The Apocalypse of St. John- Sungenis

[trth_skr]

I just finished Robert Sungenis’ new study Bible- The Apocalypse of St. John. This is an excellent book, if not somewhat scary. I have written a book review about it.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[spauline]

I just finished Robert Sungenis’ new study Bible- The Apocalypse of St. John. This is an excellent book, if not somewhat scary. I have written a book review about it.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

I think he’s got some good ideas, and I think that on purely one level of meaning, he is OK and good.

I will, however, very much disagree that amillennialism provides the deepest understanding of the Millennium. In my analysis, the Millennium is figurative (as it must be), but practically future, as it is, IMHO, rather the age of peace that will follow the most likely minor chastisement. See my thread in these forums:

Deficiencies with amillennial suppositions

Secondly, I perceive an even deeper and more penetrating analysis of the False Prophet that uses the notion of the devil’s plagiarizing of the Sacraments:

The Lamb, the True Logos, and the Second Beast, the False Logos

His analysis of the Seal of God is too vague. I don’t see it merely as Baptism, for heretics and schismatics have baptism, but they are not fully protected from spiritual harm in their “forehead”, as they can be led PARTIALLY astray in their intellect, seeing as they have not the fullness of truth only to be found in the Catholic Church. Toward that end, I think he’s missing some deeper analysis of the trumpets and ecclesiology:

The Seal, the Mark, and Everything In Between

Finally, he doesn’t seem to fully probe the depths of the beast as a image of successive ages of sin across all human history, precisely tied to the “evening” or “darkness” of the days of creation, which some ECFs see as imaging seven (eight) successive stages in the Redemption of the World:

The Beast and Historicism

I know this is alot, but really check them out. I promise you won’t be disappointed!

scott

 

[Augustine22]

I won’t be buying that one. He doesn’ t have an imprimatur or nihil obstat for any of them. You know he must have tried to get them. He has the imprimatur and nihil obstat on his first Not By books.

He came up with his own new translation of the Bible even though he says he mostly used the Douay-Rheims and the Vulgate. He didn’t get approval for that either.

Canon law says he has to.

Canon 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.

No thank you. After seeing where he’s gone over the past few years I’ll stay with my Nevarre and my Haydock.

 

[trth_skr]

…He came up with his own new translation of the Bible even though he says he mostly used the Douay-Rheims and the Vulgate. He didn’t get approval for that either.

Canon law says he has to.

Canon 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.

…

He uses the approved RSV translation in this study Bible.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Augustine22]

“He uses the approved RSV translation in this study Bible.”

**That’s not what his website or his Matthew Volume 1 say. **

“The CASB gives you an updated version of the Douay-Rheims Bible, the most accurate and authoritative Catholic translation available. The CASB replaces some archaic 16th century words with more precise words. The grammar and syntax of the original Greek and Hebrew are analyzed in conjunction with the Latin Vulgate for the most accurate translation.”

catholicintl.com/products/books/casb.html

**Then theres the CASB Matthew intro-history: **

“great care has been taken in producing the CASB translation…Both scholar and layman can trust that what is presented in the CASB is a faithful representation of what appears in the original languages”

“The CASB endeaovrs to bring out even more accurately the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew text underlying the Latin Vulgate.”

And why didn’t he get the imprimatur or nihil obstat either?

Here’s more of canon law–

Can. 823 §1. In order to preserve the integrity of the truths of faith and morals, the pastors of the Church have the duty and right to be watchful so that no harm is done to the faith or morals of the Christian faithful through writings or the use of instruments of social communication. They also have the duty and right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgment and have the duty and right to condemn writings which harm correct faith or good morals.

§2. Bishops, individually or gathered in particular councils or conferences of bishops, have the duty and right mentioned in §1 with regard to the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the supreme authority of the Church, however, has this duty and right with regard to the entire people of God.

Can. 824 §1. Unless it is established otherwise, the local ordinary whose permission or approval to publish books must be sought according to the canons of this title is the proper local ordinary of the author or the ordinary of the place where the books are published.

§2. Those things established regarding books in the canons of this title must be applied to any writings whatsoever which are destined for public distribution, unless it is otherwise evident.

Can. 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.

