favorite Scott Hahn

[jpusateri]

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

After reading your post, I was reminded of some things I read about the early church when fighting various heresies.

Not everything that even non-Catholics believe are explicitly taught in the Bible. (Trinity, etc.)

When fighting these heresies the bishops would consider the writings of various people and decide, “Is this what we understood from what was handed down to us?” Various ideas (some of which were later declared heretical) often used the Bible as support. However the church compared the ideas to their understanding of the teachings and decided what was antithetical and what was not. Both sides used the Bible as support!

Extra-biblical teachings and understanding exist and are entrusted to the magisterium as they always have.

I do not consider this “adding on”.

Another thing to consider…He also never told them to write anything down (in the Scriptures anyway). Were they outside his command then?

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

rarndt01:

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

So you don’t belief that Jesus fulfilled his promise to Peter that not even the gates of hell would prevail upon his church?

By saying the modern church is in error then it follows that the Church did not stand and Christ did not enforce his promise. But Christ is the good Shepherd. When he ascended, he sent us the Holy Spirit and the promise of a Church to his followers.

Come on back.

 

[rarndt01]

Michael

When Jesus told Peter that hell would not prevail against the church, he was speaking of the endurance of the church and not that false teachers would be unable to enter into it. The church IS the present day kingdom of God on earth. Jesus said in his parables that wheat and tares would grow up in this kingdom. Paul himself said, that after his departing, wolves in sheep’s clothing would arise AMONG YOU(the church) deceiving many. Paul wrote of Judaziers coming into the church, teaching Christians must obey the law of Moses. Also in Colossians Paul spoke of false teachers ALREADY in the church.Colossians chapter 2. And that was ALREADY in his time.

No Michael, the church will endure forever, but it will not be free of false teachers within it. So how are we to know? The best way is to study EARLY church practice and the writings of the New Testament. If any modern day teaching COUNTERS what has already been laid down as church tradition, then it is FALSE or a heresy. Plain and simple. Do you understand now?

Ron from Ohio

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

It seems we’re talking past each other. I am not really good at apologetics.

There can always be misguided people in the Church. That’s true. And we should be on watch for such people. I remind you though, that the scenario you describe ends up characterizing Christ as a bad shepherd. If his Church as a whole teaches error, Christ ascended to heaven and left us, his sheep, without guidance.

I praise Jesus because he is the Good Shepherd:
891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

While there may be a bad apple, the Church herself has Christ the Good Shepherd’s promise so that we sheep can follow correctly. No shepherd asks his sheep to figure out for themselves where the wolves are hiding, sheep follow, the Good Shepherd guides. I thank God for that.

Peace to you.

 

[_veritas]

Well, I think it is obvious to everyone here that rarndt01 is in fact not a Catholic, at least not a Roman Catholic in communion with the Holy Father–whether he is SSPX or another of the traditional schismatic groups is something he’ll have to tell us.

As such I’m pretty sure he will not listen to anything or any source that might be used to defend these teachings by anyone who actually believes that there is a Pope today… but, for everyone else who is willing to listen, see below.

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.

Well, I’m guessing that since rarndt01 will deny that the current Pope is the Pope, he will also deny that the current Catechism is valid. So the fact that in #966 of the Catechism it clearly states that Mary is “Queen over all things” probably isn’t good enough for him.

See scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p6.htm

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.

Hahn doesn’t have to – I can. Who do you think St. Athanasius was anyway?? St. Athanasius was not only an Early Church Father, but also a “noted early church bishop” as you so put it… unless 296-373AD isn’t early enough for you (even though that’s before Ambrose, Augustine and multiple other early church Fathers).

See Catholic Encyclopedia (written in 1917 by the way… so I think the schismatics even consider that old enough to be “real” ) newadvent.org/cathen/02035a.htm

As for the Queenship of Mary, if the use of the Hail Holy Queen (a very old prayer), the use of the 5th mystery of the Glorious mysteries of the rosary (the Coronation of Mary–dating back centuries), the litany of saints and early church theologians and yes, Church fathers, listed in the encyclical *Ad Caeli Reginam, *the later writings of St. Bonaventure (cin.org/saints/mirror.html), and St. Thomas Aquinas (“she is the Queen of Mercy, possessing everything in the kingdom of God’s justice”) are not enough proof, I am not sure what could be.

In any case, whether you accept it or not, and whether you are a schismatic or a heretic or a Catholic in good standing, you need to show more charity in your treatment of Scott Hahn’s name and reputation. (After all, slander is something that I believe was still considered a sin back in the day of St. Pius X, was it not? )

God bless you,

+veritas+

 

[rarndt01]

Veritas

This is exactly what I posted earlier that you missed. You, as well as millions of other Catholics feel the Catholic church of today is pristine and without error. Why? Because you have been told that the magisterium is led by the Holy Spirit and so cannot err.

