Because, Noel, the words you use are no longer the words used in canon law. Today's "permission to publish" is yesterday's "imprimatur." The words have changed, the process of approval has remained the same.

Oh, Catholic hymnals would be fun to collect. I have a collection of Protestant hymnals from those days. Can you give us some pictures maybe?

Because, Noel, the words you use are no longer the words used in canon law. Today's "permission to publish" is yesterday's "imprimatur." The words have changed, the process of approval has remained the same.

Well, this sucks. If it were offered this way, I'd refuse it. Yet another dumbing down of something people understood and honored. It's like...suddenly saying that priests are now to be called ministers. Sucks.

Have I mentioned that I think that this was a stupid idea?

Did I miss the beatification?

@Melo: 1 May 2011:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImpiTA5ozys

Why do some people use the words "officially" and "official" when they are not warranted? If calling something "official" is meant to distinguish it from something "unofficial," what, then, is an unofficial beatification? I understand that there are lots of unofficial canonizations at Catholic funerals these days, but whoever heard of an unofficial beatification?

And excuse me for being off topic, but everything on this thread has been off topic except for a few responses to the OP's question about ecclesiastical approval to publish. (Can I characterize those responses as being illustrative of some Church members' current penchant to dumb down things without being accused of hurling an ad hominem?)

The Code of Canon Law (1983)

BOOK III: THE TEACHING OFFICE OF THE CHURCH

TITLE IV: THE MEANS OF SOCIAL COMMUNICATION AND BOOKS IN PARTICULAR

Canon 822 §1 In exercising their office the pastors of the Church, availing themselves of a right which belongs to the Church, are to make an ample use of the means of social communication.
§2 Pastors are also to teach the faithful that they have the duty of working together so that the use of the means of social communication may be imbued with a human and Christian spirit.
§3 All Christ’s faithful, especially those who in any way take part in the management or use of the media, are to be diligent in assisting pastoral action, so that the Church can more effectively exercise its office through these means.

Canon 823 §1 In order to safeguard the integrity of faith and morals, pastors of the Church have the duty and the right to ensure that in writings or in the use of the means of social communication there should be no ill effect on the faith and morals of Christ’s faithful. They also have the duty and the right to demand that where writings of the faithful touch upon matters of faith and morals, these be submitted to their judgment. Moreover, they have the duty and the right to condemn writings which harm true faith or good morals.
§2 For Christ’s faithful entrusted to their care, the duty and the right mentioned in §1 belong to the Bishops, both as individuals and in particular councils or Episcopal Conferences; for the whole people of God, they belong to the supreme authority in the Church.

Canon 824 §1 Unless it is otherwise provided, the local Ordinary whose permission or approval for publishing a book is to be sought according to the Canons of this title, is the author’s proper local Ordinary, or the Ordinary of the place in which the book is published.
§2 Unless the contrary is clear, what is said in the Canons of this title about books, applies also to any writings intended for publication.

Canon 825 §1 Books of the sacred Scriptures may not be published unless they are approved by the Apostolic See or the Episcopal Conference. The publication of translations of the sacred Scriptures requires the approval of the same authority, and they must have necessary and sufficient explanatory notes.
§2 With the permission of the Episcopal Conference, Catholic members of Christ’s faithful, in cooperation with separated brethren, may prepare and publish versions of the Scriptures, with appropriate explanatory notes.

Canon 826 §1 For liturgical books, the provisions of Canon 838 are to be observed.
§2 To republish liturgical books or to publish translations of all or part of them, it must be established, by an attestation of the Ordinary of the place in which they are published, that they accord with an approved edition.
§3 Prayer books, for either the public or the private use of the faithful, are not to be published except by permission of the local Ordinary.

Canon 827 §1 Without prejudice to the provisions of Canon 775 §2, the publication of catechisms and other writings pertaining to catechetical formation, as well as their translations, requires the approval of the local Ordinary.
§2 Books dealing with matters concerning sacred Scripture, theology, Canon law, church history, or religious or moral subjects may not be used as textbooks on which the instruction is based, in elementary, intermediate or higher schools, unless they were published with the approbation of the competent ecclesiastical authority or were subsequently approved by that authority.
§3 It is recommended that books dealing with the subjects mentioned in §2, even though not used as basic textbooks, and any writings which specially concern religion or good morals, be submitted to the judgment of the local Ordinary.
§4 Books or other written material dealing with religion or morals may not be displayed, sold or given away in churches or oratories, unless they were published with the permission of the competent ecclesiastical authority or were subsequently approved by that authority.

