In causa duorum

batur. — Decree of the Pontiff by which it is defined that the Church of Compostela shall enjoy metropolitan right in the two aforesaid bishoprics: — With the customary clauses.
Innocent, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to Peter, archbishop of Compostela.

1 In the matter of two bishoprics, namely Lisbon and Évora, which was being contested between you and our venerable brother the Archbishop of Braga; the full examination of which was reserved to the Apostolic See alone, and our predecessor Urban, of happy memory, committed it to the vice-dominus of Brescia and Master I. of Bergamo, sent into Spain: we learned that you presented before the same vice-dominus, the other already deceased after citation as your colleague, against the said archbishop at the outset, that the Archbishop of Braga, after receiving the letters of citation, after an appeal and inhibition interposed by you, lest he attempt anything in the aforesaid bishoprics to your prejudice, consecrated the elected of that time. Whence you complained that you were gravely offended: yet it was nevertheless proposed by you against him, that before the barbarian invasion the cities of Lisbon and Évora belonged to the metropolitan see of Mérida; but that afterwards, when it was captured, they too were captured with it, until its dignity with all its right was transferred to the Church of Compostela. The said cities were also, the Lord bringing it about, restored to Christian worship: concerning which, up to the times of our aforesaid predecessor, it was never called into question that they belonged to the Church of Compostela: although the King of Portugal, at the suggestion of the Church of Braga, repeatedly molested the right of the Church of Compostela: for the prohibition of which the second elected of Évora delayed his consecration to such a degree that he died without consecration: whose successor, and the third elected of Lisbon, while the aforesaid king lived, were not consecrated by anyone. But his successor, the son, overcame this violence: compelling the Archbishop of Braga, who was willing to be compelled, so that he would consecrate the aforesaid elected, which the father never did. Against which an appeal had previously been made on your part to the Apostolic See: from which you had obtained the commission of which we have spoken above: proposing before the said vice-dominus of Brescia that you possessed the two bishoprics, and had possessed them, and that they belonged to your Church: nevertheless requesting that the Archbishop of Braga make satisfaction to you for the injuries inflicted, and be restrained henceforth, lest he impede you from freely using metropolitan jurisdiction in the aforesaid bishoprics, which undoubtedly belong to your Church by the privileges of the Apostolic See; and you strove to show, as you had done in the matter of four bishoprics, through councils, divisions, and histories, and public report: the other party responding that the Church of Braga possessed those two bishoprics, and had possessed them from that time, by which, through the grace of God and the virtue of the King of Portugal, the two aforesaid cities had been liberated from the hand of pagans, and reduced to the worship of the Christian faith through the preaching of the Archbishop of Braga: and by his right thus used, the Archbishop of Braga asserted he had done you no injury in some measure. From these things therefore concerning the articles of injuries, possession, and property, you asserted your intention to be founded, and the other party to have responded to each article. To the injuries indeed and possession expressly, but to property latently; since according to canonical sanctions, when they neglect to gain for their cathedral places pertaining to it in the Catholic unity, if after the canonical time they do not effect it when admonished for their negligence, they come to him who shall be able to gain them by his preaching. The Archbishop of Braga responded that, since in the aforesaid judgment satisfaction for injuries alone had been sought, and that the Archbishop of Braga be restrained lest he impede you from using metropolitan jurisdiction in those two bishoprics, as is clearly gathered from the form of the libel: truly you could not now seek either property or possession from him in the present judgment, especially since you declared yourself to be in possession; whence you were not able to seek from him property or possession, which are sought only from those possessing: adding that, even if anything pertaining to property or possession had been alleged on his part before us, since he had protested his right, it ought not to redound to his detriment. The interdict uti possidetis, which seemed to have a place in this case, he proposed did not pertain to you, since, as he said, you had not proved yourself to be in possession, nor could anyone other than a possessor act by that interdict, in which he ought to obtain by sentence who possesses neither by force, nor secretly, nor by sufferance from another. You indeed strove to show the possession of your Church in manifold ways, both through confessions of the adverse party, and through recognitions and professions of the elected and bishops, and their obedience likewise, and also through executions of Roman Pontiffs, which individual matters you asserted to be proved both by instruments and by witnesses. For when the Archbishop of Braga, the immediate predecessor of this one, was interrogated in law, whether he believed any of his predecessors had ever possessed these bishoprics, he answered: some say so, some do not, and therefore I do not know whom to believe: and he added afterwards: nor am I certain of it, nor uncertain; which words seemed to lead him to believe that none of his predecessors had possessed them. The first...

