary. Lay persons, no matter how pious they may be, have no authority to dispose ofanytfiing that belongs to the Church.

Text. In accordance with the decision of Pope Stephen [[6]], we declare that lay persons, nomatter how devout they may be, have no authority to dispose of anything belonging to theChurch, but according to the Apostolic canon (39) the supervision of all ecclesiastical affairs

belongs to the bishop, who shall administer them conformably to the will of God. If thereforeany prince or other layman shall arrogate to himself the right of disposition, control, or

ownership of ecclesiastical goods or properties, let him be judged guilt y of sacrilege.

Note 6. A pseudo-Isidorian ordinance. Mansi, I, 892 c. 10. Denzinger, no- 36i.

Comment. This canon was directed against lay investiture of ecclesiastical dignities. Like canon

10 of this series, it was one of the chief provisions of the Concordat of Worms, and contributed

perhaps more than any other to the termination of the struggle between the papacy and the

Empire. It asserts without compromise the principle that ecclesiastical jurisdiction can emanate

only from the Church. As the power of conferring sacred orders, so also does that of conferringbenefices belong exclusively to the bishops. Among the Germanic tribes the national laws gave

to the builder of a church, to the feudal lord or to the administrator, full right over the churchbuilt or founded by him. As it was his ecclesia propria, he exercised full authority over the

ecclesiastics, whom, with the consent of the bishop in each case, he appointed and also dismissedat pleasure. In the course of the investiture conflict private right over churches was abolished, the

jus patronatus, however, remained and the builder or feudal lord was granted thejuspraesentandi whenever a vacancy occurred in the church. In the case of major benefices, that is,

those of episcopal or supra-episcopal rank, ecclesiastical rights were safeguarded by a distinctionbetween the spiritual and secular elements in the filling of such vacancies. The collation of the

ecclesiastical offices was clearly distinguished from that of the temporalities. The bestowal of theformer pertained obviously to the authority of the Church, that of the latter was conceded to the

secular authority. Any encroachment on these ecclesisastical rights the council characterizes as asacrilegious act. This canon was renewed by the Second and Third Lateran Councils in canons

25 and 14 respectively.


5/15

CANON 5

Summary. Marriages between blood-relatives are forbidden.

Text. We forbid marriages between blood-relatives because they are forbidden by the divine and

secular laws. Those who contract such alliances, as also their offspring, the divine laws not onlyostracize but declare accursed, while the civil laws brand them as infamous and deprive them ofhereditary rights. We, therefore, following the example of our fathers, declare and stigmatize

them as infamous.

Comment. The evil here condemned attained its widest extent during the eleventh and twelfthcenturies. In the synods of Rome and Reims, both held in 1049, Leo IX made a determined effort

to check it, but his measures went unheeded. Similar action was taken by subsequent popes,Especially by Alexander II. In respect to the degrees within which marriage among blood-

relatives was forbidden, the council adheres to the prevailing discipline, which prohibitedmarriage in the direct line ascending and descending in infinitum and in the collateral line to the

seventh degree of consanguinity inclusive. Whether the impediment was at that time universallyregarded as diriment is a matter of dispute. It seems certain, however, that in most countries the

last three degrees were looked upon as impedient and not as diriment. The present canon wasrenewed by the Second Lateran Council in canon 17, but even after that the binding force of the

last two degrees was a matter of doubt. The Fourth Lateran Council in canon 50 limited theprohibition to the fourth degree of the collateral line. This discipline remained unchanged till the

most recent matrimonial legislation, which retains the earlier law governing the impediment ofconsanguinity in the direct line but restricts it to the third degree of the collateral line.

CANON 6

Summary. Ordinations by Burdinus and the bishops consecrated by him are invalid.

Text. The ordinations made by the heresiarch Burdinus after his condemnation by the RomanChurch, as also those made by the bishops consecrated by him after that point of time, we

declare to be invalid.

Comment. Mauritius Burdinus, once the archbishop of Braga, was the antipope set up by HenryV to succeed Paschal II ( 1099- 1118). He took the name of Gregory VIII. At the time of his

appointment to the papal throne he was under excommunication, incurred a few monthspreviously when he crowned the Emperor, whose cause he had espoused. The ordinations made

by him after this excommunication and by the bishops consecrated by him since then, the council

declared to be null and void. [[7]]

Note 7. . I Nicaea, note 106.

