Santo Tomás organizou a Catena Aurea a pedido do Papa Urbano IV, no final de 1262 e no início de 1263.
A intenção era apenas compilar os comentários dos Padres da Igreja aos Evangelhos, mas o Aquinate decidiu organizá-los numa exposição contínua, versículo por versículo, o que permite uma leitura sem interrupção, como se tudo emanasse de um único autor.
A Catena é uma obra de considerável importância tanto pela originalidade da exposição quanto pela riqueza e quantidade das citações patrísticas reunidas. É composta por comentários de 57 autores gregos e 22 latinos, alguns ainda desconhecidos na época.
Este terceiro volume reúne os textos patrísticos referentes ao Evangelho de São Lucas.
This is a collection of the Commentaries written by different Church Fathers on the Four Gospels. It is an exquisite collection and helps us reflect well on each gospel. St. Thomas Aquinas collected these commentaries and put them together. I found it a little bit difficult with the language, though it is used in English, I need to read it well to understand the reflections well. Commentaries on each gospel are available, and it is arranged in a different structure. One father's text about the gospel cannot be found together; instead, it is kept in a different structure. Once you are used to that style, it is easy to follow. It is a gem of collection to reflect well on the gospels.
A book that gives the gems of Church Father's commentary on the Gospel of Luke. This is really a valuable treasure for me. The way the Church Fathers commented and reflected on the Gospel of Luke is very much appreciated. The greatness of the Catholic Church is that we got a lot of treasures to interpret the Scripture. Making use of these texts will enrich our knowledge of the Sacred Scripture. I always see the commentaries of these pages when I prepare for my homilies. Thanks to St. Thomas Aquinas for his valuable work.
These are the Fathers of the Church expounding on the meaning of the biblical text. The literal, typological (connecting NT and OT), moral, and anagoglical (the future and end times) senses of the Bible are all present. I've given it only three stars because it is so long and somewhat boring. However I do recommend reading it. There are hidden gems that make it well worth the slog. I made it my book to read for the year and read 5-6 pages each morning. It is available for free here: http://dhspriory.org/thomas/CALuke.htm.
Bede describes: "the virgin beauty of the Church, that is, Mary; the manly company of spiritual doctors, that is, Joseph"
Chrysostum instructs: "when the body becomes softer, the soul must also share the injury; for generally its workings correspond with the conditions of the body."
Theophylact says: "Marvel then at the power of Christ, how His grace works by means of the unworthy and those who are not His disciples: as also men are sanctified through the priests, although the priests be not holy."
Origen: "Now we say that all men have present with them two angels, a bad one who encourages them to wicked deeds, a good one who persuades all that is best."
Previously I have reviewed the individual commentaries on the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Now having finished the commentary on the gospel of John, I can review the entire work... I was very sad to reach the end. Reading a commentary so straightforward, so lacking in cant, so lacking in weasel words and lies, was refreshing and renewing in ways that are hard to describe. You see the world in a different way, after you've spent some time with the Our Lord, with the evangelists, with Augustine, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Damascene, Aquinas, and all the others.
I haven’t read the entire thing, but it’s indispensable for those moments when you’re reading the Gospels and think “Now what does that mean?”
Aquinas presents the Fathers like they’re having a Roundtable discussion. It almost feels like reading an oral history like Meet Me in the Bathroom or watching a documentary with a panel of experts. Really cool stuff, and I love that the Fathers have different takes on the texts. Always complimentary/true takes, but from different angles, different symbolic readings, different moral takeaways, etc. And as St. John Henry Newman says in the introduction, Aquinas edits the fathers, not to change their meaning, but always to get to the clear core of their meaning.
Basically, this is an awesome and indispensable resource.
This commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark is 1/3 the size of the first volume, on St. Matthew; because Mark's Gospel itself is shorter, and also it covers much of the same ground as Matthew. As with the commentary on St. Matthew, it is set forth as a great conversation between the church fathers; they reply to each other, and put forward alternate readings of the same passages. Are you looking for solid commentary on the text itself, by people who take the Gospel seriously? Are you tired of psychologizing, spiritualizing, modernizing commentary? Tired of the spirit of the times? Then come to the Catena Aurea and be refreshed.
The introduction says this book depends more on Eastern writers than the volumes on Matthew and Mark. I couldn't tell much of a difference, but then I am reading as a conversation between the commentators and for the subject matter - not for the scholarly details.
St. Luke of course has the most touching details of Our Lord's nativity and infancy, and at least three of the great canticles (the canticle of Zechariah and the Magnificat are said every morning and evening in the traditional daily office, and the canticle of Simeon (the Nunc Dimittis) is said every night).
What a great privilege to live in a time when so many great works are available so easily to so many people.
I’ve been reading this along with a Bible Study of Mark and it’s been really cool. The early church is much more concerned with things like how the scriptures apply salvation to the gentiles, or what certain numbers or places mean, than a more modern style of reflective reading, but there are some amazing nuggets every so often. I particularly like where all the Fathers unanimously agree that Christ’s Eucharist is not symbolic (: