favorite Scott Hahn

[_veritas]

rarndt01:

Mr Hahn is VERY liberal with his interpretations and he does not consult with the magnistarium before sending his books off to press. Many of the things Hahn writes of, are simply not true and no church father ever taught such fantasy.

Such as Mary being the New ark of the covenant and Mary being addressed as Queen of Heaven. This is dangerous. Why? Because when a maverick writes and prints books, outside what the church ALREADY has presented, then one influences thousands if not a million readers into false truths. Stick with the CCC and William Jurgens’ 3 volume work of “The Faith of the Early Fathers”.

Ron from Ohio

Hmm… Careful what unresearched claims you make on this forum…and careful that you are not letting personal dislike slander and calumniate another human being. None of your claims are substantiated, and I believe that none of them are any more than your opinion, because I do not believe you HAVE any proof for your statements. :tsktsk: If you truly believe what you say, prove it.

Now, what does the Church say on the two particular matters you seem to be so upset about Scott Hahn discussing?

Queenship of Mary:

The Church not only officially recognizes this, it recognizes it with the honor of a feast day!! August 22nd is the Feast of the Queenship of Mary. Below are some selections from the proclamation of this feast day by Pope Pius XII:

**

"Ad Caeli Reginam"
His Holiness Pope Pius XII
Encyclical on Proclaiming the Queenship of Mary
Promulgated October 11, 1954

1. …and so with confidence We have recourse to Mary Our Queen, making known to her those sentiments of filial reverence which are not Ours alone, but which belong to all those who glory in the name of Christian.
2. In this matter We do not wish to propose a new truth to be believed by Christians, since the title and the arguments on which Mary’s queenly dignity is based have already been clearly set forth, and are to be found in ancient documents of the Church and in the books of the sacred liturgy.
3. From early times Christians have believed, and not without reason, that she of whom was born the Son of the Most High received privileges of grace above all other beings created by God. He “will reign in the house of Jacob forever,”[5] “the Prince of Peace,”[6] the “King of Kings and Lord of Lords.”[7] And when Christians reflected upon the intimate connection that obtains between a mother and a son, they readily acknowledged the supreme royal dignity of the Mother of God.
4. Hence it is not surprising that the early writers of the Church called Mary “the Mother of the King” and “the Mother of the Lord,” basing their stand on the words of St. Gabriel the archangel, who foretold that the Son of Mary would reign forever,[8] and on the words of Elizabeth who greeted her with reverence and called her “the Mother of my Lord.”[9] Thereby they clearly signified that she derived a certain eminence and exalted station from the royal dignity of her Son.
5. So it is that St. Ephrem, burning with poetic inspiration, represents her as speaking in this way: “Let Heaven sustain me in its embrace, because I am honored above it. For heaven was not Thy mother, but Thou hast made it Thy throne. How much more honorable and venerable than the throne of a king is her mother.”[10] And in another place he thus prays to her: “. . . Majestic and Heavenly Maid, Lady, Queen, protect and keep me under your wing lest Satan the sower of destruction glory over me, lest my wicked foe be victorious against me.”[11]

**
(continued below…)

 

[_veritas]

1. St. Gregory Nazianzen calls Mary “the Mother of the King of the universe,” and the “Virgin Mother who brought forth the King of the whole world,”[12] while Prudentius asserts that the Mother marvels “that she has brought forth God as man, and even as Supreme King.”[13] 12. And this royal dignity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is quite clearly indicated through direct assertion by those who call her “Lady,” “Ruler” and “Queen.”
2. St. Andrew of Crete frequently attributes the dignity of a Queen to the Virgin Mary. For example, he writes, “Today He transports from her earthly dwelling, as Queen of the human race, His ever-Virgin Mother, from whose womb He, the living God, took on human form.”[19]
3. And in another place he speaks of “the Queen of the entire human race faithful to the exact meaning of her name, who is exalted above all things save only God himself.”[20]
4. She is called by St. John Damascene: “Queen, ruler, and lady,”[23] and also “the Queen of every creature.”[24] Another ancient writer of the Eastern Church calls her “favored Queen,” “the perpetual Queen beside the King, her son,” whose “snow-white brow is crowned with a golden diadem.”[25]
   (and the list goes on and on and on and on… how many references would you like?? Go view the encyclical yourself at newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12ac.htm and find a ton more references to how the Church has historically and currently considers Mary as Queen of Heaven and Earth.)

