{"slug":"tmp106.tmp106.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp106.tmp106.opp-lat1","title":"Decreta Decem Juxta Gratianum et Ivonem","title_source":"Decreta Decem Juxta Gratianum et Ivonem","author":"SS Iulius I","genre":"canon-law","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T06:11:19Z","cost_usd":0.003726},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp106.tmp106.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp106.tmp106.opp-lat1","edition":"ogl-pl","language":"","license":"Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp106/tmp106/tmp106.tmp106.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":7,"english_words":1437,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":5943,"commentary_units":41,"commentary_kinds":8,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":13,"work_notes":4,"external_links":0,"timeline":6},"summary":{"work":"tmp106.tmp106.opp-lat1","abstract":"The Decreta Decem Juxta Gratianum et Ivonem — SS Iulius I is a spurious collection of ten decrees attributed to Pope Julius I (337–352), but actually compiled in the late 11th or early 12th century. The text survives only in canonical collections such as Gratian's Decretum and Ivo of Chartres' Panormia, with no independent manuscript tradition. The rubric announces ten decrees, but only two are given in this edition, which is excerpted from those collections. The decrees address economic regulations, including turpe lucrum (shameful gain) and usury, reflecting medieval concerns rather than fourth-century realities. The attribution to Julius I is rejected by modern scholarship, which identifies the material as Pseudo-Isidorian in origin.","historical_context":"The Decreta Decem Juxta Gratianum et Ivonem — SS Iulius I was produced in the late 11th or early 12th century, likely in a Western European ecclesiastical setting, possibly in northern France or the Rhineland. The text is part of the Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries, a corpus of falsely attributed papal decretals that emerged in the 9th century and were later expanded. The compiler used Pseudo-Isidorian material to create these decrees, which were then transmitted through major canonical collections like Gratian's Decretum (c. 1140) and Ivo of Chartres' Panormia (c. 1095). The language is Latin, the genre is canon law, and the text survives only as excerpts within these collections, not as an independent work. The economic regulations, such as prohibitions on speculative hoarding and usury, reflect the concerns of the medieval Church rather than the fourth-century papacy. The attribution to Pope Julius I (337–352) is spurious, as no authentic decretals from that period exist in this form.","significance":"The Decreta Decem illustrates how medieval canonists created authoritative texts by attributing later regulations to early popes, thereby shaping ecclesiastical law. It shows the reliance on Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries and the transmission of canon law through Gratian and Ivo. The text's focus on economic issues like turpe lucrum and usury highlights medieval Church concerns with moral economy, and its survival only in collections underscores the fragmentary nature of pseudo-apostolic literature.","timeline":[{"date":"4th c.","event":"Pope Julius I (337–352) historically reigned; no authentic decretals from this period survive."},{"date":"9th c.","event":"Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries begin to circulate, falsely attributing decretals to early popes."},{"date":"c. 1095","event":"Ivo of Chartres compiles the Panormia, which includes these spurious decrees."},{"date":"c. 1140","event":"Gratian compiles the Decretum, transmitting the decrees attributed to Julius I."},{"date":"Late 11th–early 12th c.","event":"The Decreta Decem is compiled, likely using Pseudo-Isidorian material."},{"date":"Modern era","event":"Scholarship identifies the decrees as spurious and rejects their attribution to Julius I."}],"relations":[{"work":"Decretum Gratiani","relation":"Transmits the decrees attributed to Julius I","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Panormia of Ivo of Chartres","relation":"Transmits the decrees attributed to Julius I","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals","relation":"Source of the spurious material","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Decreta Decem Juxta Gratianum et Ivonem — SS Iulius I","relation":"This edition is excerpted from Gratian and Ivo","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The date of composition is uncertain; only a late 11th- to early 12th-century range is supported.","The attribution to Pope Julius I is spurious; the text is a later forgery.","The text survives only in excerpts within canonical collections, not as an independent manuscript.","The rubric announces ten decrees, but only two are given in this edition; the full set is not transmitted.","The biblical citation 'Luc. 23' is garbled and likely refers to Luke 23:39–43, but this is uncertain."