ub - false decretals

8/22/2019 UB - False Decretals

1/5

The False DecretalsAuthor(s): U. B.Source: The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Jan., 1924), pp. 566-569Published by: Catholic University of America PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25012012.

Accessed: 29/10/2013 20:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Catholic University of America Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

The Catholic Historical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.52.254.249 on Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:44:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuaphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25012012?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25012012?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuap


2/5

666 MISCELLANYauthorities here Paulus (p. 73) cites H. PRUTZ, Riistungen zum Turkenkrieg, in the Siztungsberichten der bayerishen Akademie der Wissenschften. Philosophische und historische Klasse, 1912; J. KEHR, RegestaRomanorum Pontificum, Italia Pontificia, III, 470, 1908; and HELYOT,Histoire des Ordres Religieux, II, 278, Paris, 1714.

CT H. M.

THE FALSE DECRETALS.False documents have always been in the Church, but the classic age of

falsifications was the ninth century, and among the classic falsifiers themost classic was this Pseudo-Isidore. In the middle of the ninth century,there appeared four spurious collections of canons: the Capitularies ofBenedict the Deacon, the Capitularies of Angilramus (Bishop of Metz),the Canons of Isaac of Langres, and the Decretals of Isidore. The compiler of the last named forgery, called himself Isidorus Mercator in theopening preface to his collection. For a long time it was falsely attributedto St. Isidore Hispalensis, the well-known Bishop of Seville (636), but notrightly so, since these first appeared in France about 850, and not inSpain or Italy. Although everyone nowadays admits these letters to behuge forgeries, we must not lose sight of the fact that they passed forgenuine during the Middle Ages, and influenced not a little the later collections of Canon Law. As there is no end to the books and articles on thissubject, it is our purpose here to glean some general notions from the textitself, consider briefly the condition of the times in which Itwas written,the purpose the author had in view, and the influence it had upon themind of the Middle Ages.The False Decretals were the last chronological collection of canons.Since then they have all been systematic. These Decretals are dividedinto three parts. After the preface came three apocryphal epistles, andthe order of celebrating a council. The first part contains 50 Canons of theApostles, taken from the Dionysian Collection, and 60 spurious epistles ofthe Roman Pontiffs from Clement 1 (90) to Melchiades (314), and a fewspurious documents.The second part contains the authentic canons of the Eastern, African,Gallican, and Spanish councils from Nice (325) to the second council ofSeville (619) which form the first part of the Collectio Hispana. Thenfollow the forged Donation of Constantine, and some personal notes on theprimitive church and the council of Nice.The third part continues the decretals from Sylvester (314) to GregoryII (715). Other letters from the Collectio Hispana, some of which aregenuine.The greatest number of falsifications is found in the first and thirdpart. Of the 60 decretals in the first part, 58 are spurious. The remain

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/5

MISCELLANY 567

ing two exist in another collection. Very few interpolations are found inthe second part, but there are 45 false decretals in the third division.Although the author of the false decretals was beyond doubt a most

learned and shrewd cannonist, yet we can readily discover the forgery froma closer study of the text. Isidore has popes of the first three centuries,writing in frankish latin of the ninth century, on medieval conditions inthe Church and State, besides quoting documents of the fourth and fifthcentury. Then later popes up to Gregory 1 (604) use documents of theseventh, eighth and ninth century; for example, Pope Victor (190) writesto Theophilus of Alexandria, who lived in the fourth century, on thePaschal controversy of the second century. Likewise in these decretalsIsidore causes popes who lived before St. Jerome to quote the Vulgate.

Let us now consider the purpose the author had in view. Despite hisown statement in the preface it is certain that the compiler did not writeas a serious and painstaking canonist. In the preface he says: Compellor a multus tam episcopis quam reliquis servis Dei canonum sententiascolligere et uno in volumine redigere, et de multis unum facere. Fournierin his Etudes sur les fausses Decretales is of the opinion that the compiler's object must be sought in the apocryphal decretals, which were hischief concern. What Pseudo-Isidore lays stress upon is the protection ofbishops from secular oposition, and a reformation of the Church. Somecommentators say that Isidore's purpose was the increase of pontificalpower. Yet others claim that his primary purpose was purely local, i. e.,against Metropolitans and the Chorepiscopi. However, there is nothingcertain.

