Imprimatur/Nihil Obstat

[Antonius Block]

Why doesn't my Catechism of the Council of Trent have either of these? It's published by St. Benedict Press, so you'd think it would. I just bought a copy to complement/clarify what I'm reading in the CCC for my RCIA class, but the absence of the Imprimatur has me wondering: am I running into dangerous doctrinal territory?

OK, that last question was a joke. But I'm still curious why a Catholic publishing company would print the Tridentine Catechism without either of them.

[Herr_Mannelig]

Why doesn't my Catechism of the Council of Trent have either of these? It's published by St. Benedict Press, so you'd think it would. I just bought a copy to complement/clarify what I'm reading in the CCC for my RCIA class, but the absence of the Imprimatur has me wondering: am I running into dangerous doctrinal territory?

OK, that last question was a joke. But I'm still curious why a Catholic publishing company would print the Tridentine Catechism without either of them.

Perhaps for simplicity. The text is already known, so the publishers may have forsaken getting one.

[Antonius Block]

Why doesn't my Catechism of the Council of Trent have either of these? It's published by St. Benedict Press, so you'd think it would. I just bought a copy to complement/clarify what I'm reading in the CCC for my RCIA class, but the absence of the Imprimatur has me wondering: am I running into dangerous doctrinal territory?

OK, that last question was a joke. But I'm still curious why a Catholic publishing company would print the Tridentine Catechism without either of them.

Perhaps for simplicity. The text is already known, so the publishers may have forsaken getting one.

Makes sense. Do you have any idea how widely that practice extends? I notice that my copy of The Creed by Luke Timothy Johnson (given to me by a priest with whom I had several conversations in college) has neither, yet I hardly believe that that's because it's free of error in matters of faith or morals. It's a fairly (thoroughly?) liberal "Catholic" book that did me more harm than good when I was reading it, but LTJ is still a big name in modern theology, as far as I know.

Come to think of it, my copy of Abandonment to Divine Providence by de Caussade lacks the stamps of approval as well, though that may just be because it's published by Doubleday and not a Catholic press.

It's all very confusing, trying to figure out what's orthodox and what's not.

[aquinas138]

Unless I'm mistaken, Luke Timothy Johnson is a Protestant biblical scholar.  His commentary on the Pastorals is actually pretty good - one of the few modern scholars who defends Pauline authorship of the Pastorals.

[SoCalLocal]

Why doesn't my Catechism of the Council of Trent have either of these? It's published by St. Benedict Press, so you'd think it would. I just bought a copy to complement/clarify what I'm reading in the CCC for my RCIA class, but the absence of the Imprimatur has me wondering: am I running into dangerous doctrinal territory?

OK, that last question was a joke. But I'm still curious why a Catholic publishing company would print the Tridentine Catechism without either of them.

There isn't anything saying, "Issued by order of Pope Pius V"?

Even the online version says that in the introduction.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Preface.shtml
Seems to me that an order from the Pope pretty much covers things.

[Antonius Block]

Unless I'm mistaken, Luke Timothy Johnson is a Protestant biblical scholar.  His commentary on the Pastorals is actually pretty good - one of the few modern scholars who defends Pauline authorship of the Pastorals.

That's interesting. His Wikipedia page says he is a former priest and Benedictine monk, but nothing about his current religious affiliation. I've assumed he was Catholic based on the fact that he's published in Commonweal and because the above mentioned priest gave me one of his books. I suppose neither one of those is really definitive, though. This same priest also gave me a book by Hans Kung in response to some of my queries. (OK, Kung is nominally Catholic, but not really.)

Maybe I ought not to be too hard on Johnson. His book was meaty and had some good food for thought (meat...), it just seemed wedded to many conventionally liberal social ideals and also to be willfully ambiguous on the historicity of Christ's resurrection. That's the main reason I found it distressing; if Jesus wasn't historically, physically raised, all other Christian teachings are nonsense and I'm wasting my time.

[DJR]

Why doesn't my Catechism of the Council of Trent have either of these? It's published by St. Benedict Press, so you'd think it would. I just bought a copy to complement/clarify what I'm reading in the CCC for my RCIA class, but the absence of the Imprimatur has me wondering: am I running into dangerous doctrinal territory?

OK, that last question was a joke. But I'm still curious why a Catholic publishing company would print the Tridentine Catechism without either of them.

Well, the infamous Dutch Catechism had an imprimatur, so some imprimaturs don't have much value anyway.

[glgas]

I have a hunch that the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (also Imprimi potest for the members of religious orders)  was invented sometimes in the 19th Century. Books before tant time has Introduction written by the local Bishop proving his approval.

Reprints (like the Tridentine Cathechism) never needed Imprimatur, only a statement (by the local bishop of the printer) that the book conforms with the original.

The Imprimatur in itself (like the majority of the statement about the faith) is not infallible  Here is the document that not so long ago the Vatican ordered a bishop to withdraw the imprimatur

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n17_v34/ai_20358695/