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 There have been instances where a Bishop’s, or a Conference of Bishops’ Imprimatur has been revoked.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!