Why Should Jesus Love Me?

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#604506 Nov 1, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Fist of all, Wikipedia is not official Church policy
Second of all, there is nothing in there that even remotely suggests the information is representative of official church interpretation or synonymous with the Pope's views.
All it means is:
"that a book or other printed work may be published; it is usually only applied for and granted to books on religious topics from a Catholic perspective."
The book is on a religious topic and it is from the perspective of a Catholic scholar
Do you know how many scholars have different views? They are still allowed to get approval to write about them. Anybody employed by the Church needs to get permission to publish.
"Issue: What are the nihil obstat and imprimatur? Do they guarantee that a work will authentically present the teachings of the Church?
Response: In the Catholic Church, certain types of writings need a bishop’s authorization to be published for use in Catholic instruction. The nihil obstat and imprimatur indicate that a writing has received that authorization. They signify that, in the judgment of the bishop who grants the imprimatur, the work contains nothing contrary to faith and morals. However, the nihil obstat and imprimatur are not an endorsement and do not guarantee that the entire contents of a work are true."
http://www.cuf.org/2006/03/nihil-obstat-and-i...
It simply shows a Bishop has given permission for someone to publish something
"The nihil obstat and imprimatur show that a bishop has given authorization for a work to be published"
Correct.

It has been approved by the Catholic Church.

Officially.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#604507 Nov 1, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when would Ecole need permission from the Pope or his Assessor to give a referral to someone asking questions?
It wouldn't, necessarily, however, this was done - by the direction - of the Popes official spokesperson, who then directed it to the appropriate channels, and those channels - all - had the approbation of the Catholic Church.

That's the detail, and none of it(the response process) has been disputed or declared inapplicable or in error by the Catholic Church.

That's an important detail.
Skombolis wrote:
Here is a similar scenario
I call up the POTUS and ask him what his interpretation is of part of the Constitution. Of course he isn't going to answer me direct. So I call his Chief of Staff who has the authority to speak for the office. He doesn't answer me either but tells me try John Doe, a constitutional expert employed by the government and me can probably help me. So I call him up and he doesn't answer my questions either. But he tells me try John Smith
Is the answer John Smith gives me one that has been directed and approved by the POTUS? Does it even mean that is how the POTUS would interpret it? Does that mean that is the official interpretation of the United States?
Of course not to all of the above
That's not the same nor similar scenario.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#604508 Nov 1, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
The Bishop that gave permission may disagree with the conclusions and still grant permission for the person to publish it
"The nihil obstat and imprimatur are not the equivalent of an endorsement or recommendation. They do not affirm that the whole of a work’s contents are true. Neither do the nihil obstat and imprimatur indicate that the censor or bishop necessarily agrees with the contents of a work. For example, a book on Catholic bioethics may have received the nihil obstat and imprimatur. Such a book may discuss Church teachings, and it may also proffer opinions in matters where the Church has not yet spoken (e.g., when new technology raises new ethical concerns). Those opinions may be deemed “free of doctrinal or moral error,” but the bishop who granted the imprimatur may not agree with those opinions."
http://www.cuf.org/2006/03/nihil-obstat-and-i...
Right, what it does declare within the Catholic Church is that anything within the work that has that approbation does not conflict with official church doctrine.

It is approved.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604509 Nov 1, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct.
It has been approved by the Catholic Church.
Officially.
No it has NOT

The information written about only represents the author. Getting approval to publish is NOT an endorsement of the material. It states that quite clearly

"However, the nihil obstat and imprimatur are not an endorsement and do not guarantee that the entire contents of a work are true."

In addition

"At the same time, there are several reasons why a Catholic would still want to carefully evaluate a publication bearing the nihil obstat and imprimatur:

1) "A book may contain doctrinal or moral errors that the censor(s) did not notice..."

2) "A book may present material that is technically accurate while being somewhat or even highly misleading...."

3) "An author might state Church teaching accurately, but then put forth opinions by other theologians that call Church teaching into question.....Censors will sometimes recommend imprimaturs in these cases on the basis that the book overall might be in conformity with Church teachings, and therefore the book does more good than harm."

4) "A publication may advance speculative theological opinions. One finds this particularly in fields such as Scripture study and ethics..."

5) "There may, on occasion, be a difference of opinion as to what Church teaching is on a given subject.."

http://www.cuf.org/2006/03/nihil-obstat-and-i...

So as long as a Bishop feel the book does more good then harm, even if he doesn't agree, he may allow it to be published. Also it can contain one theory out of multiple ones. It can also be teaching based but then go speculative.