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000564,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:11:19Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp106/tmp106/tmp106.tmp106.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp106.tmp106.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":7,"translated":7,"commentary_passages":7,"commentary_units":41,"english_words":1437,"source_letters":5943,"commentary_kinds":8},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The decretals attributed to Pope Julius I (337–352) are spurious; they were compiled in the late 11th or early 12th century, likely by a forger using Pseudo-Isidorian material.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The text survives only in canonical collections such as Gratian's Decretum and Ivo of Chartres' Panormia, not in any independent manuscript tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"These decretals were cited by medieval canonists as authoritative, though modern scholarship rejects their apostolic or early papal origin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"This edition does not collate the variant readings among the different canonical collections that transmit the decretals.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: canon-law in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 7 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":7},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"DECRETA JULII PAPAE I DECEM\n\nJUXTA GRATIANUM ET IVONEM.\n\nPRIMUM.\n\nTurpe lucrum sequitur qui minus emit ut plus vendat, vel quid sit usura.\n\nQuicumque tempore messis vel vindemiae non necessitate, sed propter cupiditatem comparat annonam vel vinum, verbi gratia, de duobus nummis comparat modium unum, et servat usquedum venumdetur denariis quatuor aut sex, aut amplius, hoc turpe lucrum dicimus.\n\nSECUNDUM.\n\nReus est animarum presbyter, qui poenitentiam morientibus abnegat.\n\nSi presbyter poenitentiam morientibus abnegaverit, reus erit animarum, quia Dominus dicit: Quacumque die conversus fuerit peccator ad poenitentiam, vita vivet, et non morietur (Ezech. 18; Luc. 23). Vera enim confessio ultimo tempore esse potest, quia Dominus non solum temporis, sed etiam cordis inspector est: sicut latro, unius momenti poenitentia, meruit esse in paradiso in hora ultimae confessionis.","english":"Decrees of Pope Julius I, Ten in Number\n\nAccording to Gratian and Ivo.\n\nFirst.\n\nHe who buys at a lower price in order to sell at a higher price, or whatever constitutes usury, pursues shameful gain.\n\nWhoever at harvest time or vintage, not from necessity but from greed, purchases grain or wine—for example, buys one modius for two denarii and keeps it until it is sold for four or six denarii or more—this we call shameful gain.\n\nSecond.\n\nA priest who denies penance to the dying is guilty of souls.\n\nIf a priest has denied penance to the dying, he will be guilty of souls, because the Lord says: On whatever day the sinner turns to penance, he will live life and will not die (Ezek. 18; Luke 23). For true confession can exist at the final hour, because the Lord is the inspector not only of time but also of the heart: just as the thief, by a penance of a single moment, merited being in paradise at the hour of his final confession.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"DECRETA JULII PAPAE I DECEM","severity":"info","text":"The rubric announces ten decrees, but only two are given here; the collection is excerpted from Gratian and Ivo, not transmitted in full.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"turpe lucrum","severity":"info","text":"Turpe lucrum (shameful gain) is a canonical term for illicit profit, often linked to usury; here it includes speculative hoarding of grain or wine.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ezech. 18; Luc. 23","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Ezech. 18; Luc. 23' is garbled: Ezek 18 likely refers to repentance (v. 21–23), but 'Luc. 23' is not a chapter; probably Luke 23:39–43 (the Good Thief) is intended.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"latro","severity":"info","text":"The 'thief' (latro) refers to the Good Thief (Dismas) in Luke 23:39–43, a standard patristic example of instantaneous penance and salvation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"JUXTA GRATIANUM ET IVONEM","severity":"info","text":"The heading 'According to Gratian and Ivo' indicates these decrees were transmitted through Gratian's Decretum and Ivo of Chartres' Panormia, not directly from Pope Julius I.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Quicumque tempore messis","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text of the first decree is a later canonical elaboration; the attribution to Pope Julius I (337–352) is spurious, as such economic regulations reflect medieval concerns.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The scripture reference 'Luc. 23' is corrupt; likely Luke 23:39–43 (the Good Thief) is meant, but the chapter number 23 does not exist in Luke.","The number of decrees (ten) is declared but only two are preserved in this excerpt."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"TERTIUM.