Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Art and Literature for Catholics => Topic started by: Iuvenalis on June 16, 2011, 02:55:46 AM
-
Anyone know of this online anywhere? I find nearly every volume *but* Apocalypse (and he didn't skip it).
Go figure.
-
http://www.archive.org/details/commentariainsac10lapi
-
http://www.archive.org/details/commentariainsac10lapi
You and your foreign languages :laugh1:
-
http://www.archive.org/details/commentariainsac10lapi
You and your foreign languages :laugh1:
Well he wasn`t specific about it... :laugh2:
-
Anyone know of this online anywhere? I find nearly every volume *but* Apocalypse (and he didn't skip it).
Go figure.
Where can one find his Old Testament commentary?
-
Anyone know of this online anywhere? I find nearly every volume *but* Apocalypse (and he didn't skip it).
Go figure.
Where can one find his Old Testament commentary?
Just in English or in Latin is fine?
-
Anyone know of this online anywhere? I find nearly every volume *but* Apocalypse (and he didn't skip it).
Go figure.
Where can one find his Old Testament commentary?
Just in English or in Latin is fine?
English.
-
Anyone know of this online anywhere? I find nearly every volume *but* Apocalypse (and he didn't skip it).
Go figure.
Where can one find his Old Testament commentary?
Just in English or in Latin is fine?
English.
I couldn`t find it :( just his complete works in Latin.
-
Loretto has an on-going project, but not cheap.
On-line access is $40, and I'm not sure what it gets you. A shame.
Loretto-Lapide (http://www.loretopubs.org/index.php?target=products&product_id=119)
-
I found some English translations of some of the Commentaries upon the New Testament:
The Great Commentary upon St. Matthew (chs. 1-9): http://www.archive.org/details/greatcommentaryo01lapi
The Great Commentary upon St. Matthew (chs. 10-21): http://www.archive.org/details/greatcommentaryo02lapi
The Great Commentary upon St. Matthew (chs. 22-28) and upon St. Mark: http://www.archive.org/details/commentarylapide03lapiuoft
The Great Commentary upon St. Luke: http://www.archive.org/details/greatcommentaryo04lapiiala
The Great Commentary upon St. John (chs. 1-11): http://www.archive.org/details/greatcommentaryo05lapiiala
The Great Commentary upon St. John (chs. 12-21) and the Three Epistles of St. John: http://www.archive.org/details/greatcommentaryo06lapiuoft
The Great Commentary upon the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians: http://www.archive.org/details/greatcommentaryo07lapiuoft
The Great Commentary upon the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians and his Epistle to the Galatians: http://www.archive.org/details/greatcommentaryo08lapiuoft
-
The above referenced translations were the work of superlative Anglo-Catholic scholars, and the translations are faithful to the original Latin, except for the use of the Authorised Version (though not in the text of the commentary itself) and the omission of what the average lettered Victorian Englishman would dub minutiae (linguistic discussions, &c.). I would recommend them to Catholics who wish to study the Commentaries and can't afford the newly published translation of Loretto Publications. Just keep your Douay-Rhemish edition handy when studying the texts.
These translations were actually consulted and employed by Loretto Publications in their very wonderful edition of the Great Commentary of Rev. Fr. Cornelius upon the Gospels, a work I cannot recommend without a enthusiasm that would overwhelm and astound the average person.
It is really faithful to the original Latin text of the Great Commentary of the Gospels, at least in the few comparisons I have made with the text in my library ('cos I can't check every paragraph: I don't have that much OCD).
-
Loretto has an on-going project, but not cheap.
On-line access is $40, and I'm not sure what it gets you. A shame.
Loretto-Lapide (http://www.loretopubs.org/index.php?target=products&product_id=119)
They don't have Apocalypse.
