Does Imprimatur & Nihil Obstat = Church approval?

Does an 'Imprimatur' and 'Nihil Obstat' mean a mystic or apparition is officially approved by the Catholic Church?

No it doesn't.

The Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat are not formal declarations of approval of a mystic. That's not how that works. This is only for printed books, publications, and, for books that can be about any topic, be it Church history, to theology, doctrine, biographies of saints, etc.

"Imprimatur" simply means in Latin 'let it be printed' and 'Nihil Obstat' means 'no objection' in that a bishop does not see anything contrary to doctrine and the Faith to allow a book to be printed in their diocese.

For a visionary and their visions to be formally approved and recognised by the Church, the local bishop of that mystic has to declare what is happening to them is of "supernatural" origin. Vatican approval is not needed – a local bishop's approval of a mystic is official approval for the entire Church. (See how Church approval works, click here.)

For example's sake, let us say there is a visionary in Paris France seeing mystic visions, and a bishop in New York has been given a copy of their messages and decides to give it the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. This means he has decided that the people of his diocese in New York may read the book that was presented to him for review as he sees no error in it, and basically, only in his diocese as he does not have jurisdiction in another bishop's diocese.  Furthermore, if the bishop in Paris has not ruled on the visionary, this Imprimatur and and Nihil Obstat is not official Church approval of that mystic's visions and messages.

 

Also, there is this scenario to consider: the bishop in New York can only judge what is literally in a book presented to him, so there remains the possibiliy if the mystic in Paris had said other bad things that were not in the book, he would not know about it and could only judge what is in the book.  So, he may see that the book itself may be okay, but he would not know if the mystic is false as the errors are not included in the text given to him, - the New York bishop would not know that they had said something contrary to the Church's teachings elsewhere that is not in the book.  So, without knowing, the New York bishop would have given an 'imprimatur' and 'nihil obstat' to a fake mystic.

The bishop in Paris, who is the visionary's local bishop and who has the duty to examine everything about that mystic, would have to rule that the mystic's experiences are 'supernatural' for them to be officially accepted throughout the entire Church.

Also, if the bishop from Paris decides to rule completely against that mystic and declares them absolutely 'not supernatural' with no evidence their visions or messages come from Heaven - this is automatic condemnation pronounced by and for the entire Church regarding that mystic's messages, and, would completely annul what the Bishop of New York decided.

Here are two real life cases that a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur DO NOT equal Church approval of a mystic or apparition:

+ A book in Spanish about Garabandal entitled “Las Apariciones No Son Un Mito: el interrogante de Garabandal” (1965) was presented to the Bishop Manuel Pio López of Jalapa Mexico for his approval. He gave it in July 8, 1966 – while the local bishop of Garandal had already ruled the apparitions were 'NOT SUPERNATURAL'. While the Mexican bishop noted there was nothing in the book against faith or morals and gave permission that the book be printed in 1966 in his diocese, this does NOT mean the apparitions of Garabandal are approved. To this day, the local bishop in whose diocese Garabandal is has ruled Garabandal is 'not supernatural-nonconstat', therefore, the visions are not yet approved by the Church. So, this is one example how the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat in a book DO NOT equal full Church approval of an apparition or mystic.

+ A book called “Mary Mystical Rose: Montichiari-Fontanelle” by A.M. Weigl received the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat c. 1974-1975 by two German ecclesastics, Rev. Erhardsberger and Bishop Rudolf Graber of Regensburg. However, as they are from Germany, they have no authority to declare the visions authentic. These visions of 'Rosa Mystica' to Pierina Guilli (1947) took place in Italy, so it would only be the bishop in charge of the locale of Montichiari, which is the bishop of Brescia, who would have the authority to declare the apparitions authentic or not. In fact, the local bishop of Brescia supported by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in 1984 declared them 'not credible' therefore, 'NOT SUPERNATURAL' meaning there is no official church approval for them, this position was again affirmed in 2013.  The current bishop is re-investigating the visions since 2019, but no approval has been given yet – so the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur found in a book do not mean these visions are approved.

So, if a bishop gives a Nihil Obstat, it means he has found nothing objectionable in a book and it may be printed and read in his diocese, but as we have seen in the scenario presented above, bishops can give the Nihil Obstat to an unapproved apparition.   Some bishops may even miss errors, especially if they do not have authority to judge a mystic:  




+ An obvious case is 'Luz de Maria' of Argentina. Her work has been given an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat by a bishop of Nicaragua, but he is not her local bishop and therefore she is not officially Church approved.  Her own local bishop has not declared her visions of 'supernatural origin' as far as I am aware, and, the bishop of Nicaragua even missed some major errors - it is a wonder how she ever obtained a Nihil Obstat for her printed books. (See more about her problematic messages, click here.)