CANON 7

Summary. No one is permitted to arrogate to himself the episcopal authority in matterspertaining to the cura animarum and the bestowal of benefices.


6/15

Text.No archdeacon, archpriest, provost, or dean shall bestow on another the care of souls or theprebends of a church without the decision or consent of the bishop; indeed, as the sacred canons

point out, the care of souls and the disposition of ecclesiastical property are vested in theauthority of the bishop. If anyone shall dare act contrary to this and arrogate to himself the power

belonging to the bishop, let him be expelled from the Church.

Comment. During the first three centuries of the Christian era there were no parish priests as weunderstand the term today. There was only one church in each diocese or district, namely, the

episcopal church or cathedral, situated in the residential city of the bishop. This was the center towhich people living in the city and its suburbs came on Sundays and festivals to attend divine

services and from which the bishop exercised the cura animarum throughout the district. Thegradual expansion of Christianity with the resultant growth in Church membership necessitated

the erection of churches in rural districts. In these rural churches, which were under the directadministration of the bishop, divine services were conducted by priests residing at the cathedral.

Further growth in membership brought about the organization during the fourth century ruralchurches or parishes with a distinct administration of their own . [[8]] A similar situation and

development we find in the West, though here, for obvious reasons, the change came lessrapidly. The erection of rural churches kept pace with the spread of Christianity in the rural

districts, in the temporal and spiritual administration of which the bishop was assisted by hisarchdeacon. The rapid Christianization of the people of Western Europe, however, rendered it

impossible for the clergy of the episcopal church satisfactorily to supply the spiritual needs of apopulation scattered throughout the rural districts. To meet this exigency the larger rural centers

were provided with their own churches, their own resources, and a permanent clergy. These werethe baptismal or mother churches, at which all the people of the parish were obliged to attend the

principal mass on Sunday and to which they paid their tithes. All baptisms and burials took placehere. Through the devotion of the faithful numerous chapels, oratoria, and martyria were erected

within the parish, on Church lands and on monastery lands, and also on the estates kings andnobles. All these chapels (tituli minores) which from the eighth century on multiplied rapidly and

in which only instructions, the usual devotions and daily mass were permitted, had their ownclergy but were dependent on and subject to the mother-church. At the head of the clergy

attached to these mother-churches was the archpriest. He was the head also of all the clergywithin his parish, that is, those attached to the various chapels, and was responsible for the

proper discharge of their ministerial duties. His parish was called an archipresbyterate and hewas subject in certain matters to the archdeacon, whose scope of authority covered a variety of

activities; in fact, when necessity required, he was the bishop's representative in the exercise ofthe many duties of the episcopal office. During the Carolingian period many of these chapels

became independent parishes. Then, the division of large dioceses into several archidiaconaldistricts for the purpose of facilitating supervision necessitated the appointment in such dioceses

of a corresponding number pf archdeacons. Several of such large rural parishes, that is,archipresbytes, constituted an archidiaconate at the head of which was an archideacon. The

archdeacon of the cathedral, who was usually the provost orpraepositus of the chapter,supervised the urban clergy, while the rural archdeacons, who were provosts of the principal

churches in towns, had the supervision of the rural deans or archpriests. The authority of thearchdeacons, both urban and rural, attained its height during the eleventh and twelfth centuries

when they exercised within their territorial limits a quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. The power andinfluence of the deans or archpriests also kept pace with the march of time and events. The


7/15

importance of these offices from an ecclesiastical but particularly from a secular viewpointbrought them under the influences of intrigue. Archdeacons and archpriests often overstepped

the limits of their authority by usurping that of the bishop. This is the abuse which the canoncondemned.[[9]]

Note 8. Cf. Council of Chalcedon, canons 6 and 7. The Synod of Neocaesarea (315) speaks incanons 13 and 14 of rural priests and bishops, the chorepiscopi.

Note 9. Zorell, "Die Entwickelung d. Parochialsystems," in Archiv f. kath. Kirchenrecht, 1902-03; Imbart de la Tour,Les paroisses rurales du IVe au VIO sicles, Paris,1900; Thomassin,

Vetus et nova ecclesiae discipline, I, 221-30, 274-87; Schrder,Die Entwickelung d.Archidiakonats bis zum ii.jahrh., Mnchen, 1890; Stutz, Gesch. d. kirchl. Benefizialwesens v.