\n\nPost mortem alicujus nullus de ejus consanguinitate sponsam accipiat.\n\nSi quis desponsaverit uxorem, vel subarraverit, et sive praeveniente die mortis, sive irruentibus aliis causis, minime eam cognoverit, neque ejus superstes frater, neque ullus de consanguinitate ejus, eamdem sibi tollat in uxorem ullo unquam tempore.\n\nQUARTUM.\n\nLicet servo matrimonia contrahere\n\nOmnibus nobis unus est Pater in coelis (Matth. XXIII)et unusquisque dives pauper, servus, et liber, aequaliter pro se, et pro animabus eorum rationem reddituri sumus. Quapropter omnes cujuscumque conditionis sint, unam legem(quantum pertinet ad Deum) habere non dubitamus. Si autem omnes unam legem habent, ergo sicut ingenuus dimitti non potest, sic nec servus semel conjugio copulatus ulterius dimitti poterit.\n\nQUINTUM.\n\nEx propinquitate sui sanguinis vel uxoris, usque in septimum gradum, nullus ducat uxorem.","english":"Third.\n\nAfter the death of any man, none of his blood-kin shall take his betrothed as a wife.\n\nIf a man has betrothed a wife, or given her an earnest, and whether by the intervention of the day of death or by the onset of other causes, he has not known her carnally, neither his surviving brother nor any of his blood-kin shall ever at any time take that same woman as a wife.\n\nFourth.\n\nIt is permitted for a slave to contract marriage.\n\nWe all have one Father in heaven (Matthew 23), and each one of us, rich, poor, slave, and free, will equally render account for ourselves and for our souls. For this reason, we do not doubt that all, of whatever condition they may be, have one law (insofar as it pertains to God). But if all have one law, then just as a freeborn man cannot be dismissed, so also a slave, once joined in marriage, cannot thereafter be dismissed.\n\nFifth.\n\nBy reason of the proximity of his own blood or that of his wife, no man shall take a wife up to the seventh degree.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"TERTIUM, QUARTUM, QUINTUM","severity":"info","text":"The passage is divided into three numbered decrees (Third, Fourth, Fifth), each introduced by a Latin ordinal. This structure is typical of canonical collections like Gratian's Decretum.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"subarraverit","severity":"info","text":"The verb subarraverit (from subarr(h)are) means 'to give an earnest or pledge' (arrha), a legal act in Roman betrothal. It indicates a formal engagement, not yet marriage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Matth. XXIII","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Matth. XXIII' (Matthew 23) is likely a misreference; the phrase 'one Father in heaven' echoes Matthew 23:9, but the exact wording is not a direct quotation. The text may intend Matthew 23:9 or a similar passage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"servus","severity":"info","text":"The Fourth decree asserts that slaves may contract marriage, citing spiritual equality. This reflects early medieval canon law's tension with Roman civil law, which often denied slaves the right to marry.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"usque in septimum gradum","severity":"info","text":"The prohibition of marriage to the seventh degree of consanguinity became standard in medieval canon law, formalized by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). This decree shows earlier development of that rule.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"nullus de ejus consanguinitate sponsam accipiat","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text of the Third decree is ambiguous: it may prohibit a blood-relative from marrying the betrothed of the deceased, or from marrying the widow. The English draft follows the former reading, but the latter is possible.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'nullus de ejus consanguinitate sponsam accipiat' could mean either 'no blood-kin shall take his betrothed' (as in the English draft) or 'no blood-kin shall take his widow'. The Latin 'sponsam' (betrothed) suggests the former, but the context of death allows the latter.","The scripture citation 'Matth. XXIII' is imprecise; the exact verse intended is uncertain."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Nullum in utroque sexu permittimus ex propinquitate sui sanguinis vel uxoris, usque septimum generis gradum, uxorem ducere vel incesti macula copulari. Praeterea quoque illud adjecimus, quoniam sicut non licet cuiquam Christiano de sua consanguinitate, sic etiam nec licet de consanguinitate uxoris suae conjugem ducere propter carnis unitatem.\n\nSEXTUM.\n\nEcclesia semel Deo consecrata quando est iterum consecranda.