2 BULLARIUM ROMANUM Year C. 1199 then after the liberation of the Lisbon bishopric, a bishop named G., as well as Alvarus his successor, made profession in writing, and also rendered reverence and obedience as to their metropolitan to the archbishop of Compostela. A third also who remains, while still elect, recognized the same with his whole Church, coming to receive confirmation of his election and the office of consecration from the aforementioned archbishop, except that he was recalled to his own lands from almost the middle of the journey by prohibition of his king: as you asserted to be proven by many witnesses. The executions also of the Roman Pontiffs, namely of Alexander, Lucius and Celestine, who wished to declare the possession which you believed yourself to hold, albeit with disturbance, demonstrate that they took care to lead you into the full use of jurisdiction, granting you free faculty of suspending, excommunicating, and annulling elections, and also commanding that sentences pronounced by you be inviolably observed, as is contained in their letters. For freely obtaining the execution of jurisdiction in the Elvas bishopric, the archbishop of Braga was punished in the bishoprics of Galicia assigned to you by the Apostolic See, as you said was contained in the letters of Pope Alexander of blessed memory. From the letters also of the bishop of Lisbon, which you showed sealed, you strove to show that the bishop of Elvas had begun to observe the sentence pronounced by you against him. But the archbishop of Braga responded that the aforesaid professions were not approved by witnesses, raising against the witnesses themselves an impossibility of reason regarding time; asserting also that through professions made in this manner without the knowledge of the archbishop of Braga, his Church of Braga could not be deprived of its possession: since indeed some of them are proven to have been made when the bishop of Lisbon was in exile, his possession being much more fully and effectively demonstrated: since all bishops from the liberation of those cities in those two bishoprics were consecrated by the archbishop of Braga, who rendered to him reverence and obedience as to their metropolitan, coming to councils of Braga as his own suffragans and presenting their complaints before the same archbishop, as he asserted by many witnesses, and by certain instruments of your part sufficiently proven. But the letters of Pope Celestine of blessed memory, the predecessor of us, on the same matter obtained by you against the Church of Braga, he said could in no way prejudice him; since they were obtained while the case was pending, when it is not permitted even to petition. You moreover, beyond the foregoing, alleged more strongly that when G. archbishop of Braga and M. your canon and clerk were once constituted together in the presence of Pope Alexander of blessed memory, our predecessor, with the same M. your clerk firmly asserting that the archbishop of Braga had occupied several of your suffragans, and especially the bishops of Lisbon and Elvas; the said archbishop responding to the contrary asserted that he held the aforesaid bishops in no way, nor exacted from them any obedience or reverence, nor in any manner impeded them from obeying you and your Church and rendering subjection. He added also that when the noble duke of Portugal began the city of Elvas, lest it return to paganism, at his instance his predecessor N. consecrated a bishop there. But nevertheless he required from him no obedience or reverence, rather, he commanded that he obey the Church of Compostela, who has not yet come to your Church on account of poverty and because he is too remote. Concerning the other bishoprics which the same M. your clerk said belonged to your Church, he said that they pertain to his Church and ought to be subject to him by metropolitan right, and on this he produced many privileges of the Roman Pontiffs. And when our predecessor had more urgently required of the same your nuncio whether your Church had any privileges on this matter, and he asserted that he knew nothing of it at all, he decreed that the bishops whom Braga did not recognize should belong to you: asserting that they pertain to his Church, and let them render obedience and reverence to him and his Church until this matter be decided by judgment: and let him permit the aforesaid two bishops to obey you and your Church freely. Although the archbishop of Braga alleged against the aforesaid letters that that confession could not prejudice him, since it was not made in law; because the aforesaid M. was not a proctor or respondent, but only a canon and clerk in those letters called; yet because the said archbishop of Braga often obtained those letters and used them for himself in judgment, and acquired great advantage from them, and you ratify and approve what was done through the same M. your canon and clerk on this matter: Whence now he cannot object that no proctor was there on his behalf: for indeed what is done through a false proctor in judgment is valid if afterwards approved by the lord: then also it should be presumed for the act of the Roman Pontiff: whence it is inferred that before Pope Alexander, who issued that decree, the case was contested. We, attending to the fact that the form of petition which you presented in this judgment is the same as the form of the constitution which the said predecessor Alexander Pope is proven to have made, with the form also of the assertion which the archbishop of Braga is known to have made before the same Alexander, concerning which witnesses were produced in this judgment, and attestations also published, and moreover disputed upon the same attestations, the reasons and allegations of each part being seen and understood, having taken counsel of our brethren, by common deliberation we decree and definitively determine that the archbishop of Braga, or the Church of Braga in no way impede you or the Church of Compostela, so that in the aforesaid two bishoprics you may fully and freely exercise metropolitan jurisdiction. To no one therefore etc. Of the determination etc.

