Note 534 — Chapter II · LIMITATION OF JURISDICTION OR RESERVED CASES

L. c. n. 407. Cf. Gury-Ballerini, l. c. This may at least constitute a rule for most dioceses. We must, in fact, assume that the bishop has reserved sins in the manner in which they are generally understood by the confessor to be reserved, unless it is shown by positive evidence that the bishop adopts the opinion of those theologians who teach that a reservation is not incurred by one who is not aware of its existence. Till the later controversy, however, it was always the general conviction that reservation was understood to be incurred by one who did not know of it; this is testified by many authors. We must, therefore, assume that the legislator so understood his law. But if, with the knowledge of the bishop and without protest on his part, it be anywhere taught that a sin is not to be regarded as reserved for one who does not know of the reservation, this may be considered a sufficiently valid indication that the bishop does not wish to bind those who are ignorant of the reservation. Lehmkuhl, l. c.; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. ad n. 571.