Canon 828 Collections of decrees or acts published by any ecclesiastical authority may not be republished without first seeking the permission of the same authority and observing the conditions which it lays down.

Canon 829 Approval or permission to publish a work is valid only for the first edition, but not for new editions or translations.

Canon 830 §1 Every local Ordinary retains the right to appoint persons whom he considers competent to give a judgment about books. The Episcopal Conference, however, may draw up a list of censors who are outstanding for their knowledge, right doctrine and prudence, to be available to diocesan curias; it may even establish a commission of censors whom the local Ordinary can consult.
§2 In carrying out this task, a censor must put aside all preference of persons and look only to the teaching of the Church concerning faith and morals, as declared by its magisterium.
§3 The censor must give an opinion in writing. If it is favorable, the Ordinary may, in his prudent judgment, give his permission for the work to be published, adding his own name and the date and place of the permission. If he does not give this permission, the Ordinary must inform the author of the reasons for the refusal.

Canon 831 §1 Unless there is a just and reasonable cause, no member of Christ’s faithful may write in newspapers, pamphlets or periodicals which clearly are accustomed to attack the Catholic religion or good morals. Clerics and members of religious institutes may write in them only with the permission of the local Ordinary.
§2 It is for the Episcopal Conference to lay down norms determining the requirements for clerics and members of religious institutes to take part in radio and television programs which concern Catholic doctrine or morals.

Canon 832 To publish writings on matters of religion or morals, members of religious institutes require also the permission of their major Superior, in accordance with the constitutions.

Certainly, John Paul II is still addressed as "Blessed" for the next few weeks. That's why I wrote "Complain to St. John Paul Woytyla after April 27."

Canon law, or any Church rule or authority for that matter, has very little affect where the heart of the problem is that a good number of local ordinaries don't even know or understand the faith resulting in the approval of erroneous theology which constitutes a true departure from the faith within the walls of the very Church herself. Because we have reached this state of chaos and confusion at the highest levels, many are led astray into all kinds of factions, deceptions, lies and the endangerment of their very souls.

Complain to St. John Paul Woytyla after April 27. He's the one who approved the revised Code of Canon Law in 1983.

As usual, we blame it on the dead guys. Like one day he said "let's get rid of the Imprimatur and call it someone else...."

ronkrisman:

Our Lady predicted all that is happening. Just read her warnings.

And be assured, I pray for you and the Bishops and our Holy Father as Our Dear Lady also commanded us, because you are under a most severe assault from the evil one in these trying times.

As for any authority which I might wield, I am simply a servant or slave of the Blessed Virgin Mary, nothing more, nothing less, consecrated to her service under the rule of St. Louis de Montfort in 1990. I have no degrees, no title, no letters after my simple name, no great earthly wealth. I do however, have the two-edged sword of the word of God in my mouth and the blood-stained standard of the Cross on my shoulder. I carry the crucifix in my right hand and the rosary in my left, and the holy names of Jesus and Mary on my heart, and you have my prayers.

I was hoping to uncover if the text of the hymns found in older hymnals was given greater scrutiny in days past versus the text of hymns in modern hymnals.

Probably the case.
Also, probably not needed, either.

Fr. Krisman, by now you should know I wouldn't misuse "officially". Why, I've even taken enough Polish to get the precise spelling of "Wojtyła". I thought you lived in Chicago. How could you let that slip by? :-)

Thanks, Kathy. Yes, the video's title on YouTube comes from RomeReports.

By the way, beatification fans: a four-hour video of the ceremony is available on YouTube also. It might qualify as part of the new "Slow TV" trend.

Thanks.

On the other topic: this business about the terminology "imprimatur" is confusing. It's not hard to find books published post-1983 that use the term. "By Flowing Waters", for example, has the term "Imprimatur" with a date of 1999. The Solesmes Antiphonale Romanum, volume II, has "imprimatur" with a date of 2009. If ordinaries are using the term that recently, no one should be surprised if non-specialists do the same.

I was hoping to uncover if the text of the hymns found in older hymnals was given greater scrutiny in days past versus the text of hymns in modern hymnals.

Probably not the case. First of all, one publisher's Catholic hymnal was quite similar to another publisher's. If the censor librorum was anyway familiar with other Catholic hymnals and the content of the hymns they contained, he (and it was always a he) did not need to spend a lot of time going through everything.