Anfang bisAlexander III, Berlin, 1896; Sagmller,Die Entwickelung d. Archipresbyterats u.Dekanats bis zum Ende d. Karolingerreiches, Tbingen, 1898.

CANON 8

Summary. Military persons are forbidden under penalty of anathema to invade or forcibly holdthe city of Benevento.

Text. Desiring with the grace of God to protect the recognized possessions of the Holy Roman

Church, we forbid under pain of anathema any military person to invade or forcibly holdBenevento, the city of St. Peter. If anyone act contrary to this, let him be anathematized.

Comment. Benevento was the ancient seat of the Lombard rulers. Through Charlemagne it

became part of the territory of the Church, with the provision, however, that he retain itsgovernment. In 891 it was taken by the Greek Emperor, but was restored to the Church in 962

through the assistance of Otto 1. In subsequent years it was threatened by the Saracens andGreeks and in 1047 fell into the hands of the Normans. Henry III in 1053 drove out the Norman

conquerors and turned the city together with the surrounding territory over to Leo IX in paymentof the annual tax rendered to the Holy See by the diocese of Bamberg, which Henry had

previously donated to the Roman Church. Shortly afterward, Benevento was retaken by theNormans. Leo IX placed himself at the head of a powerful army, but after a severe struggle the

papal forces were defeated and Leo himself taken prisoner (1053). Regardless of their triumph,the Norman leaders now swore fealty to the sovereign pontiff and became loyal champions of the

Holy See. Thenceforth Benevento belonged to the territory of the Church. In formulating thiscanon Callixtus no doubt had in mind chiefly the terrible and wily Normans.

CANON 9

Summary. Those excommunicated by one bishop, may not be restored by others.

Text. We absolutely forbid that those who have been excommunicated by their own bishops bereceived into the communion of the Church by other bishops, abbots, and clerics.


8/15

Comment. This prohibition is an ancient one, going back in all likelihood to Apostolic times. Itwas restated by the First General Council in canon 5 and frequently renewed in subsequent

councils. In a period when confusion and violence were the order of the day and when thepenalty of excommunication was resorted to without moderation, it was but natural that

eventually there should have developed a contempt for it in certain circles.

CANON 10

Summary.A bishop consecrated after an uncanonical election shall be deposed.

Text.No one shall be consecrated bishop who has not been canonically elected. If anyone daredo this, both the consecrator and the one consecrated shall be deposed without hope of

reinstatement.

Comment. With bishops possessing an extensive civil jurisdiction over I :the clergy and laity of

their respective dioceses, their office acquired a political importance that could not but prove

detrimental to the Church. The greater the political importance of the higher ecclesiasticaloffices, the more the secular rulers strove to obtain control over them. One of the gravest evilsresulting from this was the constant interference of lay authorities in episcopal elections. While

in most countries such elections had become a mere formality, they were replaced in Germanyby royal nomination, with the result that only such men were chosen or appointed to vacant sees

as were willing to serve the interests of the emperor. In this canon, therefore, the council ordersthe observance of the ecclesiastical laws governing episcopal elections and threatens with

perpetual deposition both the consecrator and the one consecrated in the event of violation.

CANON 11

Summary. To those who give aid to the Christians in the Orient is granted the remission of sins,and their families and possessions are taken under the protection of the Roman Church.

Text. For effectively crushing the tyranny of the infidels, we grant to those who go to Jerusalem

and also to those who give aid toward the defense of the Christians, the remission of their sinsand we take under the protection of St. Peter and the Roman Church their homes, their families,

and all their belongings, as was already ordained by Pope Urban (II). Whoever, therefore, shalldare molest or seize these during the absence of their owners, shall incur excommunication.

Those, however, who with a view of going to Jerusalem or to Spain (that is, against the Moors)are known to have attached the cross to their garments and afterward removed it, we command in

virtue of our Apostolic authority to replace it and begin the journey within a year from the

coming Easter. Otherwise we shall excommunicate them and interdict within their territory alldivine service except the baptism of infants and the administration of the last rites to the dying.