We will now consider the conditions of affairs in France during thisperiod, and this perhaps may shed some light upon the purpose and objectof the Decretals. Fournier, quoting Hinschus says: The reformation ofthe church in France was absolutely necessary, there being need of a strongdefense of the Church against many usurpers and invaders. The kingsof the earth saw in the Church a means of exploiting their worldly ambitions, and not their spiritual welfare. Bishops were unjustly accused anddispossessed of their sees by temporal powers. Princes seized the propertyand patrimony of the dispossessed bishops, and were always excited byavarice and cupidity.Tardiff in his Histoire des sources du Droit Canonique (Paris 1887)says: The defense of the rights of dispossessed bishops was the principalend on which converge all the author's theories and most of his texts,which he assembled or fabricates. Isidore insists upon the privileges ofbishops, and lays down the principle that laity should not accuse clerics,much less bishops. The chorepiscopi were a continual source of disturbance to Isidore, and they find no favor in his sight. Rebuking themtime and time again, he questions their episcopal powers. Since thebishops of that day were deeply immersed in political questions, they wereforced to neglect their spiritual duties. While they were on embassiesfor their Prince or King, they appointed auxiliaries, or as they are calledChorepiscopi, who were a source of great dissension in the diocese. And



4/5

568 MISCELLANYtime and time again, he questions their episcopal powers. Little wonderthen, that we hear the bishops clamouring later on for ecclesiastical liberty.And what could be more ideal for their purpose than these false decretalsof Isidore?There has been unending discussion regarding the date and place ofcomposition of this forgery. Fournier says the accepted date is 850, because they were known to the clergy of the west Franks in 857, when thecouncil of Quierzy quotes them on the immunity of church property. Thenthe Capitularies of Benedict the Deacon were not anterior to 847, thesedecretals being as it were an elder brother to the Isidorian Decretals.There is likewise no agreement among scholars as to place of composition.Since the Protestant canonists, Blondell, Richter, Theiner, and Eichhorn

maintain that they were written in the interests of the popes, Rome hasbeen assigned as its place of origin. But since Hinschius has refutedthem, no scholar worthy of the name, maintains that they were written atRome. To-day all agree that they were forged somewhere in the Frankish kingdom. Hinschus and the Ballerini brothers favor the province ofRheims. However Fournier and Duchesne hold to either Le Mans orTours, most likely the latter. Hinschius in holding for the province ofRheims bases his claim principally upon the flourishing condition in theprovince of Rheims of the Chorepiscopi, the main bone of contention inthe decretals of Isidore. The Archbishop of Rheims at that time was thefamous Hincmar, a very strong-willed man, possessed of a most exaltedidea of his position, authority and rights. He refused to recognize theordinations of his predecessor, Archbishop Ebbo, who had been deposedby Charles the Bald. (845). Hinschius believes that these decretals couldbe attributed to Wulfatus, a disciple of Ebbo, and the validity of whoseordination, Hincmar refused to admit. Fournier agrees with Hinschiusin this, that if Rheims was the place of composition, then Wulfatus wasthe author. However, the theory of Fournier, that of Tours, seems to usmore tenable. The condition of the Church in Brittany, he maintains,points clearly to the reforms aimed at by the Pseudo-Isidore. The DukeNomenoe had in 845 defeated Charles the Bald, thus securing the independence of Brittany. He then drove out four Frankish bishops fromtheir Sees, and had them condemned by a Council. It is certain that manyof the forged decretals aim at remedying conditions similar to those inBrittany.The Isidorian Decretals were accepted as genuine until the invention of the printing press. Although they had been pointed out severaltimes, the first to publicly question their validity were the two cardinals,John Torquemada (d. 1468) and Nicholas Cusanus (d. 1464). After the invention of printing, Erasmus and several others pointed out the forgeryin 1524. The principal reason of the continued controversy Is the factthat non-Catholic theologians impugn certain documents from the collection against the Primacy of the Pope. However Fournier has ably refutedthem in his Etudes sur les fausses decretales. Besides they were not necessary, since the power of the pope is proven from other sources, from



5/5

MISCELLANY 569Holy Scripture and Tradition. This doctrine was in the conscience of thepeople long before these said decretals. Such a doctrine could not be introduced suddenly, without great excitement and clamour. This forgerywas certainly influential in the following collections but as Maroto saysin his Institutiones Juris Canonici they did not change the code eitherfundamentally or substantially. It has been asserted time and time againthat Pope Nicholas 1 (867) used these false decretals to strengthen thePapal claims. But he never mentions them. In his response to Photius,during the Eastern Schism, Nicholas quotes not the Isidorlan but theDionysian collection, and so in other disputes. Even when he quotes agenuine text found in the Isidorian collection, we find him invariablyascribing it to the real author. As regards the trials of bishops, Isidoreintroduced nothing new when he insisted upon Causae Majores beingreferred to the Pope. These were always recognized and are found in thedecretals of Dionysius Exiguus. U. B.


ub - false decretals

Documents