Next: Mary as the Ark of the Covenant

First, Pope John Paul II, during his Angelus message August 15, 1996:

1. We greet you, glorious Mother of the Redeemer, Ark of the Covenant, in whom the mystery of Redemption was fulfilled: in you the promise of Emmanuel, God-with-us, became a reality, and God was made our brother

Second, Pope Pius XII in* Munificentissimus Deus,* speaking of the Fathers, wrote:

… some have employed the words of the Psalmist: “Arise, O Lord, and go into Thy resting place, Thou and the ark of Thy might” and have looked upon the Ark of the Covenant, built of incorruptible wood and places in the Lord’s temple, as a type of the most pure body of the Virgin Mary, preserved and exempted from all corruption of the tomb and raised up to such glory in heaven.

Third, St. Athanasius, writing in one of his homilies back in the third century:

O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all. O [Ark of the New] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides. Should I compare you to the fertile earth and its fruits? You surpass them. . . . If I say that heaven is exalted, yet it does not equal you. . . . If we say that the cherubim are great, you are greater than they, for the cherubim carry the throne of God, while you hold God in your hands.

 

[Annunciata]

+veritas+:

Hmm… Careful what unresearched claims you make on this forum…and careful that you are not letting personal dislike slander and calumniate another human being. None of your claims are substantiated, and I believe that none of them are any more than your opinion, because I do not believe you HAVE any proof for your statements. :tsktsk: If you truly believe what you say, prove it.

Yes, I totally second that! Annunciata

 

[rarndt01]

One may quote pious men and women of the faith who have since died til the cows come home, but this is not the same as the authority of the apostles and the early church fathers. NONE, ever wrote that Mary is Queen of heaven period.

Also the Catechism of the Catholic church is our statement of faith and not what some individual Pope writes in his proclamations on a feast day.

It is true that Jesus is King and Mary is his mother. But this does not dictate that she automatically becomes Queen OF ALL HEAVEN, because she gave birth to Jesus. Is Joseph also our Father as well, because he was the father of our Lord? I hardly think so. And one must realize, our Lord was APPOINTED King by his Father. When was Mary appointed Queen? The evidence is lacking.

As for Scott Hahn making baseless assumptions, I still maintain he goes beyond the witness of the early church and in fact I would challenge him publicly to offer evidence from ANY early church Father or noted early church bishop that held to the fantasy beliefs he fosters. NO EARLY CHURCH FATHER ever wrote or taught Mary was Queen of heaven over the angels and the apostles and the saints. Only our Lord Jesus was given that privilege by the Father.

Also, NO EARLY CHURCH FATHER ever wrote that Mary was called the new ark of the covenant either. Actually, the ark we are to enter into, is Jesus, himself BY FAITH. He is our ark.

Ron from Ohio

 

[mrS4ntA]

rarndt01:

…
Also the Catechism of the Catholic church is our statement of faith and not what some individual Pope writes in his proclamations on a feast day.
…

You are Catholic?

Well, if you are, you must hold the three stools of our Faith: the Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition AND the Magisterium!

The Magisterium has decreed the Queenship of Mary and instituted a feast. As a Catholic, that should be enough for you.

 

[mrS4ntA]

rarndt01:

…
As for Scott Hahn making baseless assumptions, I still maintain he goes beyond the witness of the early church and in fact I would challenge him publicly to offer evidence from ANY early church Father or noted early church bishop that held to the fantasy beliefs he fosters. NO EARLY CHURCH FATHER ever wrote or taught Mary was Queen of heaven over the angels and the apostles and the saints. Only our Lord Jesus was given that privilege by the Father.
…

This “fantasy belief” happens to be believed by the Church.