3 Given at the Lateran on the sixth day before the Ides of July. Given on 1 July 1199, in the 11th year of the pontificate.

XXIV.

4 parts having been diligently heard and examined, the body was established, and we have strengthened it with the attestations and instruments of the Apostolic See by privilege, and on account of his

Machine translation, not reviewed. The original text is authoritative.

Latin text

batur. — Decrelum Pontificis quo definitur Composlellan. Ecclesia m metropolitico iure in cluobus supradictis episcopat. gaudere: — Cum solitis clausulis.
Innocentius episcopus servus servorum Dei, Petro Compostellano archiepiscopo.

1 In causa duorum episcopatuum, videlicet Ulixbonen. et Elboren., quae inter te ac venerabilem fralrem nostrum Bracaren. archiepiscopum vertebatur; cuius examinationem plenariam sola sententta Sedi Apostolica-e reservata, felicis recordationis Urbanus Papa praedecessor noster vicedomino Brixien. et magislro I. Bergomen. commisit in Hispaniam destinatis : te corani ipso vicedomino , altero iam collega post citalionem defunclo, contra dictum archiepiscopum in initio proposuisse cognovimus, quod Bracaren. archiepiscopns post litteras citationis receptas , post appellationem et inhibitionem a le inlerpositas, ne in praedictis episcopatibus aliquid in tuum praeiudicium attentarel, elecios illius temporis consecravit. Unde le offensum graviter querebaris: ubi a te nihilominus fuit propositum contra ipsum, quod ante invasionem barbaricam Ulixbona et Elbora civitates ad Emeriten. metropolim pertinebant; sed ea postmodum captivala, et ipsae cum ea captivae fuerunt, donec dignitas eius cum omni iure suo in Composlellaua Ecclesia est translata. Diclae quoque civitates christianorum cullui sunt facienle Domino restitutae: de quibus usque ad tempora iam dicti praedecessoris nostri non fuit in dubium revocatum, quin ad Composteltenam Ecclesiatn pertinerenl: licet rex Portugall. ad suggestionem Bracaren. Ecclesiae ius Ecclesiae Compostellan. pluiies molestavi!: prò cuius prohibitione a^rp» XuwPl" secundus Elboren. eleclus in tantum distulit consecrari, quod absque consecralione decessit: cuius successor , et tertius Ulixbonen. electus praefato rege vivente non fuerunt ab aliquo consacrati. Huius autem violentiam successor filius superavi!: cogens Bracaren. archiepiscopum cogi volentem, ut iam dictos electos, quod pater nunquam fecerat, consecraret. Contra quod ex parte tua prius fuerat ad Sedenti Apostoli^am appellatum: a qua commissionem, de qua praemisimus impetraras: proponens corani dicto vicedomino Brixien. te illos duos episcopatus possidere, ac Dossedisse , atque ad tuam ipsos Ecclesiam pertinere: petens nihilominus: ut Bracaren. archiepiscopus tibi de illatis iniuriis satisfacerei, et cohiberetur de caelero, ne in praedictis episcopatibus te libere uti iurisdictione metropolitica impediret, quos ad Ecclesiam tuam indubitate spectare per Apostolicae Sedis privilegia; concilia quoque, divisiones, et historias, et publicam famam, sicut in causa quatuor episcopatuum feceras ostendere nitebaris, parte altera respondente Bracaren. Ecrlesiam illos duos episcopatus, et possi *b "ciuepi- . . . ' ■ ',. scopo proposisidere tunc, et ab eo tempore possedisse, tae ratioi>ei. quo per gratiam Dei, et virtutem A. regis Portugallen. duae civitates praedictae de manu paganorum fuerant liberatae, atque ad cultum fidei christianae per Bracaren. archiepiscopi praedicationem reductae: et iure suo sic usum archiepiscopatum Bracaren. asserebat libi aliquatequs ìhiuriam non fecisse. Ex his ergo circa iniuriarum possessionis, et proprietatis articulos , intentionem tuam asserebas esse fundatam, et ad singulos articulos parlem alteram responilisse. Ad iniurias quidem et possessionem expresse, ad proprietatem vero latenter; cum iuxta canonicas sanctiones quicquam ad suam cathedram pertinentia loca lucrali negligunt in catholicam unilatem, si post tempus canonicum id carensn menta moniti non effecerint, ad eum perveniunt, qui poterit ea sua praedicatione lucrari. Archup. Braporro Bracaren. archiepiscopus respondebat, quod cum in praemisso ìudicio salisfactio tantum iniuriarumpetitafuisset, et ut cohiberetur archiepiscopus Bracaren. ne impediret te uti iurisdictione metropolitica in illis duobus episcopatibus, sicut ex forma libelli coniicitur mauifeste: profecto nec proprietatem, nec possessi onem ab eo iam petere poteras in praesenti iudicio, praesertim cum te diceres possessorem ; unde proprietatem vel possessionem ab eo pelere non valebas, quae nonnisi a possidenlibus repetuntur: adiungens, quod, etsi ad proprietatem vel possessionem aliquid pertinens a parte sua coram nobis fuerit allegatimi, cum ius suum fuerit protestata, non debebat in eius dispendium redundare. Interdictum quoque uti possidetis, quod in hoc casu locum videbatur habere: cum utraque partium se possidere diceret, libi non competere proponebat, cum te, sicut dicebat, non probaveris possessorem, nec interdicto ilio alius agere, valeat, quara possessor; in quo ille debet per sententiam obtinere, qui nec vi, nec clam, nec precario ab altero Compojieiiani possidet. Tu vero possessionem Ecclesiae responsione», ■ , . ,. . " , , etc. tuae multipliciter ostendere satagebas, tam per confessiones adversae partis, quam per electorum et episcoporum recognitiones, et professiones, et obediendientiam eorundem, quam etiam per executiones Romanorum Pontificum, quae singula tam instrumenlis, quam testibus asserebas esse probata. Interrogati^ enim in iure G. Bracaren. archiepiscopus proximus antecessor istius , si credebat aliquem praedecessorum suorum hosepiscopatus aliquando possedisse, respondit: quidam dicunt sic, quidam non, et ideo nescio quibus credam: et addidit postea: nec inde certus sum, nec incertus; quae verba in id eum videbantur inducere, ut nullum praedecessorum suorum crederet possedisse. Primus au-