§2. With the permission of the conference of bishops, Catholic members of the Christian faithful in collaboration with separated brothers and sisters can prepare and publish translations of the sacred scriptures provided with appropriate annotations.

Can. 826 §1. The prescripts of ⇒ can. 838 are to be observed concerning liturgical books.

§2. To reprint liturgical books, their translations into the vernacular, or their parts, an attestation of the ordinary of the place where they are published must establish their agreement with the approved edition.

§3. Books of prayers for the public or private use of the faithful are not to be published without the permission of the local ordinary.

Can. 827 §1. To be published, catechisms and other writings pertaining to catechetical instruction or their translations require the approval of the local ordinary, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 775, §2.

§2. Books which regard questions pertaining to sacred scripture, theology, canon law, ecclesiastical history, and religious or moral disciplines cannot be used as texts on which instruction is based in elementary, middle, or higher schools unless they have been published with the approval of competent ecclesiastical authority or have been approved by it subsequently.

§3. It is recommended that books dealing with the matters mentioned in §2, although not used as texts in instruction, as well as writings which especially concern religion or good morals are submitted to the judgment of the local ordinary.

§4. Books or other writings dealing with questions of religion or morals cannot be exhibited, sold, or distributed in churches or oratories unless they have been published with the permission of competent ecclesiastical authority or approved by it subsequently.

 

[trth_skr]

“He uses the approved RSV translation in this study Bible.”

**That’s not what his website or his Matthew Volume 1 say. **

…

We’re not talking about his Matthew Study Bible. The Apocalypse of St. John is based on the RSV. I do not have answers for your other questions, you may want to write to him.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[lumengentleman]

We’re not talking about his Matthew Study Bible. The Apocalypse of St. John is based on the RSV. I do not have answers for your other questions, you may want to write to him.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Then it’s false advertising, Mark. This is what the web site says about the CASB project in general, not just about Matthew:

** The CASB gives you an updated version of the Douay-Rheims Bible, the most accurate and authoritative Catholic translation available. The CASB replaces some archaic 16th century words with more precise words. The grammar and syntax of the original Greek and Hebrew are analyzed in conjunction with the Latin Vulgate for the most accurate translation.

So are you telling us that the new CASB volume is a departure from what was promised?

Have you actually read both volumes, Mark?

 

[trth_skr]

…Have you actually read both volumes, Mark?

Jacob:

I have read The Apocalypse fo St. John cover to cover. It is based on the RSV. I do have the Matthew Study Bible also and have read parts of it. It is the “updated” Douay Rheims.

As to ‘why the change’, here are some comments from Laurence Gonzaga, CAI’s Media Technician:

“The choice for RSV was purely for the sake of seeking Imprimaturs… That is, his use of the DR in Vol 1 was not the DR really, he revised it, and that’s why it failed to get the Imprimatur. Thus, using the RSV made it easier since the translation already had the Imprimatur.”

I heard about the change a while ago in the Q&A’s, but was not sure exactly why he made the change.

Unfortunately the description you are reading about the updated DR is in the ad titled "1 down *, 12 more to go!! ". In fact this was true when he started and finished the Matthew study bible, but is not true now after finishing the Apocalypse and Romans / James (in publication). He needs to update his site.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com*

 

[lumengentleman]

I do have the Matthew Study Bible also and have read parts of it. It is the “updated” Douay Rheims.

No, it’s a brand new translation, a fact which Bob spends several pages promoting in the first volume.

here are some comments from Laurence Gonzaga, CAI’s Media Technician:

Uh … does anyone else think this is a little weird? CAI’s “Media Technician” is fielding questions about the canonical issues involved in issuing a new translation and commentary?

Was Bob not available for comment, again?

“…his use of the DR in Vol 1 was not the DR really, he revised it, and that’s why it failed to get the Imprimatur. Thus, using the RSV made it easier since the translation already had the Imprimatur.”

Wonderful! So when can we expect Bob to issue a recall of volume 1, and refund everyone their money? Or, at the very least, when can we expect him to stop selling the illicit product on his web site?

He needs to update his site.

No, he needs to pull the product and recall the canonically illicit text.

Think he’ll do that, Mark?

You say you’ve read CASB 2 “cover to cover”, and at least parts of CASB 1. Did you notice that Bob did an about-face in his interpretation of apocalyptic events and dating issues?

