original passage: The establishment of the bishopric of Konstanz cannot be dated exactly and was possibly undertaken by Columbanus himself (before 612). In any case, it existed by 635, when Gunzo appointed John of Grab bishop. Constance was a missionary bishopric in newly converted lands, and did not look back on late Roman church history unlike the Raetian bishopric of Chur (established 451) and Basel (an episcopal seat from 740, and which continued the line of Bishops of Augusta Raurica, see Bishop of Basel). The establishment of the church as an institution recognized by worldly rulers is also visible in legal history. In the early 7th century "Pactus Alamannorum" hardly ever mentions the special privileges of the church, while Lantfrid's "Lex Alamannorum" of 720 has an entire chapter reserved for ecclesial matters alone.
original sentence: In the early 7th century "Pactus Alamannorum" hardly ever mentions the special privileges of the church, while Lantfrid's "Lex Alamannorum" of 720 has an entire chapter reserved for ecclesial matters alone.
sentence2: Does "Pactus Alamannorum" ignore the special privileges of the church?
sentence1: The establishment of the bishopric of Konstanz cannot be dated exactly and was possibly undertaken by Columbanus himself (before 612). In any case, it existed by 635, when Gunzo appointed John of Grab bishop. Constance was a missionary bishopric in newly converted lands, and did not look back on late Roman church history unlike the Raetian bishopric of Chur (established 451) and Basel (an episcopal seat from 740, and which continued the line of Bishops of Augusta Raurica, see Bishop of Basel). The establishment of the church as an institution recognized by worldly rulers is also visible in legal history. In the early 7th century "Pactus Alamannorum" focuses on the special privileges of the church, while Lantfrid's "Lex Alamannorum" of 720 hardly ever mentions ecclesial matters..