I know for a fact that the Archdiocese of Chicago spent countless hours reviewing GIA's four most recent hymnals. They were quite diligent in their work, and they had more than one censor review the same materials. They requested text changes in some hymns and even requested that a few hymns be removed from a given hymnal.

I also know for a fact that the Diocese of Saint Cloud takes the review of books (published by The Liturgical Press) very seriously.

Yes, it would be interesting, but you won't hear it from me.

And, by the way, do not assume that all, most, some, or even any of the texts in question were copyrights of GIA!

Gather 4... I was the recipient DOM to put that one in our pews. I reviewed every hymn in depth. I will post comments here soon.

Fr. Krisman is quite right to refrain from commenting since he was an editor and was employed by GIA.

But the issue is professionalism, not slander. And there are many hymnals out there that are not Catholic. I don't think that most hymn text writers will lose much sleep over their work not being allowed in a Catholic hymnal.

And not permitting them isn't a statement of their work; it's a statement that the theology wasn't Catholic. And many of them aren't anyway.

In accordance with c. 827, permission to publish was granted to a song titled "Ashes", poet Thomas Conry's masterwork for the dies cinerum:

We rise again from ashes,
from the good we’ve failed to do.
We rise again from ashes,
to create ourselves anew.
If all our world is ashes,
then must our lives be true,
an offering of ashes, an offering to you.

We offer you our failures,
we offer you attempts,
the gifts not fully given,
the dreams not fully dreamt.
Give our stumblings direction,
give our visions wider view,
an offering of ashes, an offering to you.

Then rise again from ashes,
let healing come to pain,
though spring has turned to winter,
and sunshine turned to rain.
The rain we’ll use for growing,
and create the world anew
from an offering of ashes, an offering to you.

Thanks be to the Father,
who made us like himself.
Thanks be to his Son,
who saved us by his death.
Thanks be to the Spirit
who creates the world anew
from an offering of ashes, an offering to you.

according to George Weigel :

"It is unconscionable that such Pelagian drivel, which would have sent St. Augustine's head spinning, should be a part of Catholic liturgy; it is even more unconscionable that "Ashes" appears in hymnals and missalettes that carry the episcopal "imprimatur", the official warrant that a text is free of doctrinal error."

There are so many people that think imprimatur's still exist, it's going to take decades for them to finally learn that St. Vatican II, I mean St. John Paul the Great eliminated it. Maybe it would make more sense to bring it back again instead.

I've found many of the comments here to be very instructive. The question I have is how many of us actually review hymnals before our parishes purchase them? In many places I've visited, I've seen books in the pews that should not have been brought into the building. Perhaps some additional training for those of us in the music ministry would be a good idea for the symposia.

Here is another very questionable hymn title:

"Beautiful can never be mistaken as an indicator of what pleases some majority of people somewhere. The fact that our parish likes to sing a particular song at the liturgy cannot, of itself, make that song beautiful. To be beautiful, indeed, is to be good and is to be true. As much as some people may enjoy the musical antics of Lady Gaga, these cannot honestly be described as beautiful.

Beautiful means, in the first place, embodying the truth. Some of the songs that we sing at liturgy contain lyrics which clearly are not true — for example, the song “All Are Welcome.” As a matter of fact, the liturgy takes place mystically in the heavenly sanctuary. All are welcome at the liturgy who truly seek salvation in and through Jesus Christ, by following God’s Will, as spelled out through His Son’s very Body, the Church. People who have little interest in doing God’s Will don’t fit at the liturgy. And certainly, by their own choosing, the poor souls who suffer in Hell for all eternity are not welcome. Those are simple, but true facts. Thus the song, “All Are Welcome,” gives an impression that the choice for the Will of Jesus Christ, as it comes to us through the Church, makes no difference; and nothing could be further from the truth. It could therefore be concluded that the song, “All are Welcome,” is not beautiful so as to be appropriate-for-liturgical-use. Being true is necessary before anything can be beautiful."

Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin

Moreover:
The damned ARE welcomed. It's they who choose not to heed the invitation.

BTW

I think "All Are Welcome" has other problems.

Adam Wood 3:50PM Thanks
Posts: 4,417
Moreover:
The damned ARE welcomed. It's they who choose not to heed the invitation.

Adam:

I believe that your statement is a bit skewed as if I understand it, the damned are those that have died in their unrepentant state. They are not with us here on earth, and therefore would never be welcome to any liturgy and physically not even able to attend.

Ah. I see.

They WERE welcome previously, and chose not to take God up on the offer.