Comment. The purpose of this canon was to promote the cause of the crusades against the

Saracens in the Orient and against the Moors in Spain. The "remissions of sins" spoken of refersto the plenary indulgence granted to all who should either undertake the journey or in other ways

contribute toward the furtherance of the cause, and is not to be understood as the actualremission by the pope of sins not yet remitted by the sacrament of penance. The property of


9/15

those taking part in the crusade was to be regarded as sacred. Many who in the first fervor ofenthusiasm had taken the cross and pledged themselves to undertake the journey, later

manifested indifference in its execution. These the Pope commanded to begin the journey withina year from the coming Easter. The interdict, threatened in case of failure to heed the command,

applied to princes and all others who owned vast landed estates.

[Added note (Halsall): The theology to make the distinction between and "indulgence" and a"forgiveness" of sins did not exist when this canon was promulgated. Fr. Schroeder here imposes

later Catholic theology on a the canons.]

CANON 12

Summary. The property of theporticani dying without heirs is not to be disposed of in a mannercontrary to the wish of the one deceased.

Text. With the advice of our brethren and of the entire Curia, as well as with the will and consent

of the prefect, we decree the abolition of that evil custom which has hitherto prevailed among theporticani, namely, of disposing, contrary to the wish of the one deceased, of the property ofporticani dying without heirs; with this understanding, however, that in future theporticani

remain faithful to the Roman Church, to us and to our successors.

Comment. The porticani, it seems, were those people who dwelled in t he Vatican territory, ormore properly, in the neighborhood of the portico of St. Peter's. They were chiefly travelers and

merchants; theirscholae or quarters were located principally on the left side of the Basilica. Inmaking obedience to the Roman Church, to himself and to his successors, a condition of the

abolition of that custom, Callistus had in mind the division among theporticani consequent uponthe schism created by the Emperor in setting up Burdinus as antipope.

CANON 13

Summary. If anyone violates the truce of God and after the third admonition does not make

satisfaction, he shall be anathematized.

Text. If anyone shall violate the truce of God he shall be admonished three times by the bishop to

make satisfaction. If he disregards the third admonition the bishop, either with the advice of themetropolitan or with that of two or one of the neighboring bishops, shall pronounce the sentence

of anathema against the violator and in writing denounce him to all the bishops.

Comment. The "truce of God" (treuga Dei) was a temporary suspension of hostilities, institutedto replace the "peace of God" (pax Dei) when the latter, which implied a perpetual suspension,

had proved ineffective. With the dissolution of the Carolingian Empire, anarchy of the worst typeset in, in consequence of which the two following centuries may well be called the nadir of order

and civilization. It was a period of murder and rapine, of license and tyranny, and above all thereraged an epidemic of private wars. What the conditions were even as late as the end of the

eleventh century we learn from the address of Urban II to the multitude that had assembled forthe Synod of Clermont (1095).


10/15

The truce of God had its origin in the second quarter of the eleventh century and was the meansemployed by the Church to do what the lay authorities had been powerless to do, namely, to

restore and enforce respect for public peace. In its earliest form, it seems, it was a decision thatno one should attack his enemy from nine o'clock Saturday night to one O'clock Monday

morning, for the reason ut omnis homo person debitum honorem diei dominico. Subsequently

this prohibition was extended, in some localities to certain days of the week, for instance,Thursday, Friday , and Saturday, in memory of the ascension, passion, and resurrection, to whichmysteries these three days were consecrated; in other places, to the Ember days and certain feast

days, as the Exaltation of the Cross, All Saints, etc. Later the seasons of Advent and Lent wereincluded in the truce. Uniformity as to the time and duration of the truce was brought about by

the Synod of Clermont in its decision that the truce shall be observed "ab Adventu Domini usquead octavam Epiphaniae et a Septuagesima usque as octavam Pentecostes, praeterea, ab occasu

solis in quarta feria usque ad ortum solis in secunda feria."This canon became the general rule.It was renewed by the Second and Third Lateran Councils in canons 12 and 21 respectively. The

penalty for violation was excommunication. It is with the penalty that the present canon concernsitself. [[10]]

Note 10. Huberti, Gottesfrieden und Landfrieden, Ansbach, 1892; Hefele-Leclercq, V,

passim.

CANON 14

Summary. Laymen are absolutely forbidden to remove offerings from the altars of Romanchurches.