Hail Holy Queen,
Mother of Mercy…

-- Salve Regina prayer.​

Ark of the Covenant, pray for us…

-- Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary.​

 

[rarndt01]

I would agree with you if the modern day magisterium was IN AGREEMENT with the witness of the early church and easpecially the enormous writings of the early bishops and church fathers. But they are not. The early church never wrote of such things. Jesus Christ was appointed over the the angels, the apostles and the saints of heaven, by his Father and no one else.
Ron from Ohio

 

[mayra_hart]

for the past few weeks i been doing one of his bible studies called from genesis to jesus :a journey through the scriptures. and i tell you is very good:clapping: . although from time to time i listen to his speaches online an i tell you it have help me a lot in understanding the fundamentalist way of thinking, and in some way has also give me the tools to defend my catholic faith. god make me an instrument of your peace… amen

 

[mrS4ntA]

rarndt01:

I would agree with you if the modern day magisterium was IN AGREEMENT with the witness of the early church and easpecially the enormous writings of the early bishops and church fathers. But they are not. The early church never wrote of such things. Jesus Christ was appointed over the the angels, the apostles and the saints of heaven, by his Father and no one else.

                                          Ron from Ohio

Clarify this for me: are you a Catholic or are you a heretic? (I didn’t mean that as an insult, mind … before you bark at me.)

 

[rarndt01]

mrS4ntA

OK, since you suffer from "foot in mouth desease, I publically challenge you, right here, Yeah, you wise guy.Here is your moment in the sun.
Quote ONE early church Father within the first three centuries of the Catholic church who stated Mary was appointed “Queen of Heaven” and called “the ark of the new covenant”.? Just one will be sufficient. Don’t forget the clear cut quote, not just a name. I await your reply.
Ron from Ohio

 

[mrS4ntA]

Sigh… I was afraid you’d bark at me. OK, I’ll rephrase:

Please, oh pretty please, for the sake of continuing the discussion, provide me with a clarification on your standing:

1. Are you a Catholic?
2. If you are, why don’t you submit to the Magisterium of the Church, one of the three stools of our Faith.

The early Fathers were wise in their writings, providing great insight in the life of the Early Church. But the danger remains in thinking in protestant terms: that the Church is frozen like stone.

The Church is a breathing, evolving body. Our understanding of the Faith is developing – albeit NOT the Faith itself. Like St Thomas Aquinas said, the development of doctrine is lke this: “we moderns believe explicitly now what the Early Church believed implicitly.” The Church is a living, breathing tree, of which the Early Church – guided by the Early Fatehrs – is the seed. The Church is not a monument of stone.

Now, the Magisterium holds the Queenship of Mary and the honouring of her under the title, “Ark of the Covenant.” Well, that’s good enough for me.

 

[mrS4ntA]

While I’m waiting for you to establish that, I’ll try to provide you with quotes, if you so insist. Bear with me; I’m not a historian nor wholly familiar with the writings of the Early Fathers.

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! **You are the Ark ** in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.”

-- St Athanasius.​

Gregory of Neo-Caesarea (3rd Century) quotes Psalm 132 as referring to Mary: “Arise O Lord to Thy resting place; Thou and the ark of Thy sanctification” (Psalm 132:8). In this regard, he said,

“For the holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without (Exodus 25:10-11, 37:1-2), that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary”

-- Homily I on the Annunciation.​

 

[mrS4ntA]

Well, this one is not by Early Fathes, but it’s an encyclical of Pope Pius XII promulgated on Oct 11, 1954.

To the Venerable Brethren, the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops and other Local Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Holy See. Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Blessing. From the earliest ages of the Catholic Church a Christian people, whether in time of triumph or more especially in time of crisis, has addressed prayers of petition and hymns of praise and veneration to the Queen of Heaven. And never has that hope wavered which they placed in the Mother of the Divine King, Jesus Christ; nor has that faith ever failed by which we are taught that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, reigns with a mother’s solicitude over the entire world, just as she is crowned in heavenly blessedness with the glory of a Queen.

– Ad Caeli Reginam.​

And we mustn’t just dismiss the prefigurement of Mary’s queenship in OT Israel’s kingdom: in their kings and queen-mothers.

