1964 Benziger Brothers Reprint

[ies0716]

Hi all,

Some of you may be familiar with the recent reprint of "The Anglican Breviary" by Danial Lula,  This breviary was originally printed in 1955, and Mr. Lula was able to get a copyright release of some sort and get it reprinted by another printing house in 1998 and 2001.

I am contemplating trying something similar with the 1964 Benziger Brothers Breviary (the single-volume English one edited by Rev. Bede Babo).  Has anyone on here heard of someone trying something similar, or know how one would go about doing this?  Would there be interest in buying a reprint of this breviary if it could be done?  Let me know your thoughts.

Peace,

Isaac

[MaximusScriptorius]

I think that Breviary might still be protected by the publisher.  Benziger has been bought out   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benziger_Brothers and the new publishing group may still have rights over the original edition. http://rclweb.com/

Personally, I think it is ridiculous for a publisher to continue to hold rights on a book that they never intend on reprinting. 

One could always email them and ask. It couldn't hurt.

To do it right, this would be an expensive project.

[ies0716]

Interesting.  Thanks for the information.  I've e-mailed Daniel Lula to see if he could shed some light on the process he went through to print the Anglican Breviary.  I will e-mail the new RCL Benziger publishing company to see what their thoughts are.  Maybe they have some internal plan to reprint this breviary given the growing interest in such things after SP (if only we could be so lucky).  I have no doubt that this will be an expensive project.  I think its feasibility depends on the required scale.  If it's possible to do an initial reprint with 100-200 units, I think it would be fairly easy to get financing based on the projected ease of selling off such a small lot size relatively quickly.  If it's necessary to do thousands of units to do a reprint, then it will probably be cost prohibitive unless an actual publisher decides to do it.

[Credo]

it is ridiculous for a publisher to continue to hold rights on a book that they never intend on reprinting. 

More absurd still is copyrighting $cripture.

[Paul]

it is ridiculous for a publisher to continue to hold rights on a book that they never intend on reprinting. 

More absurd still is copyrighting $cripture.

You can't copyright Scripture; you can copyright a new translation of it or a particular arrangement of it.

To the OP: the text of the Breviary is most likely public domain and was probably never copyrighted by the Church. A reprint of a particular edition may still be under copyright, although this may have lapsed by now - usually it's for a certain number of years, and you have to renew it if you want it longer. Since it's a liturgical book, though, it would need to be an edition approved by the Church, to ensure it conforms to the original.

[ies0716]

In regards to getting approval from the Church to print it as a liturgical book, I would assume that if it's an exact reprint of the original (which did have an Imprimatur) then it wouldn't need to be approved a second time.  Is this correct?  For example, the Liturgy of the Hours still has the same "Concordat cum Originali" from the early 1970's and I know it's been reprinted quite a few times since then.

[MaximusScriptorius]

It seems to me that a facsimile reprint should not require any approval if it was already approved.  Once a text is approved, the approval is perpetual.
It would be an unnecessary redundancy to have it approved again.

The English Roman Breviary in question has both an imprimatur and the approval of a plenary meeting of the American Bishops on April 2, 1964.

There does not appear to be a copyright listed anywhere in the book.

[moneil]

In regards to getting approval from the Church to print it as a liturgical book, I would assume that if it's an exact reprint of the original (which did have an Imprimatur) then it wouldn't need to be approved a second time.  Is this correct?  For example, the Liturgy of the Hours still has the same "Concordat cum Originali" from the early 1970's and I know it's been reprinted quite a few times since then.

It seems to me that a facsimile reprint should not require any approval if it was already approved.  Once a text is approved, the approval is perpetual.
It would be an unnecessary redundancy to have it approved again.

The English Roman Breviary in question has both an imprimatur and the approval of a plenary meeting of the American Bishops on April 2, 1964.

There does not appear to be a copyright listed anywhere in the book.

I’m not an authority on these things, but I believe if it is to be an official liturgical book, it requires some form of ecclesiastical approval, even for a facsimile reprint.  The original Imprimatur may remain in effect, but a Concordat cum originali is required, a declaration that a reprint or translation is accurate and faithful to the original.

That has been one of the delays with the Baronius Press reprint of the 1963 Collegeville Breviary http://www.baroniuspress.com/forthcoming_books.htm.  Hopefully that will be available soon.

Again, though not having a depth of knowledge is this area, I don’t thing that once a text is approved, the approval is perpetual.  There have been instances where a Bishop’s, or a Conference of Bishops’ Imprimatur has been revoked.

Here is one example:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=654&CFID=42636374&CFTOKEN=74803951.

The Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprimatur on imprimaturs mentions examples of this also.  The catechism “Christ Among Us”, that was popular in the 1970’s, and beyond, had it’s imprimatur revoked at one time, on the order of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I believe (I don’t know exactly what the issue with is was).  I have the impression that it has since been revised, and is now approved again.

[MaximusScriptorius]

In regards to getting approval from the Church to print it as a liturgical book, I would assume that if it's an exact reprint of the original (which did have an Imprimatur) then it wouldn't need to be approved a second time.  Is this correct?  For example, the Liturgy of the Hours still has the same "Concordat cum Originali" from the early 1970's and I know it's been reprinted quite a few times since then.