Here’s what he says in CASB 1:

The opposing view holds that although much of the New Testament was written prior to 70 AD, the Apocolypse was written about 95-96 AD. Evidence fo this view originates with Irenaeus in Against Heresies (5, 30, 3) and is reiterated by Eusebius in Church History (Bk 3, Ch 32). It is admitted by proponents of this view, however, that Irenaeus’ language is ambiguous and that he is the lone witness for the assertion, thus leaving doubt as to its significance

Oddly enough, this very same view, which in CASB 1 is said to be based on “ambiguous” language from a “lone witness” whose work leaves “doubt as to its significance,” is now the stated view of Bob Sungenis in CASB 2:

The traditional view is that the Apocalypse was written between the years 95 AD and 97 AD, during the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian. One of the major patristic witnesses to this late dating is Irenaeus who, in his monumental work, ‘Against Heresies’, states that the Apocalypse was written ‘toward the end of Domitian’s reign’ … [other patritic witnesses are mentioned] …It is this traditional dating that the CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS STUDY BIBLE, THE APOCALYPSE OF ST. JOHN, adopts as its guiding authority as such, the apocalypse will not be interpreted as the demise of Israel.

Hmm.

So, from “lone witness” and “doubtful significance” and “ambiguous language”, we have now arrived at “traditional view”, “monumental work”, “major patristic witness”, and “guiding authority”.

Let’s look at another issue!

Here is Bob, circa 2006-2007, in CASB 2:

… there are two kinds of apocalyptic language. The first speaks of the effects upon the sun and the moon, while the second of the effects upon the sun, the moon and stars. Whenever the stars are involved in the cataclysm, we can be rather certain that the text is describing the physical end of the world.

Got that? When the stars are involved, we’re talking about the end of the world - and not, as the first quote said, about the “demise of Israel.”

Now let’s ask the Bob Sungenis who wrote CASB 1 what he thinks:

“Many of the references to the darkening of the sun, stars and moon are used as figures of judgment upon Israel (Is 5:30; 24:23, 34:4, Jl 2:10, 3:15), although each can be understood as literally fulfilled at the end of time when the universe will be destroyed. The complete destruction is denoted by the specific inclusion of the stars being obliterated (Is 13:10; Jl 2:10, 3:15, :l 21:25; Ac 27:20; Ap 6:13)”

Notice what passages he references as examples of “figures of judgment upon Israel”?

And notice what passages he references as examples of “complete destruction”?

In both cases, he refers to Joel 2:10 and 3:15, so apparently verses that have the “specific inclusion of the stars being obliterated” (ie. Jl 2:10, 3:15) can also be understood “as figures of judgment upon Israel.”

At least, that is, if you’re reading CASB 1. If you’re reading CASB 2, it’s a different story.

Two volumes. Two different translations, one of them failing to live up to what the author promised. Two different views of how to interpret prophecy and understand the dating of the Apocalypse.

And yet … one author.

Who in their right mind would recommend this CASB?

 

[trth_skr]

…Notice what passages he references as examples of “figures of judgment upon Israel”?

And notice what passages he references as examples of “complete destruction”?

In both cases, he refers to Joel 2:10 and 3:15, so apparently verses that have the “specific inclusion of the stars being obliterated” (ie. Jl 2:10, 3:15) can also be understood “as figures of judgment upon Israel.”

…

Jacob:

I am traveling and do not happen to have Vol.1 with me. But I will speak to our second point. In the first quote from Vol II, Robert is speaking specifically about the Apocalypse, which he has explicitly stated he is intrepreting in the traditional amillenial fashion- not using the newest fad (i.e., Apocalypse all happened in the past either with the first coming or the destruction of the temple), so there is no reason to interpret it as a cataclysm on Israel; though it is not inconsistent to do so, especially for the Old Testament passages. Let’s look at a bigger quote:

“…As we noted in the outline of the Apocalypse (see chapter one), each division ends with a description of the end of time. Apocalypse 6:12-17 is one of those descriptions. The image John employs (e.g., the obliteration of the sun, moon, and stars) is the standard apocalyptic language of Scripture. Actually, there are two kinds of apocalyptic language. The first speaks of the effects upon the sun and the moon, while the second of the effects upon the sun, moon and stars. Whenever the stars are involved in the cataclysm, we can be rather certain that the text is describing the physical end of the world…”

