During the period of Queen Elizabeth's persecu- tion of Catholics an arclipriest was appointed by Rome with episcopal authority to govern the secular priests who remained in Kngland. By decree of Urban VIII, 6 May, 1631, regulars, especially Jesuits, were exempted from liis jurisdiction; they derived througli their own superiors authority from the Pope to liear confessions and to administer the other sacraments. Yet for elsewhere Urban VIII insisted upon the legislation of the Council of Trent, as is shown by his Bull of 12 Sept., 1628: "We recall, annul from all colleges, chapters, religious societies, even the Society of Jesus, all indults to hear confes- sions without examination by the ordinary. " In England the claim was made that the arclipriest was not the ordinary in a canonical sense. This continued even after the Holy See, in 1623, had appointed as vicar Apostolic a bishop who should have the authority of an ordinary. Finally, in 1688, four vicars Apostolic were appointed. By decree of Innocent Xll (Constit. 80, 5 October, 1696) "all regulars, even Jesuits and Benedictines, were to be subject to the vicar in whose district they were, for approbation with regard to hearing confessions, for the cure of souls and for all parochial offices. " Some doubts arose how far vicars Apostolic should be entitled to the rights given to bishops by the Covmcil of Trent. Benedict XIV, by liis Bull " Apos- tolicum Ministerium" drawn up for the Church in England (30 May, 1753), sought to put an end to these controversies by declaring that "the relig- ious in accord with the regulations of the Council of Trent must submit themselves to the examination and receive the permission of the ordinary to hear confessions of the laity — all missionaries both sec- ular and religious in the administration of the Sacraments and parochial duty to be subject to the jurisdiction, visitation, and correction of their respective vicars Apostolic".
Not a few theologians of note still claim that confessors belonging to the regular orders have jurisdiction from the pope over the faithful gen- erally in the tribunal of penance, the approbation of the bishop having been obtained. These seem to hold that the approbation is mainly the declara- tion of the bishop that a priest is fit to hear confessions. However, it is well to note the definition and explana- tion of approbation given by Benedict XIV in this Bull: "Approbation embraces two acts of which the first is of the intellect and the second of the will. It belongs to the intellect to determine that the examined priest is, because of the proper and nec- essary knowledge, fitted for the office of hearing confessions. It, however, belongs only to the will to give the free and full faculty to hear confessions and to pass judgment upon him who is submitted to the approver. The first is done by the examiner on whose fidelity and honesty he relies who gives the faculty to hear confessions within the district a.ssigned to him. The second immediately proceeds from the superior himself to whom it belongs to grant the faculty" (§ 8). Regulars certainly derive their jurisdiction over those of their own commu- nities and permanent households through their own superiors, independently of the bishop. This privi- lege granted by the Holy See is probably fovmded on the principle that the superiors of regulars, having an office or cliarge with the care of souls annexed, should have ordinary jurisdiction over their subjects. (See Religious Ouders.)
Bennlicli XIV Bullar. (Prato, 1857); also his De Synodo diacemrui, IX, xvi, 7-9; D'Avino, Encu-topedia deW Erelrsiaa- tico (Turin, 1878); Fi.kuky, Iliu. Ecclea., V. liks. XXIX- XXXI; Santi. I'rirlccl. jiir. ran. in Drcret. Greg., IX. lil). Ill, tit. xxxvii; Scavini, Thral. Mor. Ill, tract, x. ilisp. i; Orais- HON, Man.jur. can.. II, JJk. I. Sect. 2. p. 2; Flanaoan, Hist. Churrh in Englnnd (I-omTni. 18.57), I. xxi; Dodd, }li»t. Church in England (London, 1S30); Laubentius, /n»(. jur. cccl.
(Freiburg, 190.3), 412-415; Taotiton, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), 44-46.
R. L. BUUT.SELL.
Appropriation, in general, consists in the attri- bution to a person or tiling of a character or quality which determines in a special way this person or tiling. In theology, appropriation is used in speak- ing of the different Persons of the Trinity. It con- sists in attributing certain names, qualities, or opera- tions to one of the Persons, not, however, to the exclusion of the others, but in preference tx) the otliers. The quaUties and names thus appropriated belong essentially to all the Persons; yet, according to our understanding of the data of revelation and our theological concepts, we consider some of these characteristics or names as belonging to one Person ratlier than to anotlier, or as determining more clearly this particular Person. Thus we consider the Father as particularly characterized by omnipotence, the Son by wi.sdom, and the Holy Ghost by love, though we know that the three have essentially and by nature an equal omnipotence, wisdom, and love (cf. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, I, Q. xxxix, a. 7; Franzelin, De Deo Trino, Rouie, 1881, Th. xiii, 216). Appropriation is not merely arbi- trary; it is based on our knowledge of the Trinity, which knowledge has its sources and rules in Reve- lation (Scripture and tradition) and in the analo- gies which our reason discovers between created things and persons and the Persons of the Trinity as these persons are represented in Revelation. Of necessity, we understand the data of Revelation only under human concepts, that is, in an analogical way (see An.vlogy). It is, therefore, by their analogy with creatures and created relations that we con- ceive the different Persons of the Trinity and their relations. Each Person of the Trinity is presented to us with a proper characteristic which is the con- stitutive element of the personality. Remarking, as we do naturally, that among creatures certain attri- butes, qualities, or operations are the properties of the person possessing such a characteristic, we con- ceive the Trinity after this remote suggestion, though in an analogical and supereminent way, antl we appropriate to each Person of the Trinity the names, qualities, or operations winch, in creatures, are the consequences or properties of this characteristic. Appropriation, therefore, has its source in revela- tion, and it has its foundation and rule in the very characteristic which constitutes each distinct per- sonality in the Trinity and the relations existing between the essential properties of the Divine Nature and this constitutive characteristic of each person — these relations in God being known by analogy with the relations existing between these same properties and tills same characteristic in creatures (St. Thomas, loc. eit.; Franzelin, loc. cit.). Among the names used in speaking of the Persons of the Trinity, the name God is often appropriated to the Father, the name Lord to the Son, the name Spirit, in the sense of immaterial substance, to the Third Person. Among the Di^'ine attributes, eternity is appropri- ated to the Fatlier, as source and first principle of all things; be;uity to the Son, Who, proceeding by way of intelligence, is the perfect image of the F.athcr; fruition to the Holy Ghost. Who proceeds tlirough love. Again, unity is appropriated to the Father, truth to the Son, and goodness to the Holy Ghost. Among the Divine attrilnitcs of action and operation, omnipotence is apiiropriatccl to the F;ithcr. witli all the operations which it implies, especially creation; wisdom and its works, especially tlic order of the universe, to the Son; and to the Holy (iliost, charity and its works, especially sanctitication (cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion, n. 2, 3, etc., 17, 17). Again, efficient causality with the production of all tilings is appropriated to the Father; exemplary