It seems to me that a facsimile reprint should not require any approval if it was already approved.  Once a text is approved, the approval is perpetual.
It would be an unnecessary redundancy to have it approved again.

The English Roman Breviary in question has both an imprimatur and the approval of a plenary meeting of the American Bishops on April 2, 1964.

There does not appear to be a copyright listed anywhere in the book.

I’m not an authority on these things, but I believe if it is to be an official liturgical book, it requires some form of ecclesiastical approval, even for a facsimile reprint.  The original Imprimatur may remain in effect, but a Concordat cum originali is required, a declaration that a reprint or translation is accurate and faithful to the original.

That has been one of the delays with the Baronius Press reprint of the 1963 Collegeville Breviary http://www.baroniuspress.com/forthcoming_books.htm.  Hopefully that will be available soon.

Again, though not having a depth of knowledge is this area, I don’t thing that once a text is approved, the approval is perpetual.  There have been instances where a Bishop’s, or a Conference of Bishops’ Imprimatur has been revoked.

Here is one example:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=654&CFID=42636374&CFTOKEN=74803951.

The Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprimatur on imprimaturs mentions examples of this also.  The catechism “Christ Among Us”, that was popular in the 1970’s, and beyond, had it’s imprimatur revoked at one time, on the order of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I believe (I don’t know exactly what the issue with is was).  I have the impression that it has since been revised, and is now approved again.

Nor I am an authority.

Your point is taken considering that approval could be revoked. I guess the clarification should be made that when legitimate authority is given to a legitimate text, the approval is perpetual. (or should be)
The two examples you gave were more recent ones, during very tumultuous times in the Church. Maybe there are more examples from a bit deeper in the history of the Church? I'd be interested in seeing them.

In regards to the English Breviary of Benziger, if the approval has not been revoked during the 46 years that have passed since it had been originally printed, I seriously doubt that it would get revoked now. I'm not trying to be overly presumptuous but  let us not be overly scrupulous. May we also assume that the approval of the Bishop's Conference of 1964 adds additional weight to the imprimatur?

As you know, the Baronius Breviary is a totally different story. They are re-typesetting that edition and knowingly revising the text. Then, of course new approval is needed.

Concerning the "Liturgical Psalter" story at the link you gave- Imagine that, ICEL mis-translated a text!

[ies0716]

In regards to getting approval from the Church to print it as a liturgical book, I would assume that if it's an exact reprint of the original (which did have an Imprimatur) then it wouldn't need to be approved a second time.  Is this correct?  For example, the Liturgy of the Hours still has the same "Concordat cum Originali" from the early 1970's and I know it's been reprinted quite a few times since then.

It seems to me that a facsimile reprint should not require any approval if it was already approved.  Once a text is approved, the approval is perpetual.
It would be an unnecessary redundancy to have it approved again.

The English Roman Breviary in question has both an imprimatur and the approval of a plenary meeting of the American Bishops on April 2, 1964.

There does not appear to be a copyright listed anywhere in the book.

I’m not an authority on these things, but I believe if it is to be an official liturgical book, it requires some form of ecclesiastical approval, even for a facsimile reprint.  The original Imprimatur may remain in effect, but a Concordat cum originali is required, a declaration that a reprint or translation is accurate and faithful to the original.

That has been one of the delays with the Baronius Press reprint of the 1963 Collegeville Breviary http://www.baroniuspress.com/forthcoming_books.htm.  Hopefully that will be available soon.

Again, though not having a depth of knowledge is this area, I don’t thing that once a text is approved, the approval is perpetual.  There have been instances where a Bishop’s, or a Conference of Bishops’ Imprimatur has been revoked.

Here is one example:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=654&CFID=42636374&CFTOKEN=74803951.

The Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprimatur on imprimaturs mentions examples of this also.  The catechism “Christ Among Us”, that was popular in the 1970’s, and beyond, had it’s imprimatur revoked at one time, on the order of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I believe (I don’t know exactly what the issue with is was).  I have the impression that it has since been revised, and is now approved again.

Nor I am an authority.

Your point is taken considering that approval could be revoked. I guess the clarification should be made that when legitimate authority is given to a legitimate text, the approval is perpetual. (or should be)
The two examples you gave were more recent ones, during very tumultuous times in the Church. Maybe there are more examples from a bit deeper in the history of the Church? I'd be interested in seeing them.

In regards to the English Breviary of Benziger, if the approval has not been revoked during the 46 years that have passed since it had been originally printed, I seriously doubt that it would get revoked now. I'm not trying to be overly presumptuous but  let us not be overly scrupulous. May we also assume that the approval of the Bishop's Conference of 1964 adds additional weight to the imprimatur?

As you know, the Baronius Breviary is a totally different story. They are re-typesetting that edition and knowingly revising the text. Then, of course new approval is needed.

Concerning the "Liturgical Psalter" story at the link you gave- Imagine that, ICEL mis-translated a text!

I was going to make the same point about the Baronius Breviary.  They are replacing the original Piux XII Latin Psalter with the Vulgate Psalter, and I believe they are re-translating some of the English texts as well.  Obviously I would check with my local bishop before proceeding (if this project ever gets off the ground, that is).