Text. Following the canons of the holy fathers, we absolutely and under penalty of anathema

forbid laymen to remove the offerings from the altars of the churches of St. Peter, of The Savior(Lateran Basilica), of St. Mary Rotund, in a word, from the altars of any of the churches or from

the crosses. By our Apostolic authority we forbid also the fortifying of churches and theirconversion to profane uses.

CANON 15

Summary. Counterfeiters of money shall be excommunicated.

Text. Whoever manufactures or knowingly expends counterfeit money, shall be cut off from thecommunion of the faithful (excommunicated) as one accursed, as an oppressor of the poor and a

disturber of the city.

CANON 16

Summary. Robbers of pilgrims and of merchants shall be excommunicated.


11/15

Text. If anyone shall dare attack pilgrims going to Rome to visit the shrines of the Apostles andthe oratories of other saints and rob them of the things they have with them, or exact from

merchants new imposts and tolls, let him be excommunicated till he has made satisfaction.

Comment. An excellent description of prevailing conditions, conditions that were by no means

peculiar to his pontificate, is given by Gregory VII in a letter written in 1074 to the bishops ofFrance. He says: Omnes malitia quasi quodam pestilentiae morbo repleti, horrenda et multumexecranda facinora multoties nemine impellente committunt; nihil humani nihilque divini

attendunt; perjuria sacrilega, incestum perpetrate, sese invicem tradere, pro nihilo ducunt et,quod nusquam terrarum est, cives, propinqui fratres, etiam alii alios propter cupiditatem

capiunt, et omnia bona eorum ab illis extorqentes, vitam in extrema miseria finire faciunt. withregard to the matter with which the canon deals, he says in the same letter: Peregrinos ad

Apostolorum limina euntes et redeuntes, uti cuique opportunum fit, capientes in carcerestrudunt, et acrioribus quam paganus aliquis, tormentis afficientes, saepe ab illis plusquam

habeant pro redemtione exigunt"'[[11]]

Note 11.Lib. II, epist. V ad episcopos Francorum, Mansi, XX, 129 ff. The writings of GregroyVII are to be found under the title, Gregorii VII registri sive epistolarum libri, in Mansi, XX, 60-

391.

CANON 17

Summary. Abbots and monks may not have the cura animarum.

Text. We forbid abbots and monks to impose public penances, to visit the sick, to administer

extreme unction, and to sing public masses. The chrism, holy oil, consecration of altars, andordination of clerics they shall obtain from the bishops in whose dioceses they reside.

Comment. In the earliest ages of the Church, abbots and monks were laymen. For divine service

and the reception of the sacraments they proceeded in a body to the nearest church. When laterby reason of their large number this became impractical, they built their own monastic churches,

and the abbot or some other member of the community was invested with priestly orders to serveits spiritual needs. From the fourth century onward the number of monks raised to the priesthood

and exercising spiritual functions gradually increased. This course, however, was not to gounchallenged, and as late as 1096 the Synod of Nimes in canon 2 condemned the statement that

monks may not become priests, adding that Pope Gregory the Great, Martin of Tours, Augustineof Canterbury, and others had been monks [[12]]. In the following canon the synod [of Nimes]

went so far as to declare that priests who are monks are better qualified to perform spiritual

functions than are the secular priests. The rapid expansion of the Chrisin religion and theconsequent demand for priests naturally invited them to the field of parochial activity. Thediscipline governing the care of souls and the administration of parishes by monks had not

always been uniform, owing to the different views taken by different bishops and popes. Synodsbefore and after the tenth century permitted and prohibited monks to have the care of souls

outside of those within the monastery. The reason for the prohibition is to be found in the everincreasing encroachment of the monks on parochial ministrations, and much more so in their


12/15

frequent and flagrant invasion of episcopal rights and privileges. That causes of this nature wereat the bottom of the present canon, can scarcely be doubted. [[13]]

Regarding ordinations, the Second Council of Nicaea in canon 14 permitted abbots, provided

they were priests and had received the solemn rite of benediction, to confer tonsure and advance

their monks to the lectorate. This privilege was gradually extended until it embraced all theminor orders. Other orders, as our canon rules, must be conferred by the bishop in whose diocesethe monastery is located. [[14]]

Note 12. Mansi, XX, 931-

Note 13. Cf. Hefele-Leclercq, V, 643 f

Note 14. Thomassin, op. cit., I, lib. III, cap. 13 f.

