Does an Imprimatur imply a Nihil Obstat?

  • Thread starter Thread starter josephback
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

josephback

Guest
Hi. I have an old book from 1883 titled “Short Sermons for Low Masses”. It’s an English translation of a French original and has an Imprimatur from John Cardinal McCloskey, who apparently was the first Cardinal in the United States and Archbishop of New York. The book is published by the Benziger Brothers, “printers to the Holy Apostolic See”. Despite all these good signs the book lacks a Nihil Obstat, and I was wondering if that’s because the Imprimatur implies one or because its a translation of the original, which may have already had one. Can anyone help me out with this? Thanks.
 
I think you’re right, that an Imprimatur implies a Nihil Obstat, but I’d like to hear what anyone else has to say.
 
Canon law seems to imply that the bishop is only to grant the imprimatur after the censor has approved the manuscript, but I have to imagine that a bishop would have the authority to issue an imprimatur without a nihil obstat. He is the ordinary, after all, and besides, he could have reviewed the manuscript himself.
 
Fisheaters.com tells the Cencor of the diocese first gives a work a “Nihil Obstat” whereafter the Bishop may after review grant it an “Imprimatur”. There is also a stamp known as “Imprimi Potest” which a member of a religious order receives from his Superior before the book is sent to the Cencor and Bishop.
The procedure works like this: when a Catholic writes a book on faith, morals, theology, liturgy, books on prayer, editions of Sacred Scripture, etc., he will submit his manuscript to his diocese’s Censor. If the Censor finds no problem with it, he will give it his stamp, which reads “Nihil Obstat,” or “nothing stands in the way.” He then sends it to the Bishop for his review. If the Bishop finds nothing objectionable, he gives the book his “Imprimatur” which means, “let it be printed.”
Click to expand...
If the Catholic writing the book is a member of a religious order, the manuscript is first sent to his religious superior before it is sent to the Censor and Bishop. If the religious superior finds no impediment to publication, he will give the book his stamp of “Imprimi Potest,” which means “it can be printed.”
Click to expand...
 
Glacies said:
Fisheaters.com tells the Cencor of the diocese first gives a work a “Nihil Obstat” whereafter the Bishop may after review grant it an “Imprimatur”. There is also a stamp known as “Imprimi Potest” which a member of a religious order receives from his Superior before the book is sent to the Cencor and Bishop.
Click to expand...
That’s how it is supposed to work. But then how does one come across a book with an imprimatur that lacks a nihil obstat? Is it within the bishop’s authority to issue the imprimatur without the censor’s (name removed by moderator)ut? That is the question at hand.
 
Gricken said:
…Can someone tell me what these terms mean?
Click to expand...
Glacies’ post explains it pretty well. That post is 4 posts down from the main post on the board.

Basically, when a theologian or writer wants the Church stamp of approval on their work, they send it to the Bishop’s office. There, the censor usually sees it first. If he thinks it’s okay, he gives it a “Nihil Obstat” meaning “there’s nothing in the way of this being accepted” and then he passes it on to the Bishop. The Bishop gives it the “Imprimatur” meaning “it can be printed.”

Almost all books that have the Church’s seal of approval will have both of these marks on the copyright page toward the front of the book. The original question here is wondering about a book that had the second mark but not the first.

(Side note: I guess technically what is being given here isn’t the Church’s seal of approval, but that particular Bishop’s seal, but I digress…)
 
I recently found another book with an imprimatur but no nihil obstat. The book is called “History of the Catholic Church: From the Apostolic Age to the Third Millenium” by James Hitchcock. A note below the imprimatur says that it (permission to publish) means that the book is free from doctrinal error. So apparently the second mark does imply the first.
 
josephback said:
I recently found another book with an imprimatur but no nihil obstat. The book is called “History of the Catholic Church: From the Apostolic Age to the Third Millenium” by James Hitchcock. A note below the imprimatur says that it (permission to publish) means that the book is free from doctrinal error. So apparently the second mark does imply the first.
Click to expand...
But not necessarily free from historical error?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top