\n\nDe fabrica vero cujuslibet ecclesiae, si diruta fuerit, instauranda, et si in eo loco consecrationis solemnitas debeat iterari, in quo sanctuaria non fuerint, nihil judicamus officere, si per eam minime jactetur aqua exorcizata, quia in consecratione cujuslibet ecclesiae, in qua Spiritus sancti arra non ponitur, celebritatem scimus tantum esse missarum. Et ideo, si qua sanctorum basilica a fundamentis fuerit innovata sine altaris motione, sine aliqua dubitatione, cum in ea fuerit missarum solemnitas celebrata, totius consecratio sanctificationis implebitur. Si vero sanctuaria quae habebant ablata sunt, rursus eorum depositione, et missarum solemnitate, reverentiam sanctificationis accipiat.","english":"We permit no one of either sex to marry or to be joined by the stain of incest with a person from the proximity of his own blood or that of his wife, up to the seventh degree of kindred. Moreover, we have added this as well: just as it is not lawful for any Christian to marry from his own consanguinity, so also it is not lawful to take a spouse from the consanguinity of his wife, on account of the unity of the flesh.\n\nSixth.\n\nWhen a church once consecrated to God is to be consecrated again.\n\nConcerning the rebuilding of any church, if it has been destroyed, and whether the solemnity of consecration ought to be repeated in that place where the relics have not been disturbed, we judge that nothing is impaired if exorcised water is not sprinkled through it, because in the consecration of any church in which the pledge of the Holy Spirit is not placed, we know that the celebration consists only of masses. And therefore, if any basilica of the saints has been renewed from its foundations without moving the altar, without any doubt, when the solemnity of masses has been celebrated in it, the entire consecration of sanctification will be fulfilled. If, however, the relics which it had have been removed, then by their deposition and the solemnity of masses, let it receive the reverence of sanctification.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"SEXTUM","severity":"info","text":"The rubric 'SEXTUM' marks the sixth decree, following the pattern of numbered canons in this collection. The preceding passage ended with 'Quartum' (Fourth), and this passage begins with 'Sextum' (Sixth), indicating a missing 'Quintum' (Fifth) in the source.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"arra","severity":"info","text":"'Arra' (pledge) here refers to relics placed in an altar during consecration. The phrase 'Spiritus sancti arra' means the pledge of the Holy Spirit, i.e., relics, whose presence or absence determines the need for reconsecration.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"usque septimum generis gradum","severity":"info","text":"The prohibition of marriage to the seventh degree of kinship reflects early medieval canon law, notably Gratian's Decretum (c. 1140), which extended the ban to the seventh degree. This rule was later reduced to the fourth degree by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"propter carnis unitatem","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'on account of the unity of the flesh' echoes the theological rationale that marriage creates a kinship bond (affinitas) between the spouses' families, making marriage with a wife's blood relative equivalent to incest. This reasoning appears in Gratian (C.35 q.2-3) and Peter Lombard's Sentences.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Ecclesia semel Deo consecrata quando est iterum consecranda","severity":"info","text":"This rubric and the following discussion on church reconsecration were influential in medieval canon law. The principle that reconsecration is unnecessary if relics remain undisturbed was adopted by later decretists and appears in the Decretals of Gregory IX (X 3.40.1).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Nullum in utroque sexu permittimus","severity":"caution","text":"The opening phrase 'We permit no one of either sex' is a standard legal formula, but the text's attribution to Pope Julius I is uncertain. The decree on marriage to the seventh degree and the detailed rules on church reconsecration may be later additions, possibly from the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The passage lacks the fifth decree (Quintum), which may have been omitted in transmission or is a scribal error. The attribution to Pope Julius I is historically dubious; the content reflects later medieval canon law developments."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"SEPTIMUM.\n\nDe his qui sacrificando varie errabant.\n\nCum omne crimen atque peccatum oblatis Deo sacrificiis deleatur, quid de caetero pro expiatione delictorum Domino dabitur, quando in ipsa sacrificii oblatione erratur? Audivimus enim quosdam schismatica ambitione detentos, contra divinos ordines et apostolicas institutiones lac pro vino in divinis sacrificiis dedicare; alios quoque intinctam eucharistiam populis pro complemento communionis porrigere; quosdam etiam expressum vinum in sacramento Domini calicis offerre; alios vero pannum lineum musto intinctum per totum annum reservare, et in tempore sacrificii partem ejus aqua lavare, et sic offerre; quod quam sit evangelicae et apostolicae doctrinae contrarium, et consuetudini ecclesiasticae adversum, non difficile ab ipso fonte veritatis probatur, a quo ordinata ipsa sacramentorum mysteria processerunt. Cum enim magister veritatis verum salutis nostrae sacrificium suis commendaret discipulis, nulli lac (al. non illis), sed panem tantum et calicem sub hoc sacramento cognoscimus dedisse. Legitur enim in evangelica veritate: Accepit Jesus panem et calicem, et benedicens dedit discipulis suis (Matth. XXVI). Cesset ergo lac sacrificando (al. in sacrificio) offerri. quia manifestum et evidens exemplum veritatis evangelicae illuxit, quod praeter panem et vinum aliud offerri non liceat.","english":"SEVENTH.