O
otjm
Guest
One does not need interpretation of that which is plain and simple on the face of it.Then from this we may just throw out history, Fathers, Doctors, Catechisms, Church documents, Tradition, because all we need is our own personal interpretation of Scripture?
And I have read the text, and I have presented my own positive reasons. But that is not what the OP is about.
The ones who are “interpreting” the matter are those who are trying to say that Scott Hahn can’t be right because there is no official Church document saying that what the Scripture passage says, is what the Scripture passage means.
Which is another way of saying that the passage, which appears clear on the face of it and in no need of “interpretation”, must be “interpreted” because no one else has (apparently) mentioned it at all.
We live in an age of better understanding of many things, and certainly psychology and psychiatry has explained that certain mental illnesses are just that - something which may be treatable through medication.
However, we have also become a highly secularized society, one which no longer believes in the devil, or in possession; and so psychology and psychiatry are abused in order to cover over that which we, as a secularized society, no longer want to give credence to - such as real possession.
So, according to secular society, possession no longer occurs. Priests who are trained as exorcists would beg to differ. But, on the whole, other than movies like Rosemary’s Baby, no one wants to hear what they (the exorcists) have to say.
And there is no reason to believe that likewise, someone receiving unworthily might become seriously sick, or even die. But is this going to get reported in the press?
Not likely.
And so Scott Hahn says we need to pay attention to this, as it is real; and now we have people going off saying it has to be “interpreted”, or the Church never taught this (except that it is in the Church’s primary textbook - the Bible), or that it only happened then and doesn’t happen now, or if the Church did not state that what is plain on the face of the text is exactly what it means, therefore it must not mean that…
It almost sounds to me as if some are frightened about agreeing with Dr. Hahn…