CANON 18

Summary. The appointment of priests to churches belongs to the bishops, and without theirconsent they may not receive tithes and churches from laymen.

Text. Priests shall be appointed to parochial churches by the bishops, to whom they shall beresponsible f or the care of souls and other matters pertaining to them. They are not permitted to

receive tithes and churches from laics without the will and consent of the bishops. If they actotherwise, let them be subject to the canonical penalties.

Comment. The first part of this canon was directed against the abuse by which patrons usurped

the authority of the bishops in the appointment of priests to those churches over which they

exercised the right of patronage, particularly thejus praesentandi. The evil was an old one andhad been frequently outlawed by popes and synods. In canon 8 of the Synod of Nimes (1096)Urban 11 decreed: Clericus vel monachus qui ecclesiasticum de manu laici susceperit

beneficium, quia non intravit per ostium sed ascendit aliunde, sicut fur et latro ab eodemseparetur officio [[15]]

The second part forbids priests to accept tithes and churches from laymen without the approval

of their respective bishops. The tithes here referred to are those ecclesiastical taxes which in thecourse of time had become alienated from the churches by lay proprietors. This alienation came

about in various ways. The secularization inaugurated during the Merovingian period, especiallyby Charles Martel, brought about the transfer of much ecclesiastical property and its tithes or the

tithes alone to laymen. It was Charles' way of compensating his partisans. In subsequent times,under pressure of circumstances, even bishops and abbots resorted to such alienation to secure

vassals and protectors against violence and the only churches but also invasion of their civilrights. Then again, not only churches but also ecclesiastical property with its tithes or the tithes

alone were taken forcibly by laymen. Finally, when churches, which had once been the property

of private individuals, became parish churches subject to the bishops, ,the former owner

frequently appropriated the tithes belonging to that church. In his autumn synod of 1078 (canon


13/15

6) Gregory VII demanded from the laity the return to the Church of all tithes, no matter how orfrom whom they had received them, and declared guilty of sacrilege all who refused obedience

to his decree. This demand was renewed by subsequent popes and synods, but to expect thereturn to the Church of tithes that had for centuries been in the possession of laymen, was

expecting too much. They preferred to give them to monasteries or to their friends among the

secular clergy. The churches that had been usurped by laymen were often bought by monks, orthey were handed over by the usurper to the secular clergy. It was this acceptance of tithes andchurches from laymen by monks and secular clergy without the approval of the bishops, that the

present canon prohibited.[[16]]

Note 15. Mansi, XX, 936; Hefele-Leclercq, V, 449. Cf. canon 15 of the Synod of Clermont

(1095), Mansi, XX, 817

Note 16. Thomassin, op. cit., III, lib. 1, cap. i-ii; Stutz, Gescb. d. Beneficialwesens bis Alexander

III; Perels,Die kirchl Zehnten im karoling. Reiche, Berlin, 1904; Stutz, "Das karoling.

Zehngebot," inZeitschr. d. Savigny-Stiftung f. Recbtsgesch. XXIX (1909), 191-240; Viard,Hist.de la dme eccl. principalement en France jusqu' au dicret de Gratien, Dijon, 1909.

CANON 19

Summary. Taxes paid to bishops by monks since Gregory VII must be continued. Monks may notby prescription acquire the possessions of churches and of bishops.

Text. The tax (servitium) which monasteries and their churches have rendered to the bishops

since the time of Gregory VII, shall be continued. We absolutely forbid abbots and monks toacquire by prescription after thirty years the possessions of churches and of shops.

Comment. Originally all monasteries within a diocese were under the authority of the bishop.The Council of Chalcedon in canon 4 expressed this in the form of a law, and Justinian decreed

that all complaints against clerics and monks should be laid before the bishop, "because they are

subject to him." [[17]]. The Synod of Orleans (511i) in canon 21 ruled that monks are under theauthority of the abbot, but the abbot under that of the bishop. [[18]] In consequence, however, of

episcopal oppression which frequently assumed the worst form of tyranny and rapine,monasteries were by degrees taken under the protection of the popes. At a later period this papal

protection often developed into exemption from episcopal authority, at least so far as thetemporalities were concerned. Beginning with the eleventh century, exemptions multiplied

rapidly. Not only individual monasteries but entire orders obtained exemption in all things fromthe authority of the bishop. Since Urban II papal protection practically meant exemption from

episcopal authority. But such exemption did not release monasteries and their churches from theobligation of paying to the local ordinary an annual pension (servitium). To put a stop to the

oppressive exactions of the bishops, Gregory VII in 1078 not only condemned such excesses butalso established a limit beyond which bishops were forbidden to extend their demands. It is this

rule of Gregory that the council here confirms.


