from. We are confirmed in this view when we see in the Lives of the Saints that such visions occurred to them. Thus, for instance, in the life of St. Francis de Chantal we read that at the time when the Baron was dying, his sick father, many miles from the Baron's deathbed, beheld a number of fine looking youths leading his son into a distant country. The son approached the father, and touched him gently upon the shoulder, as if to take leave from him. The venerable old man said under tears: "My son is dead!" A servant, despatched to make inquiries, met the messenger bringing the news of the death. It was found that the son had died precisely at the moment when the vision appeared to the father.

At one time when St. Alphonsus Liguori was preaching in the small town of Arienzo, he suddenly interrupted his discourse and said to his congregation: "Let us pray an Our Father at the peaceful passing away of Bishop Lambertini of Caserta." A few days later news came that the bishop had died exactly at the time when St. Liguori interrupted his sermon.

In the process of beatification of St. Philip Neri various instances were vouched for by credible witnesses, that the saint had beheld friends and disciples ascending into heaven.

In the year 1570 forty Jesuits embarked at Lisbon to go to Brazil as missionaries. Near the Island of Patmos they were captured by Calvinistic pirates and cruelly put to death on account of their faith. At the same hour St. Theresa beheld forty martyrs with palms in their hands and surrounded with glory (among them was a cousin of hers) ascending to heaven. She mentioned this vision to several

persons.

Similar visions are found in lives of many saints. The intention of God in them is probably the glorification of His faithful servants, the consoling of the bereaved and the strengthening of them in the

faith. These visions are incontestible proof that there is a higher immaterial world and that between the higher and the lesser world there exists relation, as even the English Society for Psychical Research is forced to admit. The materialists of our day would deny the existence of the soul after the death of the body. Telepathy offers facts which can not reasonably be doubted, and which not only prove that with death not everything is at an end, but even give us some information about the fate of souls after death.

J. RAEF.

LII. THE JURISDICTION TO HEAR CONFESSIONS

Caius, an alumnus, is sent from his seminary to a parish not far away to assist on a feast day. It being Paschal time, Caius received from the bishop jurisdiction to hear confessions, but explicitly for this day only. Caius therefore heard confessions, held services and made ready to return to the seminary. But suddenly the parish priest is taken ill, and he asks the alumnus to remain another day, because on that day also will people come to confession. Caius objects that he has jurisdiction only for this one day, but the parish priest says: "I will give you jurisdiction. I have iurisdictio ordinaria and can therefore delegate you, the same as I could for assistance at marriage. Of course I can only delegate you for my parishioners, not for the diocese as the bishop can. You will have potestas ordinis through Holy Orders and iurisdictio delegata from me." This argument does not quite convince Caius, for if that were so, he thinks, for what purpose did the bishop restrict his jurisdiction just to this particular day? Yet, he satisfies his conscience by reasoning: This is a case of necessity, and if the bishop knew of it he would most certainly give me jurisdiction; I may then rightly presume the jurisdiction.

In the worst case-he reasons further-there prevails error communis so that the Church supplies the jurisdiction if absent. He remains, hears confessions the following day, and returns to his seminary.

Questions.-I. What is to be thought of the parish priest's argument, and what of the arguments of Caius?

II. Were the absolutions given by Caius valid or not?

In order that the absolution in the Sacrament of Penance should

be valid, there are necessary for the priest hearing confession, besides potestas ordinis, also approbatio and iurisdictio. The approbatio is the authoritative declaration that the priest in question is capable, scientifically and morally, of hearing confessions, the iurisdictio is here the bestowal of the faculty to render decisions pro foro interno. That approbatio as well as iurisdictio are necessary is evident from the Tridentine (Sess. 14, cap. 7, and sess. 23 de ref. cap. 15), iurisdictio is necessary iure divino, approbatio however iure ecclesiastico, as the latter was first introduced by the Tridentine. Although frequently both are given to the priest uno eodemque actu, yet it is necessary in many cases that approbatio and iurisdictio should be precisely distinguished. Naturally approbation precedes jurisdiction, for only to the priest declared capable are assigned certain faithful as subditi, over whom he is to exercise jurisdiction. Presuming as known the terms iurisdictio ordinaria and delegata we will pass on to answer the questions.

Ad. I. The parish priest's argument is not valid. Of course he himself has iurisdictio ordinaria and can, if nothing prevents, delegate another priest, for instance to perform marriage. But for hearing confession there is not merely iurisdictio necessary, but also approbatio, and the latter per Episcopum loci.

Caius had received approbatio and iurisdictio uno actu from the bishop, but only for one day, for the second day both were lacking to him. The parish priest could not give jurisdiction to Caius because the approbation which the Tridentine requires was lacking. Previous to the Tridentine the matter would have been different. The matter is stated by LEHMKUHL (II, n. 371) as follows: Quamquam ex natura rei quilibet, qui ordinariam potestatem habeat, eam alteri communicare potest; nihilominus suprema auctoritate ecclesiastica, a qua tandem omnis iurisdictionis exercitium atque valor pendet, ita

constitutum est, ut nemo delegatam iurisdictionem in S. poenitentiae tribunali exercere possit-saltem quoad confessiones saeculariumnisi approbationem ab Episcopo (loci) acceperit. Quo factum est, ut delegatio ab iis, qui Episcopo inferiores sunt, data seu danda fere inutilis evaserit.

Since the approbatio per Episcopum loci is always necessary, a parish priest can not delegate a priest, who has approbation and jurisdiction in another diocese, to hear confessions. Exempt from this law are only the parish priests themselves (and a fortiori the bishops) in regard to their subditi, so that they can hear their parishioners' confessions also in another diocese without approbatio per ordinarium loci, because the Tridentine itself excepts from this law those in possession of a parish benefice.

Now let us pass to Caius' views. He believed he could with perfect right presume the iurisdictio. But-and this is taught unanimously-the approbatio and iurisdictio can not be presumed. For the validity of the absolution the Tridentine requires an approbatio actu existens and hence an approbatio praesumta suffices not at all, no matter how probable or certain it may seem that the bishop would grant it. "Approbatio, quae ad validam confessionem requiritur, vere data (et confessario notificata) esse debet, non sufficit praesumptio approbationis dandae" (LEHMKUHL, II, n. 384, 4). If a priest therefore desires an extension of his jurisdiction from the bishop, he must not, no matter how certain it may be that the bishop will grant the extension, hear confessions before receiving positive information (written or by reliable messenger) that the jurisdiction has been prolonged.

Perhaps in Caius' favor is his last argument, that there is an error communis and that therefore the Church supplies the defect. The question is, when does the Church supply the lacking jurisdic