But essentially if a Bishop feel the book was written in good faith and is moral, he will allow an author to publish his own views. It doesn't mean the author is speaking for anybody but himself

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#604510 Nov 1, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
No it has NOT
The information written about only represents the author. Getting approval to publish is NOT an endorsement of the material. It states that quite clearly
"However, the nihil obstat and imprimatur are not an endorsement and do not guarantee that the entire contents of a work are true."
In addition
"At the same time, there are several reasons why a Catholic would still want to carefully evaluate a publication bearing the nihil obstat and imprimatur:
1) "A book may contain doctrinal or moral errors that the censor(s) did not notice..."
2) "A book may present material that is technically accurate while being somewhat or even highly misleading...."
3) "An author might state Church teaching accurately, but then put forth opinions by other theologians that call Church teaching into question.....Censors will sometimes recommend imprimaturs in these cases on the basis that the book overall might be in conformity with Church teachings, and therefore the book does more good than harm."
4) "A publication may advance speculative theological opinions. One finds this particularly in fields such as Scripture study and ethics..."
5) "There may, on occasion, be a difference of opinion as to what Church teaching is on a given subject.."
http://www.cuf.org/2006/03/nihil-obstat-and-i...
So as long as a Bishop feel the book does more good then harm, even if he doesn't agree, he may allow it to be published. Also it can contain one theory out of multiple ones. It can also be teaching based but then go speculative.
But essentially if a Bishop feel the book was written in good faith and is moral, he will allow an author to publish his own views. It doesn't mean the author is speaking for anybody but himself
It also means it has been approved.

By the Catholic institution.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604511 Nov 1, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text> It wouldn't, necessarily, however, this was done - by the direction - of the Popes official spokesperson, who then directed it to the appropriate channels, and those channels - all - had the approbation of the Catholic Church.
That's the detail, and none of it(the response process) has been disputed or declared inapplicable or in error by the Catholic Church.
That's an important detail.
<quoted text>
That's not the same nor similar scenario.
You certainly know directing someone with questions to try asking someone else is not the same as the answers received being directed and approved by the Pope

You certainly know that getting approval to publish something is not the same as the source material be approved (as in endorsed)

And you certainly know that just because the Church has not come out and officially condemned a publication that someone got permission from a Bishop to write doesn't mean in absence of that they must agree with it.

So long as it is written in good faith and morals, the Church censors (Bishops) will often allow someone to publish their personal theories.

Allowing someone to publish is not the same as endorsing what they wrote. Again:

"However, the nihil obstat and imprimatur are not an endorsement and do not guarantee that the entire contents of a work are true."

http://www.cuf.org/2006/03/nihil-obstat-and-i...

And that analogy was spot on. Neither the POTUS or the Pope were going to provide interpretations for critics. But someone that could speak for them suggested they try an employee that may be able to help them. But instead that employee directed them to someone else. In no way does that person have authority to speak for the POTUS/Pope

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604512 Nov 1, 2013
I will make this simple for anyone following along as there are only a few things that need to be known that say it all.

Nihil obstat and Imprimatur

"However, the nihil obstat and imprimatur are not an endorsement and do not guarantee that the entire contents of a work are true."

"– There may, on occasion, be a difference of opinion as to what Church teaching is on a given subject. This is because magisterial documents consist of words that different people might interpret in different ways..."

"Finally, a nihil obstat and imprimatur do not guarantee that a book is well written. They do not ensure that arguments are well presented, that explanations are complete, or that topics are fully covered..."

No endorsement. No guarantee it is true or even well written with good arguments. No guarantee it is the same as the official church teachings because someone can publish a different theory. The Bishop that gave permission to publish may not even agree. All it means it that the author presented his perspective in good faith and morality.

That's it. There is no way to make it mean anything more than that. Any suggestions to the contrary can be compared to the actual requirements needed for approval to publish

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#604513 Nov 1, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
You certainly know directing someone with questions to try asking someone else is not the same as the answers received being directed and approved by the Pope
You certainly know that getting approval to publish something is not the same as the source material be approved (as in endorsed)
And you certainly know that just because the Church has not come out and officially condemned a publication that someone got permission from a Bishop to write doesn't mean in absence of that they must agree with it.
So long as it is written in good faith and morals, the Church censors (Bishops) will often allow someone to publish their personal theories.
Allowing someone to publish is not the same as endorsing what they wrote. Again:
"However, the nihil obstat and imprimatur are not an endorsement and do not guarantee that the entire contents of a work are true."
http://www.cuf.org/2006/03/nihil-obstat-and-i...
And that analogy was spot on. Neither the POTUS or the Pope were going to provide interpretations for critics. But someone that could speak for them suggested they try an employee that may be able to help them. But instead that employee directed them to someone else. In no way does that person have authority to speak for the POTUS/Pope
He does when the work referenced had the Nihil obstat and imprimatur stamp of approval.