2 BCLLARIUM ROMANUM An, C. 1199 tem post liberationem Ulixbonen. episcopus G. nomine, necnon et Alvarus successor ipsius professionem fecerunt in scriptis, et etiam manualem Compostellanan. archiepiscopo, et ei sicut metropolitano suo reverentiam et obedientiam impenderunt. Tertius quoque qui superest, dum adhuc esset electus, idem cum tota sua Ecclesia recognovit, veniens ut confirmationem electionis, et munus consecrationis reciperet ab archiepiscopo memorato, nisi de medio fere itineris per prohibitionem regis sui fuisset ad propria revocatus: sicut per multos testes asserebas esse probatum. Executiones quoque Romanorum Pontificum, vide- Q«'J frcerint licet Alexandri, Lucii et Coelestini, qui m'niPontiacei! possessionem, quam te habere, licei cum perturbatione, Credebas, declarare voluerunt, demonslrant, quod te in plenum iurisdictionis usum inducere curaverunt, facultatem tibi liberam tribuentes suspendendi, excommunicandi, et eleclionem cassandi, praecipientes etiam sentenlias a te latas inviolabiliter observari, sicut in eorundem litteris continetur. Pro iurisdictionis autem executione libere obtinenda in Elboren. episcopatu, punitus est Bracaren. archiepiscopus in episcopatibus Galleliae tibi per Sedem Apostolicam assignatis, sicut in litteris bonae memoriae Alexandri Papae contineri dicebas. Ex litteris etiam Ulixbonen. episcopi, quas oslendebas bullatas, ostendere nitebaris, quod Elboren. episcopus sententiam a te latam in ipsum incaeperat observare. Bracaren. autem archiepiscopus respondebat professiones praediclas non esse per testes approbalas, quandam ipsis testibus de ratione lemporis impossibilitatem obiiciens;asserens etiam, quod per professiones huiusmodi clam ignorante Bracaren. archiepiscopo factas, non potuit Ecclesia Bracaren. sua possessione privari: cum, et quaedam earum factae fuisse probentur, cum Ulixbonen. episcopus exulabat, possessionem suam multo plenius et efficacius gotio kn. C.t 199 satagens comprobare: cuna omnes episcopi a liberatione civitatum illarum in illis duobus episcopatihus per Bracaren. archiepiscopum fuerint consecrati, qui ei tanquam suo metropolitano reverentiam et obedienliam impenderunt, venientes ad concilia Bracaren. tanquam proprii suffraganei et querelas suas corani eodem archiepiscopo proponentes, sicut per multos testes asserebat, et tuae partis, quaedam etiam instrumenta sufficienler Liicra» eoeesse probatum. Litteras autem bonae leslini PP. su- - /-< i • • n 1 p«r eodem nememonae (joelestini Fapae praedecessoris nostri super eodem negocio prò te contra Bracaren. Ecclesiam impetratas, in nullo sibi posse praeiudicare dicebat; cum lite pendente fuerint impetratae, quando non licei etiam supplicare. Tu vero praeter praemissa fortius allegabas, quod cum G. Bracaren. archiepiscopus et M. canonicus et clericus tuus olim essent in praesentia bonae memoriae Alexandri Papae praedecessoris nostri pariter constituti, eodem M. clerico tuo firmiter praeponente, quod Bracaren. archiepiscopus plures de suffraganeis tuis, etpraecipue Ulixbonen. et Elboren. episcopos