Karl Borchardt, Nikolas Jaspert The Hospitallers, the Mediterra

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.5 This letter of grace has apparently been preserved neither as an original nor as a copy.6 At the same time, Clement IV, in a letter of justice, had appointed the Augustinian prior of Royston7 executor of this grant, ordering him, should a vacancy occur, to introduce the prior and brethren or their proctor into the corporeal possession of the church with its rights and appurtenances, according to Clement’s letter and defend them, proceeding against contradictors with ecclesiastical censures without the right of appeal.When afterwards, so the narratio continues, parson Hugh died and the church thus became vacant, the prior and the brethren holding the advowson to the church had legally taken possession of it with the help of the executor, after fi rst appointing a chaplain and assigning him the congrua portio of the revenues.But the bishop of Worcester (Godfrey Giffard) dared to molest the prior and the brethren in their peaceful possession of the church and, after admonishing him to desist from his obstructions (for which the bishop did not adduce any rational reasons), the executor, because of the notoriety of this action, suspended the bishop – without any formal legal action8 but by virtue of Clement’s letter – from executing the pontifi cal rites and later forbade him to enter the church, and when the bishop’s contumacy increased, placed his chapel under the interdict and fi nally excommunicated him.9 But Bishop Godfrey Giffard disregarded all these sanctions, continuing to hold services and even bestowing holy orders 4 See Frederick Pollock and Frederick William Maitland, The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I, vol.2, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 1968), pp.136ff., and R.H.Helmholz, The Oxford History of the Laws of England, vol.1: The Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction from 597 to the 1640s (Oxford, 2004), pp.477ff.5 On the canonistic background of the congrua portio see Herde, Audientia (see below, n.44 of the edition), vol.1, p.341, and Helmholz, p.166.6 See below, n.31.7 See below, n.38.8 On proof by notoriety in canon law see Helmholz p.328.On the standard wording in papal letters of justice concerning notoriety see e.g.Herde, Audientia, vol.2 (see below, n.44) no.K 235, p.390.9 On the sanctions of suspension, excommunication and interdict see Helmholz, pp.619ff.Peter Herde49and exercising other episcopal functions in prejudice of the prior and the brethren.They therefore asked the pope to confi rm the sentences of suspension, interdict and excommuncation issued by the prior of Royston against the bishop of Worcester.John XXI decided to delegate the case, instructing the addressees of the letter, that is, the bishop of Exeter, the abbot of St Albans and the archdeacon of Wells, to provide, at a meeting at Wells, for the strict observance of these sanctions until the bishop of Worcester gave adequate satisfaction.However, should he stubbornly disobey the sentences, provided that they had been correctly issued, the addressees were ordered by the pope to pronounce these sentences publicly and solemnly – with bells ringing and candles alight – on all Sundays and holidays in whatever places they considered appropriate, until the bishop gave adequate satisfaction, or to entrust others to do so, and to make sure that he was shunned by all people, regardless of papal indulgences that might have been granted to him prohibiting his punishment by suspension, interdict or excommunication, or similar indulgences.If all of them were not able to execute this mandate, two of them would be suffi cient to do so.10The question why this papal grant was made to the prior of Provence, not to the prior of England, cannot be satisfactorily answered on the basis of the available source material.Probably it was due to the fact that Ferrand de Barras, who was prior of Provence and possibly also Grand Commander of Outremer during the pontifi cate of Clement IV,11 and therefore the recipient of the fi rst papal letter of grace, was held in high regard by the pope because of his abilities, receiving, for example, the rare exemption from fulfi lling the obligation to visit the Convent of the East.12His successor William de Villaret, the addressee of the renewal of the donation by Innocent V,13 was also close to the popes of his time as well as to Charles I and Charles II of Anjou, kings of Sicily.14 Furthermore, the grant of the church of Down Ampney was made, as the narratio of the papal letters states, in recompense for great damages the prior of Provence had suffered in Outremer.But it was disputed from the very beginning.Bishop Godfrey Giffard of Worcester considered Clement IV’s letter suspect and defective, and various disputes had therefore been raised before various judges.15 Clearly these defects in Clement’s 10 See below, n.44.11 Delaville le Roulx, Les hospitaliers (see below, n.30), pp.416f.; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St John (below, n.30), pp.281ff.12 Riley-Smith, p.281.Dr Luttrell also thinks that this may have been the reason for granting him the church of Down Ampney.13 See below, n.31.14 See below, n [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

Linki