Now, in his Vol I quote (yours), he says:

" Many of the references to the darkening of the sun, stars and moon are used as figures of judgment upon Israel (Is 5:30; 24:23, 34:4, Jl 2:10, 3:15), although each can be understood as literally fulfilled at the end of time when the universe will be destroyed. The complete destruction is denoted by the specific inclusion of the stars being obliterated (Is 13:10; Jl 2:10, 3:15, :l 21:25; Ac 27:20; Ap 6:13)"

Note he states that in the more general sense that the events indicate a judgement on Israel, he also points out that the events “can be understood as literally fulfilled at the end of time”. He is now talking about the first coming of Christ, andin this contet it makes more sense to talk about interpretations which involve Israel.

You are nitpicking, Jacob. You are full of hate and jelaousy, and it shows.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Holy_Trinity]

Hello Everybody and Brothers in Christ,

God bless us all! i had post an answer to the whole Images shot in Iraq _ The war will never end quicknews.info/Iraqwar.jpg <<

 

[lumengentleman]

You are nitpicking, Jacob. You are full of hate and jelaousy, and it shows.

It’s not “nitpicking” to point out that in CASB 1, Bob says the apocalyptic language can be interpreted as referring to Israel or the future end of the world, but in CASB 2, he says it does not refer to Israel.

It’s not “nitpicking” to point out that in CASB 1, Bob is content to apply Joel 2:10 and 3:15 to either situation, but in CASB 2, suddenly we have a new hermenuetical rule: when “stars” are mentioned, the physical end of the world is meant.

It’s not “nitpicking” to point out that in CASB 1, the late-dating view of Apocalypse was presented as a minority view with little-to-no support in patristics, but in CASB 2 suddenly this has become the “traditional” view (one wonders how it can be “traditional” when the evidence is so scant, as per CASB 1) that will be the “guiding authority” for the CASB.

It’s not “nitpicking” to point out that Bob promised his readers a CASB series that would feature a clean, new translation, thoroughly researched and measured against the matrix of the best scholarly tools available, but by the second volume he’s changed horses and decided to go with the RSV.

And that’s another thing, Mark: supposedly, according to the resident Media Technician at CAI, Bob switched to the RSV so he could get his imprimature more easily. And yet, he didn’t get the imprimatur, did he? But he did seek it out, didn’t he? So why didn’t he get it? If not for the translation issue, then … why?

And before you say “I don’t know the answers, you’ll have to ask Bob”, I’m going to press you again and ask why you don’t know the answers to these questions if you’re going to be out in public promoting this work?

And finally, it is most certainly not “nitpicking” to point out that Bob did not get the required canonical approval to publish CASB 1 with its new translation, nor did he get canonical approval to publish CASB 2 (which he apparently thought was important enough to seek out), and yet he continues to sell these works at his web site.

You want to promote Bob’s work, Mark? Then you’d better be prepared to deal with a little “nitpicking”, if that’s what you want to call it.

 

[WestonGrant]

I don’t know about the interpretation issues so I won’t even try to go there. But I don’t think it’s nitpicking that Dr. Sungenis has out a bible version that is against canon law.

I don’t see anyone saying its not true. And the law looks straight forward to me.

That does bother me. And if Dr. Sungenis changed to using the RSV bible version because he couldn’t get an imprimatur on his first commentary book then why doesn’t he have an imprimatur on the new one that uses an approved bible version?

Or does he have the bishop’s imprimatur on the Apocalypse commentary?

Either way you’ve got to admit theres an issue with the Matthew book version of the Bible he put out.

Now I’ll go back to quietly lurking.

