[Casus longi super V libros decretalium]

They sought to be assigned as a benefit. To these and other things alleged, the Pope commands the judge that since in the aforesaid constitution, even with apostolic confirmation, it was expressed or ought to have been, "provided that the faculties of the church have not increased so that they might competently suffice for more," and the canons themselves, contrary to their custom, received four into vacant prebends beyond the established number, he should cause the surplus revenues to be assigned to the aforesaid five canons, so that if they can have prebends equal to the others from them, that which is superfluous should be converted to common use. The ancient canons are to receive their usual prebends, with everything that has been attempted by either party to the prejudice of the other after the question was moved before the Bishop of Ferrara regarding the prebends or possessions being revoked to its previous state. Note certain notable points in this decretal. First, that a protestation does not benefit him who acts against that very protestation. Also, where a certain number of canons is established or confirmed, that condition "unless they have increased, etc." is understood, even if it is not added. Also, after a lawsuit is initiated, nothing is to be innovated by either party to the prejudice of the other.

Church of Saint Mary, etc.

Case is posited thus: The Church of Saint Mary in Via Lata moved a question against John Atlaepa regarding certain possessions before a judge. While the lawsuit was pending, the same John transferred those possessions to the monastery of Saint Silvester. Finally, he was absolved; the same John appealed to the senator, before whom the same John argued that he ought not to be summoned because he did not possess those possessions. Finally, the Roman senator, on the occasion of a certain statute in which it was contained that if anyone transferred a litigious thing to another while the lawsuit was pending, that possession ought to be taken away from the possessor and given to the petitioner, despoiled the monastery of those possessions and restored them to the Church of Saint Mary, without the monastery being cited, confessed, or convicted. Whence the monastery complained to the Lord Pope. The Pope, considering this, [declared] that to laymen, however religious, no power is attributed over churches or ecclesiastical persons. And if a statute has been made by them of their own accord, it ought to be of no moment regarding the utility and favor of the churches unless it has been approved by the Roman Church. Whence the statute of Basil regarding not alienating rural or urban estates, or the ministers and ornaments of the churches, although it was good in itself, was rejected for that reason: because it was not strengthened by the Apostolic See. Therefore, that which had been done by the senator to the prejudice of a monastery not summoned, not confessed, and not convicted, the Lord Pope revoked as void and restored the same possessions to the aforementioned monastery. Note that laymen can dispose of nothing concerning the property of the church or ecclesiastical persons to the prejudice of the church. Also, that a sentence passed against an absent person, not cited, not confessed, and not convicted, is of no value. Also, note that an ecclesiastical judge can retract an unjust sentence of a secular judge.

From the letters, etc.

Case. Masters of the liberal arts staying in Paris had deviated from their ancient custom in certain articles. Whence they, wishing to reform the former custom, with an oath interposed, established that if any of the masters were to resist the order of their university, and after being warned by a third party, were to disdain to obey their university, from then on he would be deprived of the fellowship of the masters, for which reason a master was deprived of their common table. Finally, he wished to obey the university.