Detailed Bacchiocchi analysis on the XCG blog

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

On the XCG blog, Jared has compiled an extremely detailed analysis of Bacchiocchi’s two responses to the Gregorian Controversy. [Bacchiocchi’s Part 1; Part 2 via IA; PDF archive here: Part 1 (6.8MB) and Part 2 (5.2MB)]

I highly recommend reading it.  The most recent comments are at the bottom of the page, with the analysis of Part 2 starting at comment 80.

What interests me the most is the Imprimi Potest.  There is a detailed discussion of the Imprimatur/Imprimi Potest at XCG, comment 91.  How did it turn into an Imprimatur?

A comparison of the imprimatur page in Anti-Judaism and the Origin of Sunday with the imprimatur page in From Sabbath to Sunday shows them to be almost completely identical. The only difference between them is that the 1975 book says “imprimi potest,” while the 1977 book (and subsequent editions) says “imprimatur.” Stephen Korsman has also noticed that discrepancy. According to Dr. Bacchiocchi, the 1975 imprimatur was “reused” for the 1977 printing of From Sabbath to Sunday, but for some reason the “imprimi potest” was turned into a simple “imprimatur,” even though we would expect no such change in wording.

I didn’t figure that out … he gives me too much credit.  I realised it only when I read his post.

I need to figure that one out … Jared mentioned a timeline he’s drawing up [comment 93].  Hopefully that will help figure this out.

Jared has a timeline of Bacchiocchi’s interactions with the Gregorian on his blog, which he based on Bacchiocchi’s recent refutations of Gregorian’s statement about his thesis.

“Now there’s nothing to do but wait and see if Bishop Murray or the Gregorian have anything else to say. It’ll probably be a long wait.”

We can hope.

The Gregorian Controversy series is listed in full here.  Click here to go to the next post in the series.  And here for the previous post.

Comments imported from the old blog:

Posted by Jared Olar on January 1, 2007, 11:57 pm
Hi Stephen.

Just to be clear, when I said you’d noticed the discrepancy about the imprimatur, I was only referring to what you said on Dec. 7 in your analysis of Part Two of Dr. Bacchiocchi’s response:

“His explanation of the Imprimatur leaves me feeling uneasy. While the Imprimi Potest usually comes from the head of the order the writer belongs to, it may well come from the rector of the university. But it would say ‘Imprimi Potest.’ Bacchiocchi’s Imprimi Potest doesn’t say Imprimi Potest. So what is it?”

I don’t know why the 1977 imprimatur doesn’t say “imprimi potest,” and I didn’t think you knew why either. I was only saying you’d noticed that the words “imprimi potest” were absent where we’d expect to find them.

As for the timeline, I think that should be ready by the end of the week. Already I’m beginning to get a better understanding of things. For instance, Brandon at SDA2RC said a while back that there was a “time lag” between the dates of his degrees and the dates of his diplomas. I’ve got a better picture now of what kind of a time lag it was. He earned his Baccalaureatus in 1971, but the diploma is dated March 1972, almost a year later. Then a couple months later he earned his Licentia, and the diploma is dated about a month after that, in July 1972. But then he earned his Doctoratus in June 1974, and his diploma is dated June 1975, a whole year later.

I don’t know why there were such great time lags for two of his three diplomas. He has said the certificated were specially prepared and handwritten. Was there some trouble getting two of the three diplomas prepared?

Posted by stephen on January 2, 2007, 12:39 am
With the six different dates for qualification / certificate, it would be interesting to know the date of the graduation ceremony. (If I recall, he supplied documents with those.)

The Imprimi Potest – I was following what Bacchiocchi wrote in part 2 of his defence. In his text he used the phrase, and I picked up on that. I looked at the images, and didn’t compare fine detail – I didn’t notice that the scanned image actually had the words “Imprimi Potest” on it, because I didn’t expect it to be more interesting than just a scan of what has been repeated in subsequent versions.

So I just highlighted it because I thought it was an odd statement, when really it was something quite revealing.

My recollection of how the three stages work:
First comes the Imprimi Potest, from the head of the order (or university, for Bacchiocchi) … then comes the Nihil Obstat, the theological accuracy assessment, and then the Imprimatur, approval to print.

So all the Imprimi Potest, in this case, says is that the university agreed that it should be printed. Packing even less of a punch than “Let it be printed” and even further from “Nothing [theological] stands in the way [of publication]” than has been claimed.

Worth a static web page at some point this coming year.

Posted by Jared Olar on January 8, 2007, 9:48 am
Okay then, I posted the timeline. That ought to be it for comments on this matter, unless and until we hear something from Bishop Murray or the Gregorian.

Your reaction to this post:
  • I agree 
  • I disagree 
  • I am not sure 
  • Awesome 
  • Interesting 
  • Boring