-
I found some English translations of some of the Commentaries upon the New Testament:
The Great Commentary upon St. Matthew (chs. 1-9): http://www.archive.org/details/greatcommentaryo01lapi
The Great Commentary upon St. Matthew (chs. 10-21): http://www.archive.org/details/greatcommentaryo02lapi
The Great Commentary upon St. Matthew (chs. 22-28) and upon St. Mark: http://www.archive.org/details/commentarylapide03lapiuoft
The Great Commentary upon St. Luke: http://www.archive.org/details/greatcommentaryo04lapiiala
The Great Commentary upon St. John (chs. 1-11): http://www.archive.org/details/greatcommentaryo05lapiiala
The Great Commentary upon St. John (chs. 12-21) and the Three Epistles of St. John: http://www.archive.org/details/greatcommentaryo06lapiuoft
The Great Commentary upon the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians: http://www.archive.org/details/greatcommentaryo07lapiuoft
The Great Commentary upon the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians and his Epistle to the Galatians: http://www.archive.org/details/greatcommentaryo08lapiuoft
Apocalypse.
-
Apocalypse.
The Anglo-Catholic scholars mentioned above never translated the Great Commentary upon the Apocalypse of St. John, nor has any Catholic done so either.
Loreto Publications may do so in some years, but they are working on the Acts of the Apostles right now. They also need funding to continue this project of translating the Great Commentary of Rev. Fr. Cornelius.
I found something else that might interest you:
The Apocalypse of St. John by Rev. Fr. Elwood Sylvester Berry: http://www.archive.org/details/theapocalypseofs00berruoft
It is very good!
-
Apocalypse.
The Anglo-Catholic scholars mentioned above never translated the Great Commentary upon the Apocalypse of St. John, nor has any Catholic done so either.
Loreto Publications may do so in some years, but they are working on the Acts of the Apostles right now. They also need funding to continue this project of translating the Great Commentary of Rev. Fr. Cornelius.
I found something else that might interest you:
The Apocalypse of St. John by Rev. Fr. Elwood Sylvester Berry: http://www.archive.org/details/theapocalypseofs00berruoft
It is very good!
Wow, he is the same who wrote an interesting treatise on the Church isn´t he?
Thanks! :cheers:
-
You're quite welcome, Cristian.
Wow, he is the same who wrote an interesting treatise on the Church isn´t he?
What book would that be? It would be interesting to read this treatise after having read his exegesis on the Apocalypse of St. John. Perhaps both works would illustrate one another.
-
You're quite welcome, Cristian.
Wow, he is the same who wrote an interesting treatise on the Church isn´t he?
What book would that be? It would be interesting to read this treatise after having read his exegesis on the Apocalypse of St. John. Perhaps both works would illustrate one another.
He is the same who said "“The prophecies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of Pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church.” (Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, D.D., The Church of Christ, An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise. Herder, St. Louis and London, 1927 & 1941. p. 119)
And, “there seems to be no reason why a false Church might not become universal, even more universal than the true one, at least for a time.” (op cit. p.155)
Quoted by John Lane, http://www.sedevacantist.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=23&p=1046 (posted on June 13)
:cheers:
-
I am "reading" this in Latin now. I know enough words to make out a bit here and there, and to wish that I knew more Latin, because I can tell this is really, really good.
The reason I am doing this, is I want to verify whether Cornelius really did cite the letters of St. Francis of Paola pertaining to the Monarch. So far, he hasn't -- but he did cite the prophecy of St. Malachy, even the part about "Petrum Romanum," which I had read online was a likely later, inauthentic addition.
Truly, you cannot trust almost anything you read these days, it's unbelievable.
-
I am "reading" this in Latin now. I know enough words to make out a bit here and there, and to wish that I knew more Latin, because I can tell this is really, really good.
The reason I am doing this, is I want to verify whether Cornelius really did cite the letters of St. Francis of Paola pertaining to the Monarch. So far, he hasn't -- but he did cite the prophecy of St. Malachy, even the part about "Petrum Romanum," which I had read online was a likely later, inauthentic addition.
Truly, you cannot trust almost anything you read these days, it's unbelievable.
This is partly the reason why I scan, edit and post pages from tomes, rather than quote them from a third party or transcribe them myself.
The rigorous academic standards to which I had to comply at the University gave me an exceedingly intense case of "textual paranoia." I have to see the text myself and not merely be satisfied with a citation in a monograph or lecture, especially if no sources are specified docuмented.
I don't take anyone's word on anything on the most important topics.
Regarding the "Monarch:"
I have been endeavoring to find anything authoritative about this notion and pertinent topics in approved texts printed before the present ecclesiastical crisis, and am still searching.
