Folia Theologica et Canonica 2. 24/16 (2013)

IUS CANONICUM - Szabolcs Anzelm Szuromi, O.Praem., Gradual Promotion asa Specific Form of Provision of Ecclesiastical Office

256

SZABOLCS ANZELM SZUROMI, O.PRAEM.

simple election. Moreover, from this text and on the basis of the Glossa Ordinaria that was prepared by Iohannes Andreae (before 1303) it is unequivocal that within the body of a chapter organized regrouping may be secured by a papal rescript containing a papal privilege (privilégium). By this privilege, on the basis of the hierarchy established within the chapter according to the dignity, or benefice, or simply the age, the one directly following the prebend in the rank may request his installation into the higher prebend. Obviously, this results another vacancy in the chapter until even from the lowest rank of the hierarchy the occupant steps up one rank. In this extreme case however the actual election applies only to the provision of the lowest rank, to which elec- tability extended even to the non-resident and the supernumerary (supranume- rarii) canons, who had no benefices. However, a decision in 1894 of Pope Leo XIII made it unequivocal, that a person who had been incardinated in a diocese or particular church and gained the status of titular canon from the competent authority of another diocese than his according to his incardination, is not electable in the provision of an actual prebend.

Regarding the crystallizing of norms within the cathedral chapters - with special attention to the relation of the chapter and the diocesan bishop - we can find the most important canons in the Liber Extra (i.e. X 1.2.6,8; X 3.4.15).32 Before the Council of Trent the privileges given several times to the cathedral chapters, the permanent powers received by them from the diocesan bishops, as well as the broad interpretation of these and the wide range of legal powers in consequence of them, resulted in the impenetrability of the functioning of the cathedral chapters. This opened up possibilities to many abuses in the area of respect toward the limits of competence of individual ecclesiastical authorities, and this caused a serious danger to the unified functioning of the Church and the governance of the particular churches in question.33 Keeping in mind these problems were stated those severe - general - rules, which can be read in the text of session XXIV and XXV of the Council of Trent, and to which we may add as complement also some sentences of the dispositions of session VI and XXII.34 The rules that made processes more rigid, of course, touched upon the dignities of chapters, the non-desirable disharmonies of the order relating to the obtainment of prebends and other benefices, and upon the too great number of differences. Accordingly the Council of Trent ordered explicitly the revision of

32 About this question from the formal literature, cf. Kurtscheid, B., História iuris canonici. História iuris institutiorum ab ecclesiae fundatione usque ad Gratianum (ad usum scholarium), Romae 1951. 275-276.

33 Szuromi, Sz. A., Szempontok a Katolikus Egyház jogrendjének működéséhez, 108.

34 Cone. Tridentinum, Sessio VI (13 ián. 1547), Decretum de residentia episcoporum et aliorum inferiorum, Capp. 1,4: COD 681,683; Cono. Tridentinum, Sessio XXII (17 sept. 1562), Decretum de observandi et vitandis in celebratione missarum - Decretum de reformatione, Can. 4: COD 739. Cf. e.g., Udvardy, I., Egyházi jogtan, I. Veszprém 1846. 170-177. Szuromi, Sz. A., Il diritto e i doveri propri del Capitolo dei canonici, 117.