\n\nConcerning those who erred in various ways in the offering of sacrifice.\n\nSince every crime and sin is blotted out by sacrifices offered to God, what will be given to the Lord for the expiation of offenses when error occurs in the very offering of the sacrifice? For we have heard that some, detained by schismatic ambition, against divine orders and apostolic institutions, dedicate milk instead of wine in divine sacrifices; others also offer intincted eucharist to the people for the completion of communion; some offer expressed wine in the sacrament of the Lord’s chalice; still others preserve a linen cloth dipped in must for the whole year, and at the time of sacrifice wash part of it with water and thus offer it. How contrary this is to evangelical and apostolic doctrine and adverse to ecclesiastical custom is not difficult to prove from the very source of truth, from which the mysteries of the sacraments themselves, once ordained, proceeded. For when the master of truth commended the true sacrifice of our salvation to his disciples, we know that he gave them not milk, but only bread and a chalice under this sacrament. For it is read in evangelical truth: Jesus took bread and a chalice, and blessing, gave them to his disciples (Matthew 26). Therefore, let milk cease to be offered in sacrifice, because the manifest and evident example of evangelical truth has shone forth, that beyond bread and wine nothing else may be offered.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"SEPTIMUM","severity":"info","text":"The passage is the seventh decree in a series of ten, as indicated by the heading 'SEPTIMUM'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"lac pro vino","severity":"info","text":"'lac pro vino' (milk instead of wine) refers to a specific liturgical abuse condemned here, likely associated with schismatic groups.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Matth. XXVI","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Matth. XXVI' (Matthew 26) is a reference to the Last Supper narrative, though the exact verse is not specified; the text paraphrases Jesus taking bread and a chalice.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"intinctam eucharistiam","severity":"info","text":"'Intinctam eucharistiam' (intincted eucharist) refers to the practice of dipping the consecrated bread into the wine before distribution, a practice that was controversial in some early medieval contexts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Decreta Decem Juxta Gratianum et Ivonem","severity":"info","text":"This decree, attributed to Pope Julius I, was transmitted through canonical collections such as Gratian's Decretum and Ivo of Chartres' works, influencing later medieval canon law on liturgical practice.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"lac (al. non illis)","severity":"caution","text":"The variant 'lac (al. non illis)' in the Latin indicates a textual ambiguity: some manuscripts read 'lac' (milk) while others read 'non illis' (not to them), affecting the interpretation of what Christ gave.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact biblical verse in Matthew 26 is not specified; the paraphrase may conflate multiple verses.","The phrase 'lac (al. non illis)' suggests manuscript variation in the Latin tradition."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Illud vero, quod pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt eucharistiam populis, nec hoc prolatum ex Evangelio testimonium receperunt, ubi apostolis corpus suum commendavit et sanguinem. Seorsum enim panis, et seorsum calicis commendatio memoratur. Nam intinctum panem aliis Christum praebuisse non legimus, exepto illo tantum discipulo, quem intincta buccella magistri proditorem ostenderet, non quae sacramenti hujus institutionem signaret. Nam quod de expresso botro, id est, de uvarum granis populis communicatur, valde est omnino confusum; sed, si necesse sit, botrus in calice comprimatur, et aqua misceatur: quia calix dominicus juxta canonum praecepta, vino et aqua permixtus debet offerri, quia videmus populum in aqua intelligi, in vino vero ostendi sanguinem Christi. Ergo cum in calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus adunatur, et credentium plebs ei in quem credit copulatur et jungitur; quae copulatio et conjunctio aquae et vini sic miscetur in calice Domini, ut mixtio illa non possit separari. Nam si vinum tantum quis offerat, sanguis Christi incipit esse sine nobis; si vero aqua sit sola, plebs incipit esse sine Christo. Ergo quando botrus solus offertur, in quo vini efficacia (al. efficientia) tantum designatur, salutis nostrae sacramentum negligitur, quod aqua significatur. Non enim potest calix Domini esse aqua sola, aut vinum solum, nisi utrumque misceatur.","english":"But as for that which they hand over to the peoples as the completion of