 

[Holy_Trinity]

Hello Brothers in Christ,

I had interpreted and summarized Revelation of St. John the Divine
and come-up with a very good answers to what you are trying to understand in the future:

1. What St. John is trying to tell before the 2nd coming of our Lord Jesus is a Great Earthquake so great that in just an hour
   almost 50% of the population of humankind will perish and the remaining 50% will survive-supported by the parable of Jesus when he answer one who question him “when the end will come,one will be taken one be left”.After this people(survivors) will see Jesus and the 144,000 1st faithful who died for the caused of Christianity winning the battles against satan and his followers and death to them except satan who was put in bottomless pit.
   2)Total peace will be of humankind why?..because satan was no more he his chained and locked for 1000years.Jesus and the 1st 144,000 ressurrected bodies will be amongst the people with only one teachings for the people to know.
   3)After 1,000 years satan will be released and during his 3 1/2 years of deceiving the people many more will follow satan but the who got hold of the teachings of Christ will not die on the Last Judgment…they will automatically goes to Heaven of course all who followed the way of the Lord who are dead already before will also inherit the Kingdom Of God as read in the revelation.Segregation of bad and good as part of judgment day where 2books will be open.1 is the Bible and the other 1 is the Book of Life.

Dear Brothers lets be happy to wait on the Great Earthquake because that is the 1st happiness that will happen…Total Peace in 1,000years pray that we will be faithful and do Good manners and things on earth Love one another.
Maybe you will ask if 50% will survive how does their body can recover to be normal again…Jesus has the power to heal the power that only God can do so even our eyes was out our hands was out our legs was out so many wounds at instant it will come-back to normal.How powerful is God isnt’ it?

Please dont’ hesitate to ask from me ang to comment to my undestanding of Revelation.

God Bless

 

[lumengentleman]

Hello Brothers in Christ,

I had interpreted and summarized Revelation of St. John the Divine
and come-up with a very good answers to what you are trying to understand in the future:

What in the … ?

 

[trth_skr]

Jacob:

Okay, I will do my best to answer your questions. But let me ask you- have you read Vol. II (Apocalypse)? Do you agree or disaree with the CONTENT of the book? Do you have anything to say about the interpretations laid out in the book? Let’s turn this into an intelligent conversation, not just a chance for you to try and point out what you perceive to be flaws in the book so you can further denigrate Robert.

It’s not “nitpicking” to point out that in CASB 1, Bob says the apocalyptic language can be interpreted as referring to Israel or the future end of the world, but in CASB 2, he says it does not refer to Israel.

I showed above that it is not inconsistent. In CASB 2, he did not say that “it does not refer to Israel”. He just did not say that it does, as he is speaking about the Apocalypse, and in the amillenial view, he is interpreting it to mean the end of the world. This does not preclude an interpertation that it could pertain to Israel in other areas (such as the OT).

It’s not “nitpicking” to point out that in CASB 1, Bob is content to apply Joel 2:10 and 3:15 to either situation, but in CASB 2, suddenly we have a new hermenuetical rule: when “stars” are mentioned, the physical end of the world is meant.

Same point as above. In Vol. I he does say it refers to Israel, but that also it can pertain to the end of the world. In Vol. II, I would have to venture he did not see the pertanence to Israel as the propoer interpretation.

Where are you leading with this Jacob? Are you leading to a Hahnian type interpretation of Apocalypse whereby the entire Apocalypse is interpreted as occuring in the past, ending with the destruction of the Temple (except all of a sudden chapter 20 pertains to the end of the world with nothing in between)?

Do you recognize or accept that at least since Augustine that the traditional and supported view is the amillenial whereby the entire Apocalypse starts with the Cross and ends with the second coming, including everythin in between? Do you accept, at least as possible that the the beast(s) are currently acting in the world sending false messages and “deceiving the nations”?

It’s not “nitpicking” to point out that in CASB 1, the late-dating view of Apocalypse was presented as a minority view with little-to-no support in patristics, but in CASB 2 suddenly this has become the “traditional” view (one wonders how it can be “traditional” when the evidence is so scant, as per CASB 1) that will be the “guiding authority” for the CASB.

Is is possible that his view shifted when he actually studied the Apocalypse and researched it? Do you realize that he did not definitively say that the Apocalypse occured in 95-97 AD? Do you see it maybe as a shift from the side of being less sure to being more sure.