14/15

Note 17.Novella 123, C. 21.

Note 18. C. 16, C. XVIII, q. 2.

CANON 20

Summary. Churches and their possessions, as well as the person ans things connected with them,shall remain safe and unmolested.

Text. Having in mind the example of our fathers and discharging the duty of our pastoral office,we decree that churches and their possessions, as well as the persons connected with them,

namely, clerics and monks and their servants (conversi), also the laborers and the things they use,shall remain safe and unmolested. If anyone shall dare act contrary to this and, recognizing his

crime, does not within the space of thirty days make proper amends, let him be cut off from theChurch and anathematized.

CANON 21

Summary. Clerics in major orders may not marry, and marriages already contracted must be

dissolved.

Text. We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or tocontract marriage. We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that

marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved, and that the persons becondemned to do penance.

Comment. This canon, together with the preceding and following canons, does not appear to

have originated in the First Lateran Council. This seems to be true especially of the present one;for the matter dealt with in it had already been considered in canon 3, and it is hardly probablethat the council dealt with the same subject in two distinct decrees. It is very probable that these

three canons originated in a provincial council under Urban II and were later wrongly ascribed tothis Council of the Lateran.

Although at the time of our council clerical celibacy had long been an established rule for

ecclesiastics in major orders, the extent of its observance was reduced practically to a minimumduring the period of war and moral disorder that followed the dissolution of the Carolingian

Empire. In the maelstrom of corruption and lawlessness that prevailed, clerical morality reachedits lowest ebb, and all sense of vocation had apparantly disappeared. During this dark period, this

"Iron Age," there was no dearth of synodal enactments directed against the evil. But when all toofrequently the government of monasteries was usurped by rude and ignorant laymen, and when

into bishoprics were intruded creatures whose only gods were Greed and-Lust, synodal decreesmeant nothing. The reforms initiated by Gregory VII with so much determination and vigorously

continued by his successors, struck at the root of the evil and finally brought it undercontrol.[[19]]


15/15

Note 19. The earliest conciliar enactment on the subject of clerical celibacy is canon 33 of theSpanish Synod of Elvira (305), which imposed it on the three higher orders, bishops, priests, and

deacons. If they continued to live with their wives and bring forth-children after their ordination,they were to be deposed. An attempt to impose celibacy on the clergy was made at the first

general council, but it seems the argument of Paphnutius againts it prevailed. The council then

contented itself with the prohibition expressed in canon 3. Justinian permitted no one to beconsecrated bishop who had children. The Synod of Melfi (1089) in canon 12 ruled that asubdeacon who refused to separate himself from his wife, was to be deprived of his office and

benefice. If, on being warned by the bishop he did not put her away, the overlord was permittedto take here as a slave. Leclerq, "La lgislation conciliaire relative au clibat ecclsiastique," in

Histoire des conciles, II, 1321-48, where an abundant literature on the subject is given.

CANON 22

Summary. The alienation of possessions of the exarchate of Ravenna is condemned, and theOrdinaries made by the intruders are invalid.

Text. The alienation that has been made especially by Otto, Guido, Jerome, and perhaps by Philip

of possessions of the exarchate of Ravenna, we condemn. In a general way we declare invalid thealienations in whatever manner made by bishops and abbots whether intruded or canonically

elected, and also the ordinations conferred by them whether with the consent of the clergy of theChurch or simoniacally. We also absolutely forbid any cleric in any way to alienate his prebend

or any ecclesiastical benefice. If he has presumed to do this in the past or shall presume to do soin the future, his action shall be null and he shall be subject to the canonical penalties .[[20]]

Note 20. These were the four schismatical successors of the antipope Guibert in thearchiepiscopal see of Ravenna. Guibert was intruded into the Roman see by Henry IV.

From H. J. Schroeder,Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: Text, Translation and Commentary, (St.

Louis: B. Herder, 1937). pp. 177-94.

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.

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, November 1996

[email protected]

Documents

Ninth Ecumenical Council Lateran I 1123