I have been looking for a "scholarly" Catholic commentary of the Bible for awhile. Navarre is limited in complex ideas, such as the justification question presented in Romans, and Collegeville is not detailed enough. Other commentaries, of course, come with a decidedly Protestant interpretation, watering down several key verses, such as Mat 16: 18-20.
As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on the Sacra Pagina series. The Romans book was outstanding. Matthew, however, is more concerned with the relationship with Mark and the Synoptics Problem. The author presents as FACT the common synoptic solution that Matthew copied Mark. While the author shows some of the argument of the "traditional" side (written in Aramaic/Hebrew for example), he limply explains it away. Father Raymond Brown did a much better job in presenting both view points, while not totally dismissing either side. I don't think the Synoptic solution should be presented as fact, as the author poorly refutes the "traditional" side, merely dismissing it. No one has yet been able to explain to me, for example, WHY someone would write an Aramaic/Hebrew gospel AFTER 70 AD to the Jewish diaspora, who spoke Greek. Many scholars seem to forget the massive destruction caused by the Roman punitive actions, virtually destroying the Jewish nation. Jews in Antioch were mostly Greek speakers, so why and to whom would Matthew be writing AFTER 70 AD in Greek? Perhaps this book needs a second edition, as scholarship of today is beginning to question the dating of Matthew to before 70 AD.
The book actually doesn't have a lot of theological use in of itself. For example, the Beatitudes is explored in a limited fashion. The book is very good in its explanations and comparisions with the Jewish community and Old Testament relationships. However, time and again, Matthew is compared with Mark. While this has its place, I think the theological issues should have been explored more, rather than how the two gospels are similar and different. Also, I found the author's explanations of particular "Catholic" verses, such as Mat 16: 18-20 very limited. The author doesn't take a stand one way or the other, merely presenting the 500 year old argument from a neutral position. Although this might be a more ecumenical manner of doing things, I believe it again shows the author's limited desire to pursue theological issues or pursue ANY sort of point of view regarding Catholicism. If the author is Catholic, you wouldn't know it by reading this book.
Again, I was personally disappointed by the coverage of the book, as I hoped for a Commentary concerned more with theological issues, such as Matthew's concern with ecclesiastics, not the Synoptic problem. Whether the Sacra Pagina series will be the answer to the limited Catholic Commentary available on the Bible remains to be seen. I only have two, and Romans is outstanding in this regard. The Sacra Pagina Matthew is of limited use to someone desiring to read the Bible for its intend purpose. Read with the Navarre Bible, however, this book does have potential, as it does address many Jewish questions very well that Navarre doesn't.