The only explanation I can find is that the "Monarch" prophecies appear to be a misinterpretation of an allegorical illustration made by certain authors (whose texts I have not been able to locate) of the social kingship of Christ that the anti-Christ would endeavor to eliminate in the latter ages. St. Louis Marie de Montfort makes it very clear that the universal kingship of Christ is and shall ever be through His Most Holy Mother, especially in the end times.
I hope that clarified things.
Keep on reading Fr. Cornelius. He is the key to all the questions pertinent in the present day ecclesiastical discourse.
-
Thank you for weighing in on the Monarch, Hobbledehoy; sometimes I wonder why you don't engage certain interesting topics here!
Well, I found the reference to the letters of St. Francis de Paola talking about the Great Monarch ( "Imperator" ) in the Cornelius commentaries. It is right at the end of his exegesis on Chapter 17 of the Apocalypse. I will have to go over the Latin tomorrow, but for now, just based on my feeble first attempt to understand the passage, it seems that ( a ) He believes these letters are of genuine origin and ( b ) He still expresses doubt about whether St. Francis was correct. I think his last sentence is that these things merit further consideration, but he sounds somewhat hesitant.
However, if St. Francis did write this series of letters, that is a very serious feather in the cap for our Great Monarch. He did not just mention such a thing in passing, but wrote a series of extremely detailed letters about the Monarch and the end times.
So it appears there is one extremely good source for the Monarch prophecies -- St. Francis de Paola, who was like a Padre Pio of the 15th century, and also for some reason spent time in France despite not knowing the language -- and a fairly good one, which is the prophecy of Holzhauser ( despite him saying Antichrist would be born in 1855 ). It may not be the litany of saints that Yves Dupont and others purport to have prophesied the Monarch... But it is nothing to sneeze at either.
I cannot agree about the Monarch prophecies being an allegorical misinterpretation of the rule of Christ the King. You seem to be subtly taking the side of those who think that the Monarch is a kind of Pharisee dream of temporal power, like the Jews had about their own temporal power before Christ came to bring a spiritual kingdom. A week ago I held this idea in contempt; then it kind of got its hooks in me when I saw there wasn't as much evidence as I had first thought for the Monarch; now I'm more cautious. Let's just say that I think with some of these nαzι-tinged Catholics, that is exactly what's going on, and they are Pharisees who are actually foreshadowing the audience of Antichrist. They may want the Monarch for themselves; to turn him to their purposes, whatever they may be; but if the Great Monarch really is a great Catholic ruler, this will not happen. He will be submissive to the Pope, not a new kind of extremist Gallican.
But with others, no, these people simply want to see Catholic nations come back, which is no more Pharisee than to support the actions of Constantine, Charlemagne, or Sobieski.
To say that is an allegorical misinterpretation of the rule of Christ with an iron rod, via the Church -- which I gather is what you're saying -- is to overlook many factors. On a political level, the Great Monarch idea seems to establish this figure as a kind of super-Constantine and ultra-Charlemagne, who has the power of both those figures, but more holiness. He almost appears to be the culmination of these dominant figures who served Christ and the Church, at least in the public sphere, as Antichrist is the culmination of figures like Nero and Hitler.
Then, for some reason, you hear these prophecies were bruited about during the Middle Ages among German peasantry. And the Great Monarch idea is said to have appeared again among French reactionary circles during and after the Revolution.
Each of these approaches to the mythical Great Monarch is different; genuine prophecy, superstition, and wishful thinking seem to all be there, in various quantities, depending on who is speaking.
Several things to note here before I go to sleep. Primo ( sorry, aftereffect of the Latin ), Joan of Arc herself pretty much only had village-level prophecies announcing her arrival on the scene, from what I can tell. There is no saint I know of that prophesied her life. Well, if the St. Francis de Paola prophecies of the Monarch really were written by St. Francis, there is more proof for the Monarch than there ever was for Joan of Arc. And you can't pooh-pooh even the tales spread about by peasants either, since that is what preceded Joan of Arc, it seems.
Secundo, there are major parallels between the Monarch and Antichrist, and the Angelic Pastor and the False Prophet. Either this is due to the symmetry of God's plan, and He does love events that mirror each other and reflect each other; or else the Great Monarch is the Antichrist.
