and did not make mention of the other benefice. Regarding this, see Decretals of Gregory IX, Book 3, Title 8, Chapter 8; when truth is silenced, letters are obtained surreptitiously. Upon hearing the arguments from both sides, the Lord Pope mandates that if the Dean and Chapter of the church of Bourges have legally established the number of canons who are now in the church, confirmed by oath before the aforementioned P. obtained the executory letters, then whatever has been done by his letters shall be null and void from the beginning. Otherwise, if any prebend is vacant in that same church, with the obstacle of appeal removed, it shall be assigned to him. ¶ Note that letters obtained are not valid unless mention is made of the fixed number of canons confirmed by oath and apostolic confirmation. ¶ Also, one must consider the time the letters were issued.

Regarding letters

Case: Someone obtains letters from the Lord Pope out of malice. Others do so out of simplicity or ignorance, with the truth silenced or falsehood suggested. Some said that such letters are not valid, since a petitioner ought to be free of mendacity in what he obtains. Others said that even if the form of the letters ought to be devoid of falsehood, the judge nonetheless ought to proceed according to common law. The Lord Pope distinguishes between those who obtain letters through fraud or malice and those who obtain them through simplicity or ignorance, with truth silenced or falsehood suggested. Those who, through malice or fraud, express falsehood and suppress the truth, gain no benefit from such letters, provided that once the delegate has been made certain of this, he does not take further cognizance of the cause. Among others who obtain letters with expressed falsehood, he distinguishes: for if such truth was suppressed or falsehood suggested that, if it had been silent—namely, the falsehood, or expressed—namely, the truth, the Pope would have granted the letters in common form at least, the delegate shall proceed according to the order of law and not according to the form of the letters.

But if such falsehood is suppressed or truth concealed, and the Pope would not have granted any letters if that had been silent or expressed, the delegate shall not proceed by those letters except to the extent of summoning the parties to his presence and learning of the quality of the petitions, so that in both cases the same reason that would move the delegator might move the delegate. And where the delegator would deny his letters, the delegate shall in no way impose his office. ¶ Note that letters obtained through malice and fraud, with truth silenced and falsehood suggested, are not valid at all because of the fraud. And thus, deceit or malice makes it so that no distinction is to be applied here. ¶ Also, he who alleges fraud must prove the fraud. ¶ Also, he who acts out of simplicity is not blamed. ¶ Also, what the Pope does in judgments, lower judges ought to do as well.

To be instructed

Case: Someone obtained apostolic letters, with appeal removed, against a certain abbot, making no mention of his convent. It was asked whether the abbot was held to respond by his letters regarding a cause that commonly pertains to the abbot and the monks. And if the abbot appealed so that he would not be compelled to respond regarding that cause, whether the appeal is valid. It is answered that the abbot cannot protect himself through appeal so that he is not held to respond by the authority of such letters, unless he is aided by another reasonable cause, because the abbot is held to manage the affairs of his convent by virtue of his office, unless perhaps the affairs of the abbot and the convent were entirely separate. ¶ Note that a prelate is held to fulfill his office. ¶ An appeal should not be interposed against the utility of the church. ¶ Also, note that the abbot can be sued by letters obtained only against the abbot and concerning the cause of the convent. ¶ Also, he who has the cause...