Robert is not writing a Time-Life series. He is not writing all the books, having them edited by editors to make them completely consistent, etc. There could be some shift in his views as he does the detailed research necassary to produce the quality work he produces. This is unfortunate, but I am willing to live with it. You have showed one possible shift in his view. Big deal. Has your view ever changed, Jacob? Do you still hold the views you once did on the New Mass, your views that Catholic Culture pointed out as lack of fidelity to the Church on Robert’s website, specifically referring to your writings? Maybe you still do stand behind them, and I can respect that. Maybe you changed your view for good reason, that is ok, too. We live, learn, do our best, and move on.

It’s not “nitpicking” to point out that Bob promised his readers a CASB series that would feature a clean, new translation, thoroughly researched and measured against the matrix of the best scholarly tools available, but by the second volume he’s changed horses and decided to go with the RSV.

I have explained why he went with the RSV- it already has an imprimatur.

And that’s another thing, Mark: supposedly, according to the resident Media Technician at CAI, Bob switched to the RSV so he could get his imprimature more easily. And yet, he didn’t get the imprimatur, did he? But he did seek it out, didn’t he? So why didn’t he get it? If not for the translation issue, then … why?

My understanding is that he is in the process of getting one. In the mean time he has a schedule, so he released the volume.

TO BE CONTINUED

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

CONTINUED

And before you say “I don’t know the answers, you’ll have to ask Bob”, I’m going to press you again and ask why you don’t know the answers to these questions if you’re going to be out in public promoting this work?

Press me with intelligent dialogue, please. I am more than open to discuss other theories and flaws in content, but I see this as more than one more chance for you to get some digs in on Robert. I am sorry to have to say that Jacob, I really am.

And finally, it is most certainly not “nitpicking” to point out that Bob did not get the required canonical approval to publish CASB 1 with its new translation, nor did he get canonical approval to publish CASB 2 (which he apparently thought was important enough to seek out), and yet he continues to sell these works at his web site.

It is not clear that he needs it on Vol.1. He could not get it since it is a “translation of a translation”. Therefor, he was not granted one. This is part of the reason he switched to the RSV.

You want to promote Bob’s work, Mark? Then you’d better be prepared to deal with a little “nitpicking”, if that’s what you want to call it.

I am not so much promoting his work as having had written a book review. I thought the book was excellent, and am convinced that he put forth the correct basic interpretation that the Church holds and has held. It was an eye opener for me, as all these new fad type interpretations are being circulated as authoritative. I have nothing against specualtive theology, but the problem is that they are being sold to the public as the Church’s view, when in fact they really are not.

Do you have anything to say on that bigger issue?

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

“He uses the approved RSV translation in this study Bible.”

**That’s not what his website or his Matthew Volume 1 say. **
…

And why didn’t he get the imprimatur or nihil obstat either?

Here’s more of canon law–

I’ll try and respond to the circumstances. I am paring down your quotes to make it fit in one message.

My understanding is that Robert did apply for both Vol. I and vol. II. He is still in the process of obtaining imprimatur for Vol. II, but was denied for Vol. I because of the technicality that the Bishop’s office felt that they could not grant an imprimatur for a “translation of a translation”. Not receiving the imprimatur for a technicality does not mean the work cannot be published. For that reason, Robert moved on, and in subsequent volumes he chose to use the already approved RSV.

Can. 823 §1. In order to preserve the integrity of the truths of faith and morals, the pastors of the Church have the duty and right to be watchful …condemn writings which harm correct faith or good morals.

Again, Robert applied, and is still applying for imprimaturs.

§2. Bishops, individually or gathered in particular councils or conferences of bishops, …however, has this duty and right with regard to the entire people of God.

I agree, Bishops have the right to grant imprimaturs.

Can. 824 §1. Unless it is established otherwise, the local ordinary whose permission…the ordinary of the place where the books are published.

§2. Those things established regarding books in the canons of this title must be applied to any writings whatsoever which are destined for public distribution, unless it is otherwise evident.

He did apply, and is in the process of applying.

Can. 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular

, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.

Clearly the “translation of a translation” is a technicality which does not allow the bishops to deal with the Matthew volume. This puts the book outside their pervue (by their own admission). Clearly Robert’s Matthew translation will not be used in liturgy, or taught in schools, but that does not mean we cannot use it for personal study if we choose.

§2. With the permission of the conference of bishops, Catholic members … with separated brothers and sisters can prepare and publish translations of the sacred scriptures …

Does not apply.

