Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 11.djvu/120

 NOMOCANON

94

NOMOCANON

ination by princes is, without doubt, that which relates to the major, or eonsistorial, benefices, especially bish- oprics. Without RoinR back to the intrusions of royal power in episcopal elections in the barbarian kingdoms, or in the Carlovin};ian ICinpire. or tlie 15y- zantine, it must be remembered th:it tlie C'oncordat of Worms (1121), which ended the ConHict of Investi- tures (q. v.), included an initial measure for I he separa- tion of the ijarts and [jrerogatives of the two powers in the choice of bishojis. The emperor recognized the freedom of episcopal elections and consecrations; the pope, on his side, agreed that elections should be held in the emperor's presence, without simony or restraint, that the emperor shoukl decide in case of dispute, that he should give temporal investiture, by the sceptre, to the bishop-elect, while investiture by ring and crosier, sjTnbolic of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, should be combined with the consecration. The custom of election of bishops by chapters, which was the com- mon law of the thirteenth century, left, officially, no opening for royal interference, but princes none the less endeavoured to have their candidates elected. This became more difficult for them when, by succes- sive reservations, the popes had made themselves mas- ters of all episcopal elections, thus occasioning serious inconveniences. While in Ciermany the Concordat of 1-148 re-established capitular elections, in France, on the contrary, after the difficulties consequent upon the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourgcs (1438), the quarrel ended with the Concordat of 1516. In this instru- ment we find the right of nomination guaranteed to the kings of France for consistorial benefices, bishop- rics, abbacies, and priorates; and thence the arrange- ment passed into most of the subsequent concordats, including that of 1801 (cf. Nussi, "Quinquaginta con- ventiones", Rome, 1869, tit. v). The royal ordinance of Francis I promulgating the Bull of Leo X says: "Such vacancy occurring, the King of France shall be bound to present and name [the Bull says only nobis nominabit] a master . . . and otherwise fit, within six months . . . that we may appoint his nominee to the vacant see." If this person is rejected, the king will nominate another within three months; if not, the pope can himself appoint. The same right of nomi- nation is extended to abbacies and priorates, with some exceptions. The Concordat of 1801 (articles 4 and .5) accords to the First Consul the same right of nomination, but only for bishoprics, and without fixing a limit of time for its exercise. In other coun- tries (e. g. Spain) the right of the temporal ruler in- cludes other benefices besides bishoprics.

Such being the nature of the very definite right of nomination, nothing but malicious provocation can be discerned in the conflict brought on by M. Combes, when Prime Minister of France (1902-.5), in regard to the nobis nominavit, the expression which figured in the Bulls for French bishops. By a note dated 21 Dec, 1902, the French Government demanded the suppres- sion of the nobis, as if to make it appear that the head of the State nominated bishops absolutely, like gov- ernment officials. The Vatican explained the true nature of the nomination as the designation of a per- son by the head of the State, the latter indicating to the pope the cleric whom he desires as head of such a diocese, the pope accordingly creating that candidate bishop by canonical institution. The fact was pointed out that the word nobis is found in the episcopal Bulls of all nations which have by concordat the right of nomination; also that, with very rare exceptions, it appears in all the Hulls for France under the Concor- dat of 1.516 a.s under that of 1801; that previously, in 1871, the French Government having obtained with- out any difficulty the suppression of the word prcesen- tavit, had, upon representations made by Rome, with- drawn its demand for the suppression of the nobis; above all, it was insisted on that the letters patent of the French Government to the pope had from time

immemorial contained the words: "We name him [the candidate] and present him to Yovir Holiness, that it may please Your Holiness, upon our nomination and presentation, to provide for the said bishopric", etc. The Vatican nevertheless fleclared that it did not de- sire to refuse any satisf.-icldry revision; various form- uUe were pruposcd (ni cilhir side, without success; at last the Holy Sci' (•(insciilrd to suppress the word nobis in the Bulls, I'Dnlciitiiig itself wiili the Government's employing the usual formula in drafi ing letters patent. (On this confiict see the " Livre HIanc du Saint Siege"; "La separation de I'Eglise et I'Etat en France", ch. vi, in "Acta S. Sedis", 15 Jan., 1906.) This conces- sion, as we know, did not delay the separation which the French Government was determined to have at any price. (See Benefice; Bishop; Concordat; Election; Institdtion.)

Canonists on the title De prabendis. III, v; H^ricodrt, Loix eccUsiaatiques de France, E, IV; Cavagnis. Instiiutiones juris ecclesiastici, II {Rome. 1906), 13, 2.56; S^vestre, L'histoire, le teste et la deslinee du Concordat de 1801 (Paris, 1905) ; Verino, Kirchenrechl (Freiburg im Br., 1893), §86; Sagmuller, Lihrbuch des kath. Kirchengeschichte (Freiburg, 1909), § 73 sq.

A. Boudinhon.

Nomocanon (from the Greek yi/itos, law, and Kivuv, a rule), a collection of ecclesiastical law, the ele- ments of which are borrowed from secular and canon law. When we recall the important place given to ecclesiastical discipline in the imperial laws such as the Theodosian Code, the Justinian collections, and the subsequent "Novella;", and "Basilica", the utility of comparing laws and canons relating to the same subjects will be readily recognized. Collections of this kind are found only in Eastern law. The Greek Church has two principal collections. The first, dat- ing from the end of the sixth century, is ascribed, though without certainty, to John Scholasticus (q. v.), whose canons it ut ilizes and completes. He had drawn up (about 550) a purely canonical compilation in fifty titles, and later composed an extract from the "No- vellae" in eighty-seven chapters (for the canonical col- lection see Voellus and Justellus, "Bibliotheca juris canonici", Paris, 1661, II, 449 sqq.; for the eighty- seven chapters, Pitra, "Juris ecclesiastici Grsecorum historia et monumenta", Rome, 1864, II, 385). To each of the fifty titles were added the texts of the im- perial laws on the same subject, with twenty-one ad- ditional chapters nearly all borrowed from John's eighty-seven (Voellus and Justellus, op. cit., II, 603). In its earliest form this collection dates from the reign of Emperor Heraclius (610-40), at which time Latin was replaced by Greek as the official language of the imperial laws. Its two sections include the ecclesias- tical canons and the imperial laws, the latter in four- teen titles.

This collection was long held in esteem and passed into the Russian Church, but was by degrees sup- planted by that of Photius. The first part of Pho- tius's collection contains the conciliar canons and the decisions of the Fathers. It is in substance the Greek collection of 692, as it is described by canon ii of the Trullan Council (see Law, Canon), with the addition of 102 canons of that council, 17 canons of the Council of Constantinople of 861 (against Ig- natius), and of 3 canons substituted by Photius for those of the oecumenical council of 869. The nomo- canon in fourteen titles was completed by additions from the more recent imperial laws. This whole col- lection was commentated about 1170 by Theodore Balsamon, Greek Patriarch of Antioch residing at Constantinople (Nomocanon with Balsamon's com- mentary in Voellus and .Justellus, II, 815; P. G., CIV, 441). Supplemented by this commentary the col- lection of Photius has become a part of the "Pidalion" (■ir7i56,\iov, rudder), a sort of Corpus Juris of the Orthodox Church, printed in 1800 by Patriarch Neo- phytus VIII. In the eleventh century it had been also translated into Slavonic for the Russian Church;