Oratio lamentabilis ... Iohannes Savageti Constantiensis et Basiliensis ... super turbatione dicte ecclesie Constantiensis ... una cum tractatu per eum, edito sex dubiis iuris clauso ... Per que evidens iustitia ... Ludovici de Freiberg ... confirmati episcopi ac iniustitia Ottonis de Sunnenberg ... declaratur et ostenditur

From the aforementioned, another foundation of the said advocate of the opposing party also collapses: when he said that in the concordats a decree of annulment was placed, and that it affects not only inferiors but also the hands of the Pope and his executor. He alleges that Dominicus and Lapus hold this in chapter quodam a certain one, de prebendis, Book VI, and the gloss in Clementinae 1, de iure patronatus; reasoning from chapter si tibi absenti if to you absent, joined with the gloss on the word "whoever else," same title, Book VI. These, in fact, do not prove this. For although Dominicus in the said chapter quodam reports that Lapus says this, he himself does not approve it, but says that Lapus said it; nor does the text of the said chapter quodam prove this, as can be clear to anyone examining it. For the Pope does not bind his hands by his own decree, nor close them to himself, unless we wish to say that the saying of Lapus proceeds when the Pope would make a favor to one with the addition of a decree and to another without the addition of a decree. For in that case, the one having the decree is preferred to the one not having it, and that is proven in the said chapter quedam and in chapter Quia cunctis Because to all, which was rooted in de concessione prebendarum, Book VI, and in chapter Dudum Formerly, de prebendis, and in chapter tibi qui to you who, further in de rescriptis, Book VI. But in our case, the Pope in his reservation added a decree and a clause "notwithstanding"; therefore, the said allegation of the advocate had no force or foundation in our case. Nor do the gloss in the said Clementinae 1, de iure patronatus, nor the text with the gloss in the said chapter Si tibi absenti, prove this saying of the advocate, because they do not say that for which he alleged them, as an inspector of them will be able to see. But granted, though not conceded, that the said concordats had obstructed the said reservation and provision, it must be seen whether the Pope could derogate from them out of certain knowledge and the fullness of power. It seems that he could not, according to the motives and laws alleged above to the contrary. But, to deal briefly, I say that he could, by the text in chapter in nostra in our, de iniuriis, according to the understanding of Innocentius there, where the case is clear: that if a community makes a constitution in favor of the persons of that community regarding the amendment of damage caused to them on the occasion of war, it can revoke the same even if it has passed into a contract with its subjects. Now, all Christians are subjects of the Pope, as noted by the unique gloss in Clementinae ad nostrum to ours, on the word "church," de hereticis; to the same effect the gloss in chapter causam the cause, q. 2, gloss 2, qui filii sint legitimi who are legitimate children, which says that the church is one body; therefore, it ought to have only one head, namely the Pope. And note Innocentius in chapter licet ex suscepto although from having undertaken, de foro competenti. And therefore it is clear that the Pope can revoke the said concordats as made with subjects, and much more strongly he can derogate from them. The motives alleged above on behalf of the contrary party do not obstruct, because they have their place when a prince gives a privilege or makes a convention with a non-subject, because then he cannot revoke it, as...