Can. 826 §1. The prescripts of ⇒ can. 838 are to be observed concerning liturgical books.

…

Does not apply.

Can. 827 §1. To be published, catechisms and other writings pertaining to catechetical instruction or their translations require the approval of the local ordinary, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 775, §2.

§2. Books which regard questions pertaining to sacred scripture, theology, canon law, ecclesiastical history, …it subsequently.

Clearly, until such time as the books receive imprimatur, they should not be used in Catholic schools.

§3. It is recommended

that books dealing with the matters mentioned in §2, although not used as texts in instruction, as well as writings which especially concern religion or good morals are submitted to the judgment of the local ordinary.

This applies, is a recommendation, and was adhered to. Robert did apply, and is still applying.

§4. Books or other writings dealing with questions of religion or morals cannot be exhibited, sold, or distributed in churches or oratories unless they have been published with the permission of competent ecclesiastical authority or approved by it subsequently.

Same as the school question.

Considering the complete garbage available out there, some even with imprimatur, I do not understand why you are applying such a stringent standard to Robert’s solidly orthodox books.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

I think he’s got some good ideas, and I think that on purely one level of meaning, he is OK and good.

I will, however, very much disagree that amillennialism provides the deepest understanding of the Millennium. In my analysis, the Millennium is figurative (as it must be), but practically future, as it is, IMHO, rather the age of peace that will follow the most likely minor chastisement. See my thread in these forums:

Deficiencies with amillennial suppositions

Secondly, I perceive an even deeper and more penetrating analysis of the False Prophet that uses the notion of the devil’s plagiarizing of the Sacraments:

The Lamb, the True Logos, and the Second Beast, the False Logos

His analysis of the Seal of God is too vague. I don’t see it merely as Baptism, for heretics and schismatics have baptism, but they are not fully protected from spiritual harm in their “forehead”, as they can be led PARTIALLY astray in their intellect, seeing as they have not the fullness of truth only to be found in the Catholic Church. Toward that end, I think he’s missing some deeper analysis of the trumpets and ecclesiology:

The Seal, the Mark, and Everything In Between

Finally, he doesn’t seem to fully probe the depths of the beast as a image of successive ages of sin across all human history, precisely tied to the “evening” or “darkness” of the days of creation, which some ECFs see as imaging seven (eight) successive stages in the Redemption of the World:

The Beast and Historicism

I know this is alot, but really check them out. I promise you won’t be disappointed!

scott

Scott:

Sorry for not getting back sooner. I am travelling, and today is the first time since I posted the book review that I have had a chance (or ability) to get on the internet.

I will take a look at your ideas. I am going to download them for later reading. I am not against speculative theology, and it appears that you are in fact stating that your view is different (though I am sure you feel consistent with) from the traditional Catholic view. As you appear to have spent a lot of time studying the Apocalypse, I would appreciate you stating for the benefit of others that (regardless of whether you think it is correct or not) that the general view used by Robert as the basis of his book (i.e., the amillenial, or millenium as the Church age) is the predominat Catholic view since at least Augustine, and in fact this view has considerable support from the Church.

Thanks, and God Bless,

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Augustine22]

Mark Wyatt–

“Considering the complete garbage available out there, some even with imprimatur, I do not understand why you are applying such a stringent standard to Robert’s solidly orthodox books.”

Not to be a jerk, but if even garbage can get an imprimatur then why is Sungenis having a hard time getting one?

And there’s obviously a diff between a regular book and a translation of the Scriptures. The Church is very protetctive about that. You can understand that can’t you? I can.

And the idea that someone can do a translation and publish it before getting permission sounds past sketchy to me and I don’t know much about canon law.

Canon 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.

No offense, but what your making sounds like an argument I would expect from someone like a Fr. McBrien.

“Clearly the “translation of a translation” is a technicality which does not allow the bishops to deal with the Matthew volume. This puts the book outside their pervue (by their own admission).”

What? Sungenis said he was going back to the original languages. And he said he was using the Latin Vulgate, too. He even wrote that Greek manuscripts were being looked at to come up with the best translation.

The Douay used the Latin Vulgate so its a translation of a translation, too. And even that got official approval. What your writing doesn’t make any sense to me.

Who is the bishop who said this is outside their pervue?