"The Roman Catholic Church, which assumes the responsibility of authority by Christ as the conduit for truth on this earth, declares that it has the obligation to preserve Christians from deviations from the truth and to to guarantee them the "objective possibility of professing the true faith without error". This is stated in the Catechism (890) of the Catholic faith. Because of this, the Bishops carefully scrutinize books published on faith and scripture, and give them their approval if nothing therein is found to be contrary to the Faith (relevant Canon Law: "Title IV: The Means of Social Communication," ¶ 822-832)

The procedure works as follows:

When a book is brought to the Bishop, dealing with faith, morals, theology, liturgy, prayer, or editions of Sacred Scripture, etc., he will submit his manuscript to his diocese's Censor. If the Censor finds no problem with it, he will give it his stamp, which reads "Nihil Obstat," or "nothing stands in the way." He then sends it back to the Bishop for his review. If the Bishop finds nothing objectionable, he gives the book his "Imprimatur" which means, "let it be printed."
http://www.thewordstoday.com/nihil.htm

It has been approved.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604514 Nov 1, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
It also means it has been approved.
By the Catholic institution.
Getting approval to publish is not the same as what they published by approved (as in endorsed" by the Church.

"However, the nihil obstat and imprimatur are not an endorsement and do not guarantee that the entire contents of a work are true."

http://www.cuf.org/2006/03/nihil-obstat-and-i...

The information has been approved in the sense that it has met the requirements to be published. And that is all it means

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#604515 Nov 1, 2013
Code of Canon Law

TITLE IV.

INSTRUMENTS OF SOCIAL COMMUNICATION AND BOOKS IN PARTICULAR (Cann. 822 - 832)

Can. 822 §1. The pastors of the Church, using a right proper to the Church in fulfilling their function, are to endeavor to make use of the instruments of social communication.

§2. These same pastors are to take care to teach the faithful that they are bound by the duty of cooperating so that a human and Christian spirit enlivens the use of instruments of social communication.

§3. All the Christian faithful, especially those who in any way have a role in the regulation or use of the same instruments, are to be concerned to offer assistance in pastoral action so that the Church exercises its function effectively through these instruments.

Can. 823 §1. In order to preserve the integrity of the truths of faith and morals, the pastors of the Church have the duty and right to be watchful so that no harm is done to the faith or morals of the Christian faithful through writings or the use of instruments of social communication. They also have the duty and right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgment and have the duty and right to condemn writings which harm correct faith or good morals.

§2. Bishops, individually or gathered in particular councils or conferences of bishops, have the duty and right mentioned in §1 with regard to the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the supreme authority of the Church, however, has this duty and right with regard to the entire people of God.

Can. 824 §1. Unless it is established otherwise, the local ordinary whose permission or approval to publish books must be sought according to the canons of this title is the proper local ordinary of the author or the ordinary of the place where the books are published.

§2. Those things established regarding books in the canons of this title must be applied to any writings whatsoever which are destined for public distribution, unless it is otherwise evident.

Can. 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.

§2. With the permission of the conference of bishops, Catholic members of the Christian faithful in collaboration with separated brothers and sisters can prepare and publish translations of the sacred scriptures provided with appropriate annotations.

Can. 826 §1. The prescripts of &#8658; can. 838 are to be observed concerning liturgical books.

§2. To reprint liturgical books, their translations into the vernacular, or their parts, an attestation of the ordinary of the place where they are published must establish their agreement with the approved edition.

§3. Books of prayers for the public or private use of the faithful are not to be published without the permission of the local ordinary.

Can. 827 §1. To be published, catechisms and other writings pertaining to catechetical instruction or their translations require the approval of the local ordinary, without prejudice to the prescript of &#8658; can. 775,§2.

§2. Books which regard questions pertaining to sacred scripture, theology, canon law, ecclesiastical history, and religious or moral disciplines cannot be used as texts on which instruction is based in elementary, middle, or higher schools unless they have been published with the approval of competent ecclesiastical authority or have been approved by it subsequently.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2Q.H...

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#604516 Nov 1, 2013
Continuing...

§3. It is recommended that books dealing with the matters mentioned in §2, although not used as texts in instruction, as well as writings which especially concern religion or good morals are submitted to the judgment of the local ordinary.

§4. Books or other writings dealing with questions of religion or morals cannot be exhibited, sold, or distributed in churches or oratories unless they have been published with the permission of competent ecclesiastical authority or approved by it subsequently.