It is a declaration of 'supernatural' by a local bishop that gives official Church approval to a mystic or an apparition.

::::::::::::::::::::::::

ILLICIT and INVALID Tactics to Pass off Books as 'Approved'

You often find these tactics are used by unapproved mystics so they not only appear to have their books approved, but even to make themselves look approved.   Also, there are some publishers who use these tactics so they don't have to go through the whole approval process.

1) When publishers and fake mystics get an 'approval' from  a bishop not in their own diocese, then say the book has been 'approved' by the Church.  

THIS IS NOT A VALID APPROVAL, and it is not a valid 'Imprimatur' and 'Nihil Obstat'.  
The Church declares the book or text of an author MUST be approved by the LOCAL ORDINARY where the book or text is published, and / or where the author is stationed or living, etc.  (Click here for the 1983 Code of Canon Law regarding Church approval for Publications).

2) False statements or misinterpretations of Canon Law that is nowhere in Church Canon Law or issued by the Holy See.  

For instance, several books have the following false statement that makes the book or publication appear 'okay' to publish, or that Church approval for certain works is no longer needed:  "On Oct. 14, 1966 His holiness Pope Paul VI confirmed the decree of the Sacred Congregation for the propagation of the Faith under 56 / 16 (ASS), permitting the publication of writings concerning supernatural apparitions, even if they do not have a 'nihil obstat' from ecclesiastical authorities'.  

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE 

 
The Oct. 14, 1966 ruling of the AAS 56 / 16  refers to the abolition of the Index of Forbidden Books, but that does NOT mean publishers and authors no longer need to seek Church approval for their books if it regards the Faith or morals, etc.  It just means the Holy See could no longer keep up with the amount of publictions and materials contradicting the teachings of the Church - they just stopped making the list of Forbidden Books itself. 

 The Church has decreed we are STILL REQUIRED to avoid the books listed on on there still, it is up to the conscience of each Catholic to know these books have been forbidden by the Church and are considered dangerous to the Faith.  And, to repeat, books of a religious nature or that treats on Catholic morals, teachings, prayer books, catechisms, etc, publishers and authors MUST STILL SEEK APPROVAL FROM THEIR LOCAL ORDINARY.

3) Mistatements regarding what is in Canon Law and or avoiding all or more of the directions.

I've come across a disturbing case of TAN publishers misreading the 1983 book of Canon Law and publishing the following statement in one of the recent reprints (2012) entitled "The Dogma of Hell" by. Fr. F.X. Schouppe, S.J.:

"According to the new Code of Canon Law issued in 1983 Canon 827, paragraphs 2 and 3, books of a general religious nature no longer require an Imprimatur."

First of all paragraphs 2 and 3 of Canon 827 DO NOT SAY THAT AT ALL.  This is what it actually says: 

"§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.  §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."

Basically, the real paragraphs say texts intended for religious or theological instruction in schools must first be approved by the local ordinary, and, also, books not intended for instruction still must be approved by the local authority.

TAN conveniently skipped past paragraph 3 mentioning that texts not intended for instruction in schools STILL NEED APPROVAL: "§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." 

TAN in this instance has completely misquoted Canon Law.  Why I wonder?  I cannot help but note, this reprint of their book on Hell in 2012 has new material in the Appendix that was added in 1989 which they have copyrighted.  Now, Fr. Schouppe's text on Hell was approved long ago, however according to Canon Law, if a first edition has been changed, it MUST be REAPPROVED AGAIN: Quote:

 "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."  

I don't have the 1989 edition of the book TAN first put out, but I have a sneaking suspicion they may not have sought the proper approval for the new 1989 edition with the added text, not because there was something wrong with it per se, but because they couldn't bother to go for reapproval for the added texts already approved in other books.  HOWEVER, even if new material comes from previously approved sources, the original approved text has been changed and therefore according to Canon Law the new edition, even if previously approved, MUST BE APPROVED AGAIN if it has been changed with the added material.

 

BE CAREFUL -- just because a book is approved, doesn't mean the mystic who wrote it is approved unless the local bishop declares thier visions are supernatural.

 Also, just because a book says it is approved does not mean it is, and also be careful of a book from a mystic that says it doesn't need approval.  If their book touches on religion, faith or morals, which visions usually do, then according to Canon Law they need to seek approval for their texts before they can be made public.

Return to the Great Catholic Monarch and Angelic Pontiff Prophecy Timeline, click here.