occupaverat; dictus archiepiscopus e contra respondens asseruit, quod praefatos episcopos nullatenus detineret, nec ab eis obedientiam vel reverentiam aliquam exigeret, nec etiam quomodolibet impediret, quo minus libi, et Ecclesiae tuae obediant, et subiectionem impendant. Adiecit etiam quod cum nobilis vir dux Portugallen. civitatem Elboren. coepisset, ne in paganismum rediret, instantia eius N. praedecessor suus ibidem episcopum consecravit. Sed tamen ab eo nullam obedientiam vel mereutiam requisivit, immo, ut Ecclesiae Compostellanae obediret mandavit, qui nondum propter paupertateni, et quia nimium remotus est, ad tuam accessit Ecclesiam. De aliis vero episcopatibus quos idem M. clericus tuus dicebat ad tuam Ecclesiam pertinere, dixit quod ad Ecclesiam suam spectant, et sibi iure metropolitico debent subesse., et super hoc privilegium Romanorum Pontificum malta produxit. Cumque ab eodem nuncio tuo idem praedecessor uoster instantius requisisset, si qua exinde privilegia Ecclesia tua haberet, et ipse asseverasset se id omnino nescire, staluit ut episcopi, quos Bracaren. non recognovit, ad te perlinerent: asserens ad Ecclesiam suam ipsos spedare, ei, et Ecclesiae suae quousque hoc iudicio diffiniretur, obedientiam et reverentiam impendant: et ipse praedictos duos episcopos libere libi, et Ecclesiae tuae obedire permiltat. Licet autem Bracaren. archiepiscopus contra praedictas litteras allegaret, quod illa confessio sibi praeiudicare non poterat, Cum in iure facta non fuerit; eo quod praefatus M. non procurator, aut responsalis, sed canonicus tantum, et clericus in illis litteris appellati^, quia tamen saepe dictus Bracaren, archiepiscopus illas litteras impetrava, et eis prò se usus est in iudicio, magnumque de illis commodum acquisivi^ et tu quod per eundem M. canonicum et clericum tuum super hoc factum fuil ratum habes, et approbas: Unde iam ille non potest obiicere, quod nullus prò parte sua ibi fuerit procurator: nam, et quod per falsum procuratorem agitur in iudipio valet utique, si postea per dominum approbalur: tum etiara praesumendum sit prò facto Romani Pontificis: unde coniicitur quod coram Alexandre Papa, qui statutum illud emisit, lis fuerit contestata. Nos attendentes quod forma petitionis, quam tu in hoc iudicio porrexisti, eadem est cum forma constitutionis, quam dictus praedecessor noster Alex. Papa fecisse probatur, cum forma quoque assertionis, quam Bracaren. archiepisoopus coram eodem Alex, fecisse dignoscitur, super quo testes in hoc iudicio producti fuerunt, et attestationes etiam publicatae, necnon et super ipsis atteslationibus disputatum, rationibus et allegationibus utriusque Ai. C U99 loG Éiordìum visis, et intellectis, habito fratrum no strorum Consilio, de communi deliberatione decernimus, et sententialiter deffinìmus, ut Bracaren. archiepiscopus, vel Ecclesia Bracaren. nullatenus te, vel Ecclesiam Compostellan. impediat, quo minus in praedictis duobus episcopatibus piene ac libere iurisdictionem metropoliticam valeas exercere. Nulli ergo etc. Deffinitionis etc.

