Imprimatur

[Canardmom85]

Did the imprimatur stamp on something mean it was free of error? She is trying to tell me that the Index of Forbidden Books was supposed to be free of error because it was marked with the imprimatur and that it holds the index to be infallible. While I am convinced that a list that was so frequently revised would not be held as free of error or infallible. What did the imprimatur tell us about whatever it was approving?

Church of Christ member wrote to me:
If something by definition is “free of error” (which the doctrine of imprimatur is), then it must be infallible. The fact that all of the popes from 1559-1966AD put their “free of error” stamps on the forbidden book list doesn’t really apply the “pope is infallible” false doctrine to it; the imprimatur doctrine which means (not literally) “this is free of error” is to what I am appealing.

 

[Corki]

Did the imprimatur stamp on something mean it was free of error? She is trying to tell me that the Index of Forbidden Books was supposed to be free of error because it was marked with the imprimatur and that it holds the index to be infallible. While I am convinced that a list that was so frequently revised would not be held as free of error or infallible. What did the imprimatur tell us about whatever it was approving?

Church of Christ member wrote to me:
If something by definition is “free of error” (which the doctrine of imprimatur is), then it must be infallible. The fact that all of the popes from 1559-1966AD put their “free of error” stamps on the forbidden book list doesn’t really apply the “pope is infallible” false doctrine to it; the imprimatur doctrine which means (not literally) “this is free of error” is to what I am appealing.

The imprimatur means that a work is ok to be printed. I believe it literally translates into “let it be printed”. It is permission, not necessarily a guarantee. And it is granted generally by a Bishop, not a pope, so papal infallibility wouldn’t apply anyway.

Infallability applies to matters of faith and morals. The index of forbidden books was neither. It was a disciplinary instrument. The printed version of the index could have had any number of errors, including typos.

Are you or your friend trying to say that the judgement of the person listing a particular work must be infallible about the books suitability? No.

Revisions do not mean that there was anything wrong with the original, only that the current list of what’s forbidden might change from time to time. For example, a work might be on the list because of a bad or heretical translation. When a better translation is released, the book might come off the list. And of course, since new books are published all the time, there would be numerous addtitions to the list.

 

[mardukm]

Did the imprimatur stamp on something mean it was free of error? She is trying to tell me that the Index of Forbidden Books was supposed to be free of error because it was marked with the imprimatur and that it holds the index to be infallible. While I am convinced that a list that was so frequently revised would not be held as free of error or infallible. What did the imprimatur tell us about whatever it was approving?

Church of Christ member wrote to me:
If something by definition is “free of error” (which the doctrine of imprimatur is), then it must be infallible. The fact that all of the popes from 1559-1966AD put their “free of error” stamps on the forbidden book list doesn’t really apply the “pope is infallible” false doctrine to it; the imprimatur doctrine which means (not literally) “this is free of error” is to what I am appealing.

Techinically, the imprimatur has nothing to do with whether a book is “error free” or not. It is simply a sign that something is permitted to be printed in a particular ecclesiastical jurisdiction. If you want to determine whether the book is “error free,” then you check to see if it has a nihil obstat.

A nihil obstat does not mean the contents of the book are infallible. It simply means that the contents of the book are free from doctrinal or moral error - i.e., that it does not contradict the DOGMATIC Faith of the Catholic Church.

There are many things in the Catholic Church that have not been defined, so a book can possibly contain some theologoumenon that one Catholic may agree with, yet another Catholic may reject. In any case, since it has not been defined, then it does not contradict the DOGMATIC Faith of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[thistle]

Did the imprimatur stamp on something mean it was free of error? She is trying to tell me that the Index of Forbidden Books was supposed to be free of error because it was marked with the imprimatur and that it holds the index to be infallible. While I am convinced that a list that was so frequently revised would not be held as free of error or infallible. What did the imprimatur tell us about whatever it was approving?

Church of Christ member wrote to me:
If something by definition is “free of error” (which the doctrine of imprimatur is), then it must be infallible. The fact that all of the popes from 1559-1966AD put their “free of error” stamps on the forbidden book list doesn’t really apply the “pope is infallible” false doctrine to it; the imprimatur doctrine which means (not literally) “this is free of error” is to what I am appealing.

Imprimatur simply means let it be printed. It does not mean free from doctrinal error. It basically means nothing. Some bishops grant this without even having read the book or article being referred to them.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Imprimatur simply means let it be printed. It does not mean free from doctrinal error. It basically means nothing. Some bishops grant this without even having read the book or article being referred to them.

exactly. All Catholic reading material must have a Bishop’s Committee approval, Imprimatur, Nihil Obstat or Impini Potest I believe, please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Did the imprimatur stamp on something mean it was free of error? She is trying to tell me that the Index of Forbidden Books was supposed to be free of error because it was marked with the imprimatur and that it holds the index to be infallible. While I am convinced that a list that was so frequently revised would not be held as free of error or infallible. What did the imprimatur tell us about whatever it was approving?

Church of Christ member wrote to me:
If something by definition is “free of error” (which the doctrine of imprimatur is), then it must be infallible. The fact that all of the popes from 1559-1966AD put their “free of error” stamps on the forbidden book list doesn’t really apply the “pope is infallible” false doctrine to it; the imprimatur doctrine which means (not literally) “this is free of error” is to what I am appealing.

What it means is that in the opinion of the person reviewing the book that it does not contain any obvious errors pertaining to Church teaching on faith and morals. It also means that “it” book or list, is authorized to be published. So when the pope placed his name on the “forbidden book list”, he was saying that he authorized it to be published, not that it was free of error.