communion, the intincted Eucharist, they have not received this testimony brought forth from the Gospel, where the Lord commended His body and blood to the apostles. For the commendation of the bread separately and of the cup separately is recorded. For we do not read that Christ offered intincted bread to others, except only to that disciple whom the dipped morsel would reveal as the betrayer of the master, not that it would signify the institution of this sacrament. For as for what is communicated to the peoples from expressed grape, that is, from grape berries, it is altogether confused; but, if necessary, the grape should be pressed in the cup, and water mixed in: because the Lord's cup, according to the precepts of the canons, ought to be offered mixed with wine and water, since we see that the people are understood in the water, and in the wine the blood of Christ is shown. Therefore, when water is mixed with wine in the cup, the people are united with Christ, and the multitude of believers is coupled and joined to Him in whom they believe; which coupling and joining of water and wine is so mixed in the Lord's cup that that mixture cannot be separated. For if someone offers only wine, the blood of Christ begins to be without us; if, however, there is only water, the people begin to be without Christ. Therefore, when only the grape is offered, in which only the efficacy of wine is signified, the sacrament of our salvation, which is signified by water, is neglected. For the Lord's cup cannot be only water, or only wine, unless both are mixed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"intinctam eucharistiam","severity":"info","text":"The term refers to the practice of dipping the consecrated bread into the wine before distribution, a point of controversy in early medieval liturgy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"intincta buccella magistri proditorem ostenderet","severity":"info","text":"This alludes to the Gospel account of Jesus giving a dipped morsel to Judas at the Last Supper, identifying him as the betrayer (cf. John 13:26).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"calix dominicus juxta canonum praecepta","severity":"info","text":"The requirement to mix wine and water in the chalice is rooted in early church canons, symbolizing the union of Christ and the faithful.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage is the eighth decree in a series of ten, following a pattern of addressing liturgical errors and prescribing correct practice.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The argument against intinction and for mixed communion was influential in later medieval canon law, cited by Gratian and Ivo of Chartres.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'disciple' receiving the dipped morsel is not explicitly named in the Latin, but tradition identifies him as Judas.","The phrase 'expresso botro' could refer to grape juice or unfermented must, but the context suggests pressed grapes used in the chalice."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Et ideo, quia jam ex hoc plurima et multiplex majorum manavit sententia, omnis deinceps talis error atque praesumptio cessare debet, ne perversorum et inordinata compago statum veritatis enervet. Et ideo nulli deinceps erit licitum aliud in sacrificiis divinis offerre, nisi juxta antiquorum sententiam conciliorum, panem tantum et calicem vino et aqua permixtum. De caetero aliter quam praeceptum est faciens, tamdiu a sacrificando cessabit, quamdiu legitima poenitentiae satisfactione correctus, ad gradus sui officium redeat quod amisit.\n\nOCTAVUM.\n\n(Ex decreto Ivonis Carnotensis desumptum.) Quid sit Ecclesia.\n\nEcclesia graecum nomen est quod in latinum vertitur convocatio, propter quod (al. propterea quod) ad se omnes vocet. Catholica (id est universalis) ideo dicitur, quia per universum mundum est constituta. Vel quoniam catholica, hoc est generalis, in eadem doctrina est ad instructionem.","english":"Therefore, since from this point a very great and manifold opinion of the elders has flowed forth, every such error and presumption must henceforth cease, lest a perverse and disordered joining together weaken the state of truth. And therefore it will be lawful for no one henceforth to offer anything else in the divine sacrifices except, according to the opinion of the ancient councils, only bread and a chalice mixed with wine and water. Moreover, anyone acting otherwise than as has been prescribed shall cease from celebrating sacrifice for as long a time as, corrected by a lawful satisfaction of penance, he returns to the office of his rank which he has lost.\n\nTHE EIGHTH.\n\n(Taken from a decree of Ivo of Chartres.) What the Church is.\n\n*Ecclesia* is a Greek name which is translated into Latin as *convocatio*, because it calls all to itself. It is called *Catholica* (that is, universal) because it is established throughout the whole world. Or because *catholica*, that is, general, it is in the same doctrine for instruction.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"OCTAVUM","severity":"info","text":"The rubric 'OCTAVUM' marks the eighth decree in the collection, following a narrative passage on Eucharistic practice.