3 Datura Lateran. sexto nonas iulii. Datura die 1 iulii 1199, pontif. anno 11.

XXIV.

4 partis diligenter auditis, et cognitis, corpus est positum, Apostolicae Sedis atlestationibus quoque ac instrumentis privilegio communimus, et ob ipsius a

Bullarum diplomatum et privilegiorum sanctorum Romanorum Pontificum, Taurinensis editio (Bullarium Romanum, Turin 1857-1872), vol. 3 — Internet Archive OCR text, restored to continuous text (page breaks, hyphenation, running heads, footnotes); OCR errors of the source remain. Source: Internet Archive.

Italian text

batur. — Decreto del Pontefice con il quale si definisce che la Chiesa Compostellana goda del diritto metropolitico nei due episcopati suddetti: — Con le solite clausole.
Innocenzo vescovo servo dei servi di Dio, a Pietro arcivescovo Compostellano.

1 Nella causa dei due episcopati, cioè di Ulissipona e di Elbora, che era controversa tra te e il venerabile nostro fratello l'arcivescovo di Braga; la cui piena istruzione era riservata soltanto alla Sentenza della Sede Apostolica, il nostro predecessore Papa Urbano di felice memoria affidò al vicedominico di Brescia e al maestro I. di Bergamo, destinati in Ispagna: abbiamo saputo che tu, dinanzi allo stesso vicedominico, l'altro già collega dopo la citazione defunto, hai proposto inizialmente contro il detto arcivescovo, che l'arcivescovo di Braga, dopo aver ricevuto le lettere di citazione, dopo l'appello e l'inibizione da te interposti, affinché non tentasse nulla nei predetti episcopati a tuo danno, consacrò gli eletti di quel tempo. Onde ti lamentavi di essere stato gravemente offeso: sebbene da te sia stato inoltre proposto contro lo stesso, che prima dell'invasione barbarica le città di Ulissipona e di Elbora appartenevano alla metropoli di Emerita; ma essendo quella in seguito conquistata, anche esse insieme con essa furono conquistate, finché la dignità di essa con ogni suo diritto fu trasferita alla Chiesa di Compostella. Dette città inoltre, per volontà del Signore, furono restituite al culto dei cristiani: delle quali fino ai tempi del nostro già detto predecessore non fu mai messo in dubbio che appartenessero alla Chiesa di Compostella: benché il re del Portogallo, su suggerimento della Chiesa di Braga, molestasse più volte il diritto della Chiesa di Compostella: per la cui proibizione il secondo eletto di Elbora rimandò tanto a farsi consacrare, che morì senza consacrazione: il suo successore e il terzo eletto di Ulissipona, mentre viveva il predetto re, non furono consacrati da alcuno. Questa violenza il successore figlio superò: costringendo l'arcivescovo di Braga, che voleva essere costretto, a consacrare i già detti eletti, cosa che il padre mai aveva fatto. Contro di che da parte tua era stato prima appellato alla Sede Apostolica: dalla quale avevi ottenuto la commissione, di cui abbiamo premesso: proponendo dinanzi al detto vicedominico di Brescia che tu possedevi i due episcopati, e li avevi posseduti, e che ad essa tua Chiesa appartenevano: chiedendo tuttavia che l'arcivescovo di Braga ti desse soddisfazione delle ingiurie inflitte, e fosse proibito da allora in poi, affinché nei predetti episcopati non ti impedisse di usare liberamente la giurisdizione metropolitica, i quali indubbiamente appartengono alla tua Chiesa per i privilegi della Sede Apostolica; concili inoltre, divisioni e storie, e la fama pubblica, come nella causa dei quattro episcopati avevi fatto, ti sforzavi di mostrare, rispondendo la parte avversa che la Chiesa di Braga possedeva allora i due episcopati, e li aveva posseduti da quel tempo, per cui per grazia di Dio e per virtù del re del Portogallo, le due predette città erano state liberate dalla mano dei pagani, e ridotte al culto della fede cristiana per la predicazione dell'arcivescovo di Braga: e asseriva che l'arcivescovo di Braga, usando così del suo diritto, non ti aveva fatto alcuna ingiuria. Da queste cose dunque circa gli articoli delle ingiurie, del possesso e della proprietà, asseriva che la tua intenzione era fondata, e che la parte avversa aveva risposto a singoli articoli. Alle ingiurie invero e al possesso espressamente, alla proprietà però latentemente; poiché secondo le sanzioni canoniche, coloro che trascurano di lucrare per la loro cattedra i luoghi che le appartengono nell'unità cattolica, se dopo il tempo canonico, ammoniti dei loro meriti, non lo faranno, pervengono a colui che potrà lucrarli con la sua predicazione. L'arcivescovo di Braga rispondeva che, poiché nel predetto giudizio era stata chiesta soltanto la soddisfazione delle ingiurie, e che l'arcivescovo di Braga fosse proibito di impedirti di usare la giurisdizione metropolitica in quei due episcopati, come dalla forma della libellazione si ricava manifestamente: certamente non potevi allora chiedere da lui né la proprietà né il possesso nel presente giudizio, specialmente poiché tu ti dichiaravi possessore; onde non potevi chiedere da lui la proprietà o il possesso, che si ripetono soltanto da coloro che possiedono: aggiungendo che, sebbene da parte sua fosse stato allegato dinanzi a noi qualcosa pertinente alla proprietà o al possesso, poiché aveva protestato il suo diritto, non doveva ridondare a suo danno. L'interdetto inoltre uti possidetis, che in questo caso sembrava avere luogo: poiché entrambe le parti si dichiaravano possessori, proponeva che non ti competesse, poiché tu, come diceva, non avevi provato di essere possessore, né con quell'interdetto poteva agire altri che il possessore; nel quale deve ottenere per sentenza colui che possiede né con violenza, né di nascosto, né precariamente da altri. Tu invece il possesso della tua Chiesa ti sforzavi di mostrare in molti modi, tanto per le confessioni della parte avversa, quanto per i riconoscimenti e le professioni degli eletti e dei vescovi, e l'obbedienza degli stessi, come anche per le esecuzioni dei Romani Pontefici, che tutti questi asseriva fossero provati tanto con strumenti quanto con testimoni. Interrogato infatti in diritto l'arcivescovo di Braga prossimo predecessore di questo, se credeva che alcuno dei suoi predecessori avesse mai posseduto questi episcopati, rispose: alcuni dicono di sì, altri no, e perciò non so a chi credere: e aggiunse poi: né ne sono certo, né incerto; quali parole sembravano indurlo a credere che nessuno dei suoi predecessori avesse posseduto. Il primo au-

