I wouldn't recommend the book, though I also wouldn't recommend not reading it. I think some of his readings are on the verge of fantastic, and that he tends to read things too literally - no, that's not the right word. He often reads things which have a spiritual or poetic sense in a material way, as referring to some actual physical or material phenomenon. This bent to his thought is exemplified regarding Apoc. 20:8-10, which reads:
Of the fire from heaven, he writes, "[p]erhaps the Church shall defend herself through a small army by some destructive electric ray." That's just a rather prominent example of I think a general tendency on his part.
But more importantly, I distrust him overall in light of this, from page 451 of my edition (Tan, 1972 reprint), regarding the 1,000 years of Apoc. 20:4, the Millenium:
That's emphatic language, pulling no punches. Unfortunately, he's saying that the predominant interpretation of Catholic theologians going back to St. Augustine at least in his book City of God is logically impossible and contradicting Apoc. 20:4. That's quite astounding to me. I can't believe he was ignorant of that more dominant and common reading, exemplified in the notes to the Douay Rheims, both those of the original annotators and Bishop Challoner:
To dismiss that reading as "impossible of logical interpretation" and contradicted by the verse - not merely saying you disagree with it after acknowledging it - is a huge red flag to me. Actually, he doesn't even acknowledge the Augustinian and Douay Rheims interpretation anywhere to my recollection, and certainly doesn't in his commentary on verse 4, which you would think he would since it's the verse containing the 1,000 years of the Millenium.
So, while Fr. Kramer makes some interesting, valuable and accurate observations, I'd be wary of giving him too much weight.
DR
Decem, thank you for what I would qualify as a mighty reply!
Another thing that jolted me was his characterization of Christendom as a democracy. Surely he knew that the civil order naturally derived from the union of Church and State is essentially monarchic.
He wrote on pg. 103 of the kindle edition:
"After the pagan order shall have been wiped out, and the political order of Christ and God been inaugurated in a Divine democracy, the members of the Church shall have citizen rights that excel all Roman rights." Regarding his categorical dismissal of the traditional interpretations, there can be more than one sense of any passage of Scripture, and generally there are multiple senses. It is not necessary to abandon previous interpretations when another comes to light.
He more or less throws out St. Jerome's interpretation of the four living beings in St. John's vision of the throne. St. Jerome held them to represent the four Evangelists; but Fr. Kramer rejects this, except in an "accommodated sense." He said that St. Jerome's interpretation has been "rather unfortunate" for the exegesis of the Apocalypse. (pg. 122)
Now I did find Fr. Kramer's interpretation of the four living creatures as representing the ministerial priesthood very interesting and enlightening. His commentary was quite thought provoking. But he seems very ready to throw ancient interpretations out the window - again seemingly forgetting the fittingness of Holy Writ for multiple senses and meanings.
Fr. Kramer is an American; hence his idiosyncrasies and even maverick nature do not necessarily surprise me.
Topic: Question Re: Kramer's Book Of Destiny (Read 5154 times)