 

[rarndt01]

So what your saying in essence, is that no matter what the modern day magisterium decrees in our time, we should blindly believe, even though there may be no early church evidence to support their new dogma. Is that correct?

Ron from Ohio

 

[mrS4ntA]

rarndt01:

So what your saying in essence, is that no matter what the modern day magisterium decrees in our time, we should blindly believe, even though there may be no early church evidence to support their new dogma. Is that correct?

Ron from Ohio

1. You have’t clarified yet.
2. Like I’ve humbly shown, there is such thing as “development of doctrine” and that what the Magisterium teaches in some ways have sound roots – either explicit or implicit – in the Scripture and Tradition, in the Bible and in the writings of the Early Fathers.
3. The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is exempt from err. That is, it has the ordinary charism of infallibility, protected by the Holy Ghost from err when teaching in matters of faith and morals. So it can’t err. period.

 

[edwinG]

puzzleannie:

I understand it as a complex and misunderstood book of the Bible which would require a thorough bible study outside the scope of this forum, and also off the topic of this thread. I recommend beginning with The Lamb’s Supper for the basic Catholic understanding of John’s vision of heaven. Revelation should be the last book of the bible tackled, after a thorough grounding in Salvation History–A Father Who keeps His Promises is my next favort Scott Hahn book. One should not tackle Revelation until you have a thorough knowledge of the apocalyptic books of the OT Daniel, Ezekieal , and Zechariah, their context in the OT and in history.

Thank you puzzleannie,
Christ be with youhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
walk in love
edwinG

 

[jpusateri]

rarndt01:

I would agree with you if the modern day magisterium was IN AGREEMENT with the witness of the early church and easpecially the enormous writings of the early bishops and church fathers. But they are not. The early church never wrote of such things. Jesus Christ was appointed over the the angels, the apostles and the saints of heaven, by his Father and no one else.

Ron from Ohio

What use would it be to be simply in agreement with something that is already written? Why expound a concept if nothing about it will be better understood when you are done?

The question is not “I would agree if the modern day magisterium was in agreement with the witness of the early church” but rather “I would NOT agree if the modern day magisterium was CONTRADICTORY to the witness of the early church”

These are different propositions.

 

[rarndt01]

Allow me to explain something. When Jesus taught his apostles, he instructed them what to believe and to teach others. Point #1

He DIDN’T say, now what I’ve told you, you can also ADD ON to what I taught later on. No, he told them to go out and teach others exactly what he TOLD THEM.#2

Now after the apostles died, the surviving church passed on ALL that the apostles were taught and commanded as well. Point# 3

Are you following me so far? Good. In today’s Catholic thinking, the Catholic laity is TOLD we are to believe whatever the present magisterium claims is doctrine, even though it may not have APOSTOLIC or early church evidence. Such as Mary being a co-redeemer, Queen of heaven, denial of priests being able to marry and only offering one specie offered during mass.

You claim the church has the RIGHT to do as she wishes, because she is a growing institution or living organism??? Strange terms. But the difficulty of this is that Christ, nor the apostles ever taught such a monstrous lie. Christ told his apostles to teach people what he taught the apostles and the apostles told their flock to follow what THEY instructed. Neither Christ, nor his apostles said it was ok for the church later on in the centuries, to develop NEW TEACHINGS, especially if they contradicted what was previously laid down by Christy and his apostles.

At first the Catholic church was obedient to foundation of apostolic authority and tradition. But as the centuries rolled on, certain bishops, and even Popes decreed things that were never traditional from the apostles or the early church at all. This is the rub or the BIG problem.

I am Catholic, but I subscribe to the authority of the once pristine authority of the EARLY Catholic church and not in the modern day distortion. THAT is the difference.

Ron from Ohio

 

[tkdnick]

Well I’ll just move us back onto the topic of the thread…hopefully. I like all of Scott Hahn’s books! I agree with many of the other posters, that The Lamb’s Supper is a great book! I am also currently reading First Comes Love, which I also think is very good!

 

[rarndt01]

Scott Hahn is as liberal a writer to the Catholic community, as Tim LaHaye is to the Protestant prophecy readers. Hahn is just another money maker, like LaHaye.

                                            Ron from Ohio