Skip to main content

Is Scott Hahn a Fundamentalist Catholic - What are they afraid of?

Image
By
 +
JMJ

The curious title caught my eye a few days ago because it had "Scott Hahn" and "Fundamentalist" in the title. Full points to Crisis Magazine for a clickable title and a great article by Eric Sammons (link).

I've never met Scott Hahn, but I have several of his CDs and the thought of him being portrayed as a Bible thumping Catholic Fundamentalist was interesting.

In the article Eric offers a critique of American Pope: Scott Hahn and the Rise of Catholic Fundamentalism by Sean Swain Martin. Eric asserts that:

The basic thesis of American Pope is this: Scott Hahn claims the message of the Bible is simple and clear, and that the Bible itself is inerrant; American Fundamentalists make similar claims; therefore, Scott Hahn is an American Fundamentalist disguised as a Catholic. To make the Bible accessible to the masses, as Hahn does, is akin to fundamentalism, according to Martin.

First, I think that the accusation of fundamentalism falls flat and would probably be more appropriately ascribed to the likes of the SSPX et al.  After all, they're the ones who've been faithful to Church Teaching since Vatican II.  Looking at the Wikipedia article (link) on Christian Fundamentalism, I found that it arose in response to the rise of modernism.  Well, that's interesting.  I also found the following quote particularly interesting:

A few scholars label Catholics who reject modern Christian theology in favor of more traditional doctrines fundamentalists.[10]

Ok, so colour me fundamentalist in that I happen to believe what the Catholic Church teaches. This includes what the Church Teaches concerning the contents of the Deposit of Faith ... that includes the Bible.  ... While I am confident that Dr. Hahn is a faithful Catholic, I never thought of him as a fundamentalist.Then Eric highlights this:

To Martin, average Catholics reading and interpreting the Bible is a bad thing, or at least a fool’s errand. He writes, “It would be difficult to expect each individual Catholic to be prepared to offer such a careful investigation of the different literary forms employed, cultural influences manifest, etc., in the Scriptures so as to easily move from familiarity to ‘eminent knowability.”

 Well, I guess Martin has forgotten all the work done by pre-Conciliar Catholic Theologians to clarify the difficult passages.  But the Hubris of it is that the modern theologians don't teach with clarity, they teach with academics that don't want to make a definitive conclusion, they want academic freedom to interpret as they see fit ad nauseum.

I think Eric nails it when he writes:

In other words, Martin believes in the “Magisterium of the Theologians”—you simple-minded Catholics can’t be expected to understand the Scriptures without a bunch of PhD’s telling you what to think (unless the PhD happens to be Scott Hahn, of course). The fact that Hahn believes the Bible is for everyone apparently marks him as one of those anti-intellectual fundamentalists. 
Aha, perhaps modern theologians (aka Modernists) are afraid that if Catholics read the Bible they would:

  1. Stay Catholic 
  2. realize that most of the work on biblical exegesis was done 
  3. conclude we can pack off the religious theologians to monasteries 
  4. be able to fire the lay theologians to find work in the civil service of their home countries.

Of course that won't happen, but one can dream can't they?

 So, yes Catholics need to read the bible and have next to them a reputable exegesis.  That will really send the Megamind Modernists shaking in their baby seal skin leather boots. 


MegaMind Modernist Theologian


P^3

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

By
+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3
Post a Comment
Read more

Benedict XIV, Encyclical Annus Qui 1749

By
 + JMJ At Mass today I started reading some of the commentary added to the Ideal Daily Missal, as I listened to the Gregorian Chant and Hymns, this is what my eyes fell upon. There is certainly no one who does not desire a certain difference between ecclesiastical change and theatrical melodies, and who does not acknowledge that the use of theatrical and profane change must not be tolerated in churches. Benedict XIV, Annus Qui, 1749 In my experience what is forbidden is what actually happens in Modern Catholic Churches (Latin Rite - Novus Ordo). P^3
Post a Comment
Read more

Dogmatic Fact or Fancy III

By
+ JMJ Recently, I've been engaged in a 'dogmatic fact' discussion / argument and a thought occurred to me. Based on what reading I had done, I had concluded that the dogmatic fact of who is Pope was fixed in time - meaning that acceptance of the Pope at the time of election provided infallible surety that the election was valid and that indeed the elected Cardinal/Bishop was Pope at that moment. Then I realized that some people believed that the dogmatic fact meant they were always Pope.  At the time I thought they meant that the understanding of the doctrine was that the one time recognition made that person infallibly the Pope until he either abdicated or died. A light went on this morning. Does the continual acceptance of the Pope by the hierarchy continually 'refresh' the dogmatic fact - meaning we can be certain that the Pope is'still' Pope etc? I asked a friend (a real theologian) and he pointed out that the Pope is already elected. The...
Post a Comment
Read more

De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

By
I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith.  When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent ...
Post a Comment
Read more

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

By
Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making.  It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX.  The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience.  The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members.  It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...
8 comments
Read more