A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture

✍ Scribed by Orchard, Bernard, M.A. (Cantab.) & Sutcliffe, Edmund F., S.J., M.A. (Oxon.), L.S.S. & Fuller, Reginald C., D.D., L.S.S. & Russell, Ralph, D.D., M.A. (Oxon.)

• Publisher: Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd.
• Year: 1953
• Tongue: English
• Leaves: 2737
• Category: Library

✦ Synopsis

The contributor of this e-book wrote that

this is probably the best Catholic commentary on SS in English. It was produced at an opportune time: right before the Council in an environment of faith and shortly after major exegetical discoveries in the early part of the century.
Pohle (vol. 3) ref:2.46: "Among the commentaries on Genesis we recommend especially those by Lamy, Hummelauer, and Hoberg." Orchard et al.'s PDF p. 363 also cites Lamy.
PDF pp. 389-90 are on "The Extent of the Flood" and "The Ark as Type of the Church," the orthodoxy of which this seemingly Feenyite reviewer doubts; he also questions PDF p. 441-2 regarding the parting of the Red Sea
How is "170a 13:17–14:31 The Crossing of the Red Sea,"
"The crossing was not miraculous in itself since the natural force of the wind divided the waters of the ford. […] But it was miraculous in the intensity and continuity of the wind, in the circumstances of time and place and in the pillars of cloud and fire by which the Israelites were accompanied.",
Modernist? There are degrees of miracles ( SCG lib. 3 cap. 101):
"events in which something is done by God which nature never could do"
"events in which God does something which nature can do, but not in this order"
"when God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature"
Sutcliffe, S.J., thinks the parting of the Red Sea is a miracle of type #2 or 3.
How is the relative vs. absolute university distinction of "§ c The Extent of the Flood" Modernist? Where has the Church defined a dogma settling this debate? And how does "§ f The Ark as Type of the Church" deny "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus"?
W. Rees (PDF p. 2155) says Prat's The Theology of St Paul ( Théologie de Saint Paul ) is a "more general work" on the Pauline epistles.
W. Rees (ref:168.2) mentions some good 1 Cor. 7 commentaries:
Among earlier commentaries the best are those of St John Chrysostom (English trans. in Oxford Library of the Fathers) [Homilies on First Corinthians]; [surprised he doesn't mention his De virginitate (French-Greek ed.), which Unger, O.F.M. Cap. thinks is the most masterful 1 Cor. 7 commentary; it certainly is!] and St Thomas Aquinas (no English translation [actually, ∃ a partial one]). Both are still most valuable for their profound insight into St Paul’s meaning. Among modern Catholic commentaries the recent French ones on both epistles by Allo[, O.P.] (1934 and 1937) are the fullest and best, a monument of up-to-date learning. There is a very good shorter French commentary by Huby. In English the best is that of Cardinal MacRory, both epistles in one volume 1935.
W. Rees on 1 Cor. 7:29-32a ("they also who have wives be as if they had none"): ref:169.75: "An unmarried person is better able to bear persecution, private or public."
Leahy cites (ref:172.2) Vosté, O.P., Commentarius in Epistulam ad Ephesios
ref:85.9ff. is on the epithalamium (< Latin epithalamium , < Greek ἐπιθαλάμιον , neuter of ἐπιθαλάμιος , < ἐπί upon + θάλαμος bride chamber.) Ps. 44.
ref:91.1ff. is on Song of Songs (cites Gietman).
ref:69.87: "Why did King David think his census was sinful?": H. McKay, O.F.M., 1 and 2 Kings (1 and 2 Samuel) , says (§ c 24:1–25):
we are not told why this normal act of administration was sinful. David may have intended merely compiling a register for the organization of military service, fresh taxation, and forced labour for his building schemes. However it was a common belief amongst ancient Semitic peoples that whoever knew the name of a person, the number of his possessions, herds, and household acquired a mysterious power over them; cf. RB [ Revue Biblique ] 53 (1946) 178. Hence David’s action implied that he had absolute rights over his people, whereas he was merely Yahweh’s representative in a strictly theocratic state.

---

A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture is the result of nine years of work by a group of scholars who believed that biblical learning must be integrated with traditional Christianity if it was to bear any spiritual message or fruit for modern society. Their endeavor was to sum up the results of recent international scholarship, and to put them at the disposal not only of Catholics but also of all those who would be glad to know more of the Catholic Church's teaching on Scripture and of the way in which her members interpret it. **
2,737 A4 pp.!