|
|
| (1) Adhuc dicunt quod Adrianus papa Carolum Magnum sibi et Ecclesie advocavit ob iniuriam Longobardorum, tempore Desiderii regis eorum; et quod Carolus ab eo recepit Imperii dignitatem non obstante quod Michael imperabat apud Constantinopolim. | (1) Again they say that Pope Hadrian called on Charlemagne to defend him and the church against the wrongs done by the Longobards at the time of Desiderius their king; and that Charlemagne received the honour of empire from him in spite of the fact that Michael was ruling in Constantinople. | |
| (2) Propter quod dicunt quod omnes qui fuerunt Romanorum Imperatores post ipsum, et ipsi advocati Ecclesie sunt et debent ab Ecclesia advocari: ex quo etiam sequeretur illa dependentia quam concludere volunt. | (2) For this reason they say that all those who have been emperors of the Romans since his time are defenders of the church and must be called to office by the church; from this that dependency which they wish to prove would indeed follow. | |
| (3) Et ad hoc infringendum dico quod nichil dicunt: usurpatio enim iuris non facit ius. Nam si sic, eodem modo auctoritas Ecclesie probaretur dependere ab Imperatore, postquam Octo imperator Leonem papam restituit et Benedictum deposuit, necnon in exilium in Saxoniam duxit. | (3) To demolish this argument I say that they are saying nothing at all: the usurping of a right does not establish a right. For if it did, it could be proved in the same way that the authority of the church is dependent on the emperor, given that the emperor Otto restored Pope Leo and deposed Benedict and led him into exile in Saxony. | |