The Catholic Message Board

If you have read any Scott Hahn or John Bergesma books then you have no doubt encountered the idea that the Bible is all about the concept of the covenant, that the whole story of the Bible is about God making one covenant after another, that if you want to interpret any story in the Bible you first have to know what covenant was active at the time.

This is covenant theology, and its origins are in the Calvinist Reformed tradition, that is why the Catholics trying to import these ideas into Catholicism are all former members of Reformed Churches who learned a certain way to read the Bible and have never abandoned it.

I have to admit I am suspicious of importing Protestant hermeneutics into Catholicism whenever I read a Catholic book that tries to interpret the Bible through the lens of the covenant, I immediately become suspicious.

What does everyone think about this?

Covenant theology is certainly part of my scriptural/historical understanding of salvation history.

FYI: Among his many contributions to Catholic theology, one Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's, now Pope Benedict XVI's, most important is his theology of covenant. Arguably as significant as John Paul II's theology of the body, Ratzinger's theology of covenant, once assimilated by the Church, promises to transform and revitalize the Church's approach to matters ranging from Scripture study to ecumenical dialogue. The theology of covenant gives nothing less than the master key to a unified interpretation of Scripture centered on the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Ratzinger's work in this area is firmly based on a fundamental principle: the theology of covenant is integral to Christian identity as given by divine revelation, especially as the latter is recorded in the New Testament. This theology cannot be primarily based on contemporary concerns, such as the perceived needs of ecumenical dialogue, however important such concerns may be.1

Ratzinger's approach to Scripture in working out the theology of covenant is noteworthy. He interprets the sacred texts with great scholarly care and learning. Yet, unlike many recent theologians, he also clearly treats these texts as normative for Christian doctrine. Ratzinger refuses to set aside central doctrinal statements of the New Testament or treat them as somehow "up for grabs." The theologian, above all, must fully confront the person and work of Christ, for "Christology thus appears as a synthesis of the covenantal theology of the New Testament, which is grounded in the unity of the entire Bible."2
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture ... ecnum=7878

"Covenant Theology" has always been Catholic. It may not have been called that, but the belief is the same. As noted in the link that was posted by Aussie, a couple of Ratzinger's books: "Many Religions — One Covenant: Israel, the Church, and the World", and "The New Covenant: A Theology of Covenant in the New Testament" are just a couple of them.

Protestants sometime swerve into the truth that has always been Catholic. They can also distort that truth, but 'even a blind hog can find an acorn every once in a while'.

Covenant Theology originated in the 16th century in the works of Reformed theologians Zwingli and Ocemlapius before being advanced by John Calvin. It is not an ancient paradigm.

Whether as cardinal, or as Pope, he was considered to be one of the most preeminent Scripture scholars in the world. As the expression goes, only fools go where angels dare not tread. If Ratzinger saw a connection, wild horses aren't going to budge me.

A Pope's personal opinion is hardly dogmatic. Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI uncritically accepted many of the questionable results of higher criticism, such as the idea that three different people wrote the book of Isaiah.

I think that the Hahn school focuses a little too tightly on the idea of covenant (I heard him make fun of himself for this), and I don't buy it as THE key to Scripture, but I think it is a valid approach that produces useful insights.

Dr. Hahn didn't just draw from his own Presbyterian/Calvinist background. He said he relied on a couple of French theologians: Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange, and Henri de Lubac. I don't know anything about theses two gentleman. They may have been a little on the fringe for all that I know.

RGL is as non-fringy as they come. De Lubac was a little less "conservative" (I dislike the word in this context but don't have a better one), but by no means out of bounds.

Fr. G-L is often referred to as a "strict observance" Thomist. This label is sometimes used abusively, but sometimes just used descriptively. I think very roughly it means first that he was not interested in trying to tie St. Thomas to modern ways of thinking (as, say, the Transcendental "Thomists" were, borrowing their philosophical framework from Kant), and second that he was closely connected to the tradition of the principally Dominican commentators on St. Thomas like Cardinal Cajetan and John Poinsot. The thing about Fr. G-L in the present context was that although he wrote very widely in philosophy and theology, he was in practice a professor of Spiritual Theology, and as far as I know he never wrote anything very substantial in the line of Scripture scholarship. It's possible that there's a whole body of his work out there that I'm wholly ignorant of, since of course he didn't write in English and much isn't translated. But I have a pretty solid shelf of his works in English, and none of them are focused on Scripture in any serious way. Nor do I recall anything especially focused on Covenants or whatnot. Though of course I could have glossed over that. The upshot here is that I'm not seeing offhand how Fr. G-L could have played much of a role in Hahn's Biblical theology.

Also, FWIW, I agree with Father that talking about something being "the master key" to understanding the Bible (as the linked article does, and as I think Hahn himself does, in reference to Covenants) is maybe going to turn out to be a procrustean bed instead of a key.

Having listened to Hahn for almost 30 years, I think he's more into typology than covenant theology, although that plays heavily into his explanation of typology.

anawim wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2024 2:04 pm Dr. Hahn didn't just draw from his own Presbyterian/Calvinist background. He said he relied on a couple of French theologians: Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange, and Henri de Lubac. I don't know anything about theses two gentleman. They may have been a little on the fringe for all that I know.

That’s still 20th century though

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2024 2:21 pm RGL is as non-fringy as they come. De Lubac was a little less "conservative" (I dislike the word in this context but don't have a better one), but by no means out of bounds.

De Lubac as well as Congar were among the “New Theologians” condemned by Pius XII though I think that they mostly rehabilitated themselves by themselves by the 80s. De Lubac is the most difficult case because he was inclined to extraordinary outbursts of vituperation and abuse towards his critics and frequently towards the Pope. For example, he went off on something of a tirade when John XXIII offered to raise him to cardinal. His reason for rejecting the honor was the recent decree that a cardinal had to be a bishop. A simple “no thank you” would have sufficed.

gherkin wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 9:20 am I agree with Father

anawim wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:50 pm Having listened to Hahn for almost 30 years, I think he's more into typology than covenant theology, although that plays heavily into his explanation of typology.

I think he has moved over time more into typology.

I honestly stopped reading Scott Hahn a long time ago when I realized that his theories are rather fringe and his sources tend to be obscure rabbinic texts that even most Jews don't take seriously, for example, his theory that Melchezidek is Noah's son Shem is based on rabbinic views from the Middle Ages, and he tends to present his fringe theories as if they are just mainstream Catholicism which they aren't.

Doom wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 8:01 pm I honestly stopped reading Scott Hahn a long time ago when I realized that his theories are rather fringe and his sources tend to be obscure rabbinic texts that even most Jews don't take seriously, for example, his theory that Melchezidek is Noah's son Shem is based on rabbinic views from the Middle Ages, and he tends to present his fringe theories as if they are just mainstream Catholicism which they aren't.

And heaven help the person who tells a fresh Hahn fan that... BTDT. I was a big fan of Dr Hahn when I was a newish Catholic. Now, I don't often recommend his books.

He has left a lot of that stuff behind in recent years. I've heard him speak at several conferences and that stuff just doesn't come up.

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 12:34 pm He has left a lot of that stuff behind in recent years. I've heard him speak at several conferences and that stuff just doesn't come up.

He changed when he started teaching at the seminary in Pittsburgh, and also went to Rome as guest professor in Januarys. Don't remember when that was, but that's when I noticed a difference.

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 4:03 pm

gherkin wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 9:20 am I agree with Father