Can. 828 It is not permitted to reprint collections of decrees or acts published by some ecclesiastical authority unless the prior permission of the same authority has been obtained and the conditions prescribed by it have been observed.

Can. 829 The approval or permission to publish some work is valid for the original text but not for new editions or translations of the same.

Can. 830 §1. The conference of bishops can compile a list of censors outstanding in knowledge, correct doctrine, and prudence to be available to diocesan curias or can also establish a commission of censors which local ordinaries can consult; the right of each local ordinary to entrust judgment regarding books to persons he approves, however, remains intact.

§2. In fulfilling this office, laying aside any favoritism, the censor is to consider only the doctrine of the Church concerning faith and morals as it is proposed by the ecclesiastical magisterium.

§3. A censor must give his or her opinion in writing; if it is favorable, the ordinary, according to his own prudent judgment, is to grant permission for publication to take place, with his name and the time and place of the permission granted expressed. If he does not grant permission, the ordinary is to communicate the reasons for the denial to the author of the work.

Can. 831 §1. Except for a just and reasonable cause, the Christian faithful are not to write anything for newspapers, magazines, or periodicals which are accustomed to attack openly the Catholic religion or good morals; clerics and members of religious institutes, however, are to do so only with the permission of the local ordinary.

§2. It is for the conference of bishops to establish norms concerning the requirements for clerics and members of religious institutes to take part on radio or television in dealing with questions of Catholic doctrine or morals.

Can. 832 Members of religious institutes also need permission of their major superior according to the norm of the constitutions in order to publish writings dealing with questions of religion or morals.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2Q.H...

That is the official stance.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#604517 Nov 1, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Getting approval to publish is not the same as what they published by approved (as in endorsed" by the Church.
"However, the nihil obstat and imprimatur are not an endorsement and do not guarantee that the entire contents of a work are true."
http://www.cuf.org/2006/03/nihil-obstat-and-i...
The information has been approved in the sense that it has met the requirements to be published. And that is all it means
Not according to the Code of Canon Law.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604518 Nov 1, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
He does when the work referenced had the Nihil obstat and imprimatur stamp of approval.
"The Roman Catholic Church, which assumes the responsibility of authority by Christ as the conduit for truth on this earth, declares that it has the obligation to preserve Christians from deviations from the truth and to to guarantee them the "objective possibility of professing the true faith without error". This is stated in the Catechism (890) of the Catholic faith. Because of this, the Bishops carefully scrutinize books published on faith and scripture, and give them their approval if nothing therein is found to be contrary to the Faith (relevant Canon Law: "Title IV: The Means of Social Communication," ¶ 822-832)
The procedure works as follows:
When a book is brought to the Bishop, dealing with faith, morals, theology, liturgy, prayer, or editions of Sacred Scripture, etc., he will submit his manuscript to his diocese's Censor. If the Censor finds no problem with it, he will give it his stamp, which reads "Nihil Obstat," or "nothing stands in the way." He then sends it back to the Bishop for his review. If the Bishop finds nothing objectionable, he gives the book his "Imprimatur" which means, "let it be printed."
http://www.thewordstoday.com/nihil.htm
It has been approved.
Ah man

It has been approved in the sense that the material has met the requirements to be published

It does not mean the material is being endorsed

"However, the nihil obstat and imprimatur are not an endorsement and do not guarantee that the entire contents of a work are true."

http://www.cuf.org/2006/03/nihil-obstat-and-i...

Many things are subject to interpretation and so long as the censor (Bishop) feels the author is presenting his theory in good faith and morals, he will grant permission to publish it. Which is why it says ""objective possibility of professing the true faith without error""

It doesn't mean the Bishop agrees with it. It doesn't mean the Church endorses it.

I don't know how that can be any simpler. It is NOT an endorsement

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604519 Nov 1, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>Not according to the Code of Canon Law.
Yep, absolutely according to Cannon Law

The only thing in what you copied that would apply to this type of situation and not things like prayer books or reprinting original documents would be this part right here:

"Can. 823 §1. In order to preserve the integrity of the truths of faith and morals, the pastors of the Church have the duty and right to be watchful so that no harm is done to the faith or morals of the Christian faithful through writings or the use of instruments of social communication. They also have the duty and right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgment and have the duty and right to condemn writings which harm correct faith or good morals."

And that is no different than the information that has already been provided

So long as the Bishop feels the work will not cause harm is done to the faith or to the morals of its followers, he can give permission for someone to publish.