2 BOLLARIO ROMANO An. C. 1199 tem post liberationem Ulixbonen. episcopus G. nomine, necnon et Alvarus successor ipsius professionem fecerunt in scriptis, et etiam manualem Compostellanan. archiepiscopo, et ei sicut metropolitano suo reverentiam et obedientiam impenderunt. Tertius quoque qui superest, dum adhuc esset electus, idem cum tota sua Ecclesia recognovit, veniens ut confirmationem electionis, et munus consecrationis reciperet ab archiepiscopo memorato, nisi de medio fere itineris per prohibitionem regis sui fuisset ad propria revocatus: sicut per multos testes asserebas esse probatum. Executiones quoque Romanorum Pontificum, vide- licet Alexandri, Lucii et Coelestini, qui possessionem, quam te habere, licet cum perturbatione, credebas, declarare voluerunt, demonstrant, quod te in plenum iurisdictionis usum inducere curaverunt, facultatem tibi liberam tribuentes suspendendi, excommunicandi, et electionem cassandi, praecipientes etiam sententias a te latas inviolabiliter observari, sicut in eorundem litteris continetur. Pro iurisdictionis autem executione libere obtinenda in Elboren. episcopatu, punitus est Bracaren. archiepiscopus in episcopatibus Galleliae tibi per Sedem Apostolicam assignatis, sicut in litteris bonae memoriae Alexandri Papae contineri dicebas. Ex litteris etiam Ulixbonen. episcopi, quas ostendebas bullatas, ostendere nitebaris, quod Elboren. episcopus sententiam a te latam in ipsum incaeperat observare. Bracaren. autem archiepiscopus respondebat professiones praedictas non esse per testes approbatas, quandam ipsis testibus de ratione temporis impossibilitatem obiiciens; asserens etiam, quod per professiones huiusmodi clam ignorante Bracaren. archiepiscopo factas, non potuit Ecclesia Bracaren. sua possessione privari: cum, et quaedam earum factae fuisse probentur, cum Ulixbonen. episcopus exulabat, possessionem suam multo plenius et efficacius satagens comprobare: cum omnes episcopi a liberatione civitatum illarum in illis duobus episcopatibus per Bracaren. archiepiscopum fuerint consecrati, qui ei tanquam suo metropolitano reverentiam et obedientiam impenderunt, venientes ad concilia Bracaren. tanquam proprii suffraganei et querelas suas coram eodem archiepiscopo proponentes, sicut per multos testes asserebat, et tuae partis, quaedam etiam instrumenta sufficienter probatum. Litteras autem bonae memoriae Coelestini Papae praedecessoris nostri super eodem negocio pro te contra Bracaren. Ecclesiam impetratas, in nullo sibi posse praeiudicare dicebat; cum lite pendente fuerint impetratae, quando non licet etiam supplicare. Tu vero praeter praemissa fortius allegabas, quod cum G. Bracaren. archiepiscopus et M. canonicus et clericus tuus olim essent in praesentia bonae memoriae Alexandri Papae praedecessoris nostri pariter constituti, eodem M. clerico tuo firmiter praeponente, quod Bracaren. archiepiscopus plures de suffraganeis tuis, et praecipue Ulixbonen. et Elboren. episcopos occupaverat; dictus archiepiscopus e contra respondens asseruit, quod praefatos episcopos nullatenus detineret, nec ab eis obedientiam vel reverentiam aliquam exigeret, nec etiam quomodolibel impediret, quo