If Antichrist and the Monarch are separate, the life of Antichrist will have certain similarities both to the life of Christ, and to the life of the Monarch, who is kind of a figure of Christ's power. This would make sense, since Antichrist is always prophesied to fight all these wars and so on. His life is certainly not an exact parallel to Christ's; Christ was not a warlord and world dictator. It seems that the BEGINNING of Antichrist's life is a parody of Christ's -- especially his death and resurrection after receiving the mysterious "wound" -- but the latter half of his life will be more like that of the Great Monarch, that is, assuming he isn't the Great Monarch himself.
Tertio, if the Great Monarch is real, then the devil is working overtime trying to spread disinformation about him. Joan of Arc herself said she believed some prophecies about herself, and not others. Well, the same thing could be happening here. If he is Antichrist, then the situation is more complicated. In that case the devil would merely want to make it LOOK like he was spreading disinformation, while in reality all the information is disinformation. But that is to assume that he tricked St. Francis of Paola so badly that he wrote a series of detailed letters about this subject. I can see a saint going wrong on a detail here and there, we know that prophecies of Antichrist contradict... But if you read those letters, he has absolute conviction of what he's saying, to the point he even says those who don't believe are reprobates.
This is an absolutely profound mystery, in other words. It must be real; yet even my confidence was and is a bit shaken, and I have long been planning to go to France. Now I am starting to see why no one will go with me; yet something in my gut tells me it's true. It just wasn't the way I thought at first.
-
I apologize if that is not what you're saying Hobbledehoy, but the two ideas are often tied together -- that the Great Monarch is merely allegorical, and that to take them literally would be somehow Pharisee and unspiritual.
There is another extremely good reason to believe in the Great Monarch. This is that we have reached a clear point in history where one of two things happens -- there is a return to the faith, or Antichrist comes. But if Antichrist came today, and I believe the devil has been trying to produce him, here's the problem; he really would be able to easily wipe out the Church. It is far too small and weak to resist the power of a world dictator with spies in every town ( unless you believe that most Novus Ordo priests are either real, or any threat to Antichrist ).
If you think back to the Leo XIII vision, with the devil saying "I can destroy your Church," I don't think people understand just how close he has come. If he was able to produce Antichrist on top of what he has already done, it would be game over. Even if you don't agree with that, it doesn't really make sense for Antichrist to come now, because the Church already lies in ashes. Who would Antichrist even fool -- a handful of trads? He would be like a dinosaur stomping out a nest of sparrows. The devil NEEDS him to wipe out the Church once and for all. To stomp out the last embers. If not, those embers are dangerous; they not only could, but will, re-ignite the whole fire.
Antichrist comes to fool the world; but how can he fool what has already been fooled? That doesn't make any sense. I have no doubt the devil wants to produce Antichrist, but it is not the time. To me, and this always struck me as self-evident before my recent doubts, there has to be a massive conversion of humanity to the faith before the stage is even set for Antichrist. And does anyone see any other scenario for how a massive conversion would play out besides that of the Great Monarch? It is totally plausible, anyone who denies it could happen is deluding themselves. The Republics have feet of clay; they are impoverishing their people more and more every day, and losing any and all credibility, with the leaders becoming nothing more than jokes, all claiming to have the solution, and all playing the same globalist game.
It is up to someone who understands the giant gap that is opening, to seize the power and rally the people. This is all very clear. That person is either the Great Monarch or Antichrist. There is no other way it can go. And as I just explained, it is not too plausible that Antichrist could come now, as there is barely anything left of a Church for him to destroy.
-
You can get the book on the Apocalypse by Elwood Sylvester Barry through Amazon.com.
-
I agree Raoul. In one of the other thread I linked to a timeline of all this happening. From what I have gathered, the period of peace must come first, meaning the time of the great monarch, the triumph of the Immaculate Heart before the reign of the true, final Anti-Christ.
-
Has anyone read the book, "The Book of Destiny" by the Rev. Father Herman Bernard Kramer? (Put out by the "old" TAN). I did. I found it to be complex and laborious. And I had mixed feelings when I was finished. I'd be interested to hear what others have to say with regards to it. Thanks.