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Ecclesia","severity":"info","text":"The text defines 'Ecclesia' as a Greek term translated into Latin as 'convocatio' (a calling together), emphasizing its inclusive nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Catholica","severity":"info","text":"'Catholica' is glossed as 'universalis' (universal), with two explanations: geographical spread and doctrinal uniformity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Ivonis Carnotensis","severity":"info","text":"The decree is attributed to Ivo of Chartres (c. 1040–1115), a canonist whose works influenced Gratian. This attribution may be spurious.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"panem tantum et calicem vino et aqua permixtum","severity":"info","text":"The insistence on bread and a chalice mixed with wine and water reflects early medieval liturgical norms, later codified in canon law.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Ex decreto Ivonis Carnotensis desumptum","severity":"caution","text":"The source note may be a later addition; the definition of 'Ecclesia' is common in patristic and early medieval texts, not unique to Ivo.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'quia jam ex hoc plurima et multiplex majorum manavit sententia' could refer to earlier patristic opinions or conciliar decrees; the text does not specify which.","The transition from the Eucharistic regulation to the definition of 'Ecclesia' is abrupt, possibly indicating a compilation from disparate sources."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"NONUM.\n\n(Ex eodem.) De illis qui ecclesias incenderunt.\n\nSi quis ecclesiam comburit, quindecim annos poeniteat, et eam sedule restituat, et pretium pauperibus distribuat.\n\nDECIMUM.\n\n(Ex eodem.) Libertam domino legitime nubere posse.\n\nSi quis ancillam suam libertate donaverit, et in matrimonio sibi sociaverit, dubitabatur apud quosdam, utrum hujusmodi nuptiae legitimae esse videantur, an non. Nos itaque vetustam ambiguitatem decidentes, talia connubia legitima esse censuimus. Si enim ex affectu fiunt omnes nuptiae, et nihil impium et legibus contrarium in tali copulatione fieri potest, quare praedictas nuptias inhibendas existimaremus?","english":"NINTH.\n\n(From the same.) Concerning those who have burned churches.\n\nIf anyone burns a church, let him do penance for fifteen years, and diligently restore it, and distribute the price to the poor.\n\nTENTH.\n\n(From the same.) That a freedwoman may lawfully marry her master.\n\nIf anyone has granted freedom to his female slave and has joined her to himself in marriage, it was doubted by some whether such marriages appear to be legitimate or not. We, therefore, deciding this ancient ambiguity, have judged such marriages to be legitimate. For if all marriages are made by affection, and nothing impious and contrary to the laws can occur in such a union, why would we consider the aforesaid marriages to be prohibited?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"NONUM","severity":"info","text":"The ninth decree is introduced with a rubric derived from the same source as the preceding canons, likely a collection attributed to a church council or papal decretal.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Si quis ecclesiam comburit","severity":"info","text":"The penalty for church arson is fifteen years of penance, plus restitution and almsgiving, reflecting the gravity of sacrilege in early medieval canon law.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"libertam","severity":"info","text":"Liberta denotes a freedwoman, a former slave granted legal freedom; the term is central to the decree's ruling on the legitimacy of marriage between a master and his manumitted slave.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"vetustam ambiguitatem","severity":"info","text":"The decree resolves an 'ancient ambiguity' about marriages between masters and freed slaves, a topic debated in Roman law and early church councils, asserting that affection legitimizes such unions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"external","lemma":"Si quis ancillam suam libertate donaverit","severity":"info","text":"This ruling echoes earlier decretals, such as those attributed to Pope Callixtus I, which allowed marriage between a master and a freed slave if done with proper affection and without coercion.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Callixtus I"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"Decreta Decem Juxta Gratianum et Ivonem","severity":"info","text":"The collection of ten decrees, attributed to Pope Julius I, was transmitted through Gratian's Decretum and Ivo of Chartres' works, influencing medieval canon law on penance and marriage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The source 'Ex eodem' is ambiguous; it may refer to a specific lost decretal or a common source used by Gratian and Ivo.","The identity of the 'same' source for both decrees is not specified in the text."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}