 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Please, I beg someone to please go to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2Q.HTM and read canons 822 - 832 to get a handle on what imprimatur, nihil obstat, imprimi potest are all about. There is a bit of incorrect information in the article apparently based on information gathered from unofficial websites rather then directly from canon law. I'd edit it, but I don't know how; I summarized what the law says in this edit, but didn't realize I had to save it first; I lost the whole thing and just don't have the time right now to redo it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.23.22 (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The explanations of Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat presented here are confused. The following Web page apparently gets it right: http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/imprimatur.html (blacklisted hyperlink delinked, link is dead now --Steven J. Anderson 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
More specifically, the current article seems to reverse the roles of imprimatur and nihil obstat. It would probably be more accurate to write, "While the nihil obstat certifies there is no moral or doctrinal error, the imprimatur is an express permission from the bishop for the text to be printed." (That is, the censor does the legwork, then the bishop confers his authority on the censor's decision.)
In addition, nihil obstat is better translated "nothing hinders" [publishing the reviewed work].
I would edit the actual Imprimatur article directly, if I trusted my ability to do so successfully. There are MANY rules and conventions I have not learned!
Imprimatur translates as "let it be printed". I think this text is the wrong way round, too.
After consulting with the Curia, I amend my above-comments. Imprimatur is a permission to print, about this I was incorrect. However, it can only be issued by a bishop. Nihil obstat is a certification that no error exists, and is issued by the censor. --Essjay 15:02, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
I was taught in theology class the imprimatur stamp means the Bible was translated correctly. This is a huge difference from it meaning the Bible agrees with catholic theology. The latter implies the Bible is translated in order to agree with catholic theology when it is the opposite. I found the mistaken definition of imprimatur quite offensive due to its implications.
I've removed a link to the fisheaters website because of the problematic content of the link, for example:
Sadly, because of the triumph of modernsists and liberals in the human aspect of the Church since the Second Vatican Council, books which could well contain a watered-down theology, a warped view of History, etc. now do receive the "Imprimatur."
-- Cat Whisperer 21:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the last sentence in the paragraph that begins with the words Imprimi potest from
to
Obviously, the sentence was a wreck with a clause repeated both before and after a prepositional phrase, but I had to rely on an assumption to change "have" to "after." I ask that other editors more familiar with the subject than I am check my work. --Steven J. Anderson 21:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My familiarity with Latin is limited. Could anyone familiar with these terms provide IPA pronunciation guides for how these terms are pronounced, at least within academic circles? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page says that obtaining an imprimatur "formerly" requires four steps. As it is in the present tense, I think this should read "formally", not "formerly". An earlier comment mentions other sentences which were, in the writer's words "a mess", so I have a feeling that some of this page was composed in nonstandard English. But I may be wrong, and the author may be giving an obsolete procedure and simply has a problem with tense. As I do not know which is the case, could someone who knows the process look at this and either correct the word or the tense so it makes sense? 68.55.132.231 (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the page changed January 4, 20009 from the old text:
ARoman Catholic imprimatur can consist of up to three stamps, each followed by a signature (name and title):
To the new text:
ARoman Catholic imprimatur could formerly require up to four steps:
From the originally wording, it does certainly appear the second author meant to use "formally" not "formerly". So I am correcting that wording. Actually, cleaning it up a bit more, as the "could formally require" is still bad. Unless there are objections, I will change to "may require up to four steps", as if the number is variable, it is hard to accuse the process of "formalism". If it always required four, then it is formal, but as both suggest the number varies, there appears to be nothing formal about the process. 68.55.132.231 (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We state: "The 1662 act required that, according to their subject, books needed to receive the authorization, known as the imprimatur, of the Lord Chancellor, the Earl Marshall, a principal Secretary of State, the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of London. This law finally expired in 1695."
This is given the lie by the very example shown in the picture to the right of the section. Newton's Pricipia, published in 1687, received its imprimatur order from the President of the Royal Society; not one of the parties we mentioned. Now, Pepys was also Secretary to the Admiralty at the time, so perhaps that example is merely misleading. But I also see that The Sceptical Chymist received its imprimatur in 1677 from the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University. I think that's the second edition; perhaps that makes a difference? Perhaps since the first edition was published in 1961, the second edition is exempt.
If there's anyone about with more information about this, I think the section could do with being expanded or fixed. Azkm (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Imprimatur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Imprimatur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is ABSOLUTELY no connection between an imprimatur and the Maltese cross. 208.101.209.80 (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