minus tibi, et Ecclesiae tuae obediant, et subiectionem impendant. Adiecit etiam quod cum nobilis vir dux Portugallen. civitatem Elboren. coepisset, ne in paganismum rediret, instantia eius N. praedecessor suus ibidem episcopum consecravit. Sed tamen ab eo nullam obedientiam vel reverentiam requisivit, immo, ut Ecclesiae Compostellanae obediret mandavit, qui nondum propter paupertatem, et quia nimium remotus est, ad tuam accessit Ecclesiam. De aliis vero episcopatibus quos idem M. clericus tuus dicebat ad tuam Ecclesiam pertinere, dixit quod ad Ecclesiam suam spectant, et sibi iure metropolitico debent subesse, et super hoc privilegium Romanorum Pontificum multa produxit. Cumque ab eodem nuncio tuo idem praedecessor noster instantius requisisset, si qua exinde privilegia Ecclesia tua haberet, et ipse asseverasset se id omnino nescire, statuit ut episcopi, quos Bracaren. non recognovit, ad te pertinerent: asserens ad Ecclesiam suam ipsos spectare, ei, et Ecclesiae suae quousque hoc iudicio diffiniretur, obedientiam et reverentiam impendant: et ipse praedictos duos episcopos libere tibi, et Ecclesiae tuae obedire permittat. Licet autem Bracaren. archiepiscopus contra praedictas litteras allegaret, quod illa confessio sibi praeiudicare non poterat, cum in iure facta non fuerit; eo quod praefatus M. non procurator, aut responsalis, sed canonicus tantum, et clericus in illis litteris appellatus; quia tamen saepe dictus Bracaren. archiepiscopus illas litteras impetravit, et eis pro se usus est in iudicio, magnumque de illis commodum acquisivit; et tu quod per eundem M. canonicum et clericum tuum super hoc factum fuit ratum habes, et approbas: Unde iam ille non potest obiicere, quod nullus pro parte sua ibi fuerit procurator: nam, et quod per falsum procuratorem agitur in iudicio valet utique, si postea per dominum approbatur: tum etiam praesumendum sit pro facto Romani Pontificis: unde coniicitur quod coram Alexandro Papa, qui statutum illud emisit, lis fuerit contestata. Nos attendentes quod forma petitionis, quam tu in hoc iudicio porrexisti, eadem est cum forma constitutionis, quam dictus praedecessor noster Alex. Papa fecisse probatur, cum forma quoque assertionis, quam Bracaren. archiepiscopus coram eodem Alex. fecisse dignoscitur, super quo testes in hoc iudicio producti fuerunt, et attestationes etiam publicatae, necnon et super ipsis attestationibus disputatum, rationibus et allegationibus utriusque partis visis, et intellectis, habito fratrum nostrorum consilio, de communi deliberatione decernimus, et sententialiter diffinimus, ut Bracaren. archiepiscopus, vel Ecclesia Bracaren. nullatenus te, vel Ecclesiam Compostellan. impediat, quo minus in praedictis duobus episcopatibus piene ac libere iurisdictionem metropoliticam valeas exercere. Nulli ergo etc. Diffinitionis etc.

3 Dato al Laterano il sesto delle none di luglio. Dato il 1º luglio 1199, anno 11 del pontificato.

XXIV.

4 partis diligenter auditis, et cognitis, corpus est positum, Apostolicae Sedis atlestationibus quoque ac instrumentis privilegio communimus, et ob ipsius a

Machine translation, not reviewed. The original text is authoritative.