It doesn't mean they agree with the author's conclusions or that they endorse them. Just that they think presenting them won't do harm.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#604520 Nov 1, 2013
The New American Bible (NIHIL OBSTAT AND IMPRIMATUR)
http://www.amazon.com/American-Bible-NIHIL-OB...

Within Catholicism, even bibles that are used in official capacity by the Catholic Church must have the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

Bibles for personal use do not carry that requirement.

However, if you are a Catholic, and go to a Catholic Church service given by a Priest or an official Catholic representative and a bible is used by that person, that bible must have the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

What does that mean?

It has been approved.

I don't make the rules.

I just point them out.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604521 Nov 1, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>Not according to the Code of Canon Law.
I would add, what would be the point in Bishops allowing scholars to publish if all of them could only say the exact same things?

Obviously they allow scholars to present their various theories so long as they don't think presenting that theory will hurt the church or its followers.

And clearly scholars have published opposing theories with the same approval so how could the approval mean its the official teaching?

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#604522 Nov 1, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, absolutely according to Cannon Law
The only thing in what you copied that would apply to this type of situation and not things like prayer books or reprinting original documents would be this part right here:
"Can. 823 §1. In order to preserve the integrity of the truths of faith and morals, the pastors of the Church have the duty and right to be watchful so that no harm is done to the faith or morals of the Christian faithful through writings or the use of instruments of social communication. They also have the duty and right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgment and have the duty and right to condemn writings which harm correct faith or good morals."
And that is no different than the information that has already been provided
So long as the Bishop feels the work will not cause harm is done to the faith or to the morals of its followers, he can give permission for someone to publish.
It doesn't mean they agree with the author's conclusions or that they endorse them. Just that they think presenting them won't do harm.
So then there is no issue here.

An official of the Catholic Church approved the writings, which went through a process that included not only himself, but a deliberated process including others - and Canon Law -, and that process said he was granted authority to give that approval.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#604523 Nov 1, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
I would add, what would be the point in Bishops allowing scholars to publish if all of them could only say the exact same things?
Obviously they allow scholars to present their various theories so long as they don't think presenting that theory will hurt the church or its followers.
And clearly scholars have published opposing theories with the same approval so how could the approval mean its the official teaching?
Because the ones granting the approval are official censors within the Catholic institution. It isn't a random process. Those censors act within the auspices and official capacity of the Catholic Church.

They have the granted authority given by the Catholic Church to do so.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604524 Nov 1, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
So then there is no issue here.
An official of the Catholic Church approved the writings, which went through a process that included not only himself, but a deliberated process including others - and Canon Law -, and that process said he was granted authority to give that approval.
There is no issue if you understand what approved the writing means

It doesn't mean they are endorsing them, that they agree with them, or that they are the official church teachings

It simply means what the wrote met the requirements needed in order to get permission to publish. And the only requirements are that the censor (Bishop) feels the writings won't harm the faith or its members

Again, there would be no point in allowing multiple scholars permission to publish if they were only allowed to say the exact same things

Again, many scholars have gotten this approval to publish that have had opposing theories. So simple logic dictates approval to post is not synonymous with the contents being official church teachings

You understand the difference between approval to publish because the work is deemed to be something that will not harm the faith or its members and approval of the writings as in endorsement right?

It is very straight forward

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#604525 Nov 1, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah man
It has been approved in the sense that the material has met the requirements to be published
It does not mean the material is being endorsed
"However, the nihil obstat and imprimatur are not an endorsement and do not guarantee that the entire contents of a work are true."
http://www.cuf.org/2006/03/nihil-obstat-and-i...
Many things are subject to interpretation and so long as the censor (Bishop) feels the author is presenting his theory in good faith and morals, he will grant permission to publish it. Which is why it says ""objective possibility of professing the true faith without error""
It doesn't mean the Bishop agrees with it. It doesn't mean the Church endorses it.
I don't know how that can be any simpler. It is NOT an endorsement
I've never said it is an endorsement.

All I've said is that it has been approved.

However, if it does not cause harm or cause damage to faith or does not contradict doctrine, then that approval also carries weight.

That means it does not contradict official doctrine, no?

That means it does nothing to alter Catholic faith, no?

It's been approved.

Officially.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 3 min Aerobatty 118,830
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr UIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 184,830
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr guest 678,811
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 4 hr Sigmund Drumpf 2,300
ladies have you ever cheated on your BF while h... (Sep '15) 6 hr Crazy night 12
THE WHITAKER FAMILY of ODD, WV (Sep '11) 6 hr Red nissan 74
Cammack Village PUNKS 6 hr Snails Pace 1
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 17 hr May2017 NewsGlobal 982,133
More from around the web