Well, the sad truth is, that they have and do err, especially when they run counter with the witness of the EARLY Catholic church. Case in point? Not permitting priests to marry if they wish. Not permitting the Catholic laity to receive BOTH the consecrated wine and bread in the majority of churches. These practices were allowed in the EARLY Catholic church. Was the Pope in the 1st century who led that church in error? You tell me.

Now to the main point .Jesus foretold that the tares would enter the Kingdom of God and I believe you can agree this IS the Catholic church. This is what happened with Marian devotion. I do not deny that Mary was attributed the title Queen of heaven in the 5th century. Because you cited a valid source. But the question is, where are the OTHER quotes saying the same thing in the 1st and 2nd centuries of the Catholic church? Where are they? If Mary was soooooo adored as Queen, why wasn’t this written about by any father of that era? I mean, think about it.

Mary is bodily assumed to heaven and is REIGNING on the right hand side of the Triune God over the angels, the apostles and all the saints of heaven. That’s pretty heavy stuff, don’t you think? How come the 1st and 2nd century fathers somehow omitted writing about this? Because it never happened, that’s why. The doctrine crept into the church LATER on by Marian devotees. Marian dogma was a PROGRESSIVE teaching that entered into the church by men of religious thinking and power. Not from the traditions of the apostles.

Ron from Ohio

 

[_veritas]

rarndt01:

Case in point? Not permitting priests to marry if they wish. Not permitting the Catholic laity to receive BOTH the consecrated wine and bread in the majority of churches. These practices were allowed in the EARLY Catholic church. Was the Pope in the 1st century who led that church in error? You tell me.

Both of these practices are just that - practices. They are referred to as Church discipline, “tradition” with a small-t. Church discipline can be adapted by the proper Church authorities.

Therefore, the 1st century bishop you cite as well as the modern bishops are both “correct”. Please provide other examples of why you feel that the current Church is erring from the “real” original Church…

I do not deny that Mary was attributed the title Queen of heaven in the 5th century. Because you cited a valid source.

Thank you for your openness.

But the question is, where are the OTHER quotes saying the same thing in the 1st and 2nd centuries of the Catholic church? Where are they? If Mary was soooooo adored as Queen, why wasn’t this written about by any father of that era? I mean, think about it.

Why wasn’t the Trinity developed by St. Paul? I’d say that was pretty important too. It developed over time. Why is it that Christian service in the military was almost never discussed theologically until the third century? (because Christians could not serve before then due to idolatry… by the time of Augustine, idolatry was no longer an issue and Augustine could focus on the fundamental question of whether Christians could believe in just warfare in itself [yes].)

Why was Mary not discussed earlier?

First, she was probably still alive until close to the second century. Why would she be discussed while she was still alive? (For that matter, why didn’t the disciples pray to Jesus while He was on earth? He was God after all, and could still hear their prayers…)

Secondly, she was. Marian devotion is a natural extension of the theology of the communion of saints and their assistence–combine that with the very early understanding of Mary as the Mother of Jesus (and therefore, Mother of God) and you have a very early identification with the power of Marian devotion. She was just included with all of the prayers to the communion of saints, which is recounted all the way back to Paul’s time.

Thirdly, there are very early writings that regard Mary as special and worthy of high respect. See the Protoevangelium of James as one major example (earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancyjames-mrjames.html). The Protoevangelium dates from the second century and was accepted as authentic (though not inspired Sacred Scripture) by the early Church fathers.

Fourthly, not all of the tradition of the Church comes from texts --the earliest Christian catacombs (particularly the ones throughout Rome) have paintings of Mary and right next to them, prayers for the intercession of the saints on behalf of the beloved dead. These are catacombs from the early second century!

(continued…)

 

[_veritas]

Marian dogma was a PROGRESSIVE teaching that entered into the church by men of religious thinking and power. Not from the traditions of the apostles.

Well, “progressive” yes, in the same way that all other Catholic theology is “progressive”–taking what has been revealed through Scripture and Tradition (capital-T) and deepening our understanding of the key theological concepts and ideas. As someone once said, Catholicism is a pool that a flea can wade in and a whale can swim in…

Development of doctrinal understanding is not “new” doctrine–it is a deeper understanding of Revelation. It is not contradictorary to the faith, if you can find an example of Catholic doctrine absolutely contradicting past Catholic doctrine, I would love to see it because I have searched for it and cannot find any.

If you cannot understand Marian doctrines like the Assumption, at least accept it as being NOT contradictary to any other revealed doctrine–and realize that while Catholics are called to accept certain doctrines, it is OK to not understand them. It is also ok to not practice devotion to Mary outside of simply acknowledging her. The Church has never taught that you NEED to pray to Mary to get to heaven, the Church has merely taught that prayer for Mary’s intercession may help us on our way to heaven. Salvation is from Christ, there is absolutely no question about that.

In Jesus, through Mary,

+veritas+

 

[rarndt01]

Veritas

The issue is not that Mary is the Mother of God, because she is. The question is not that Mary is ever virgin. Because she is. The question is not that Mary is free from the stain of sin. Because she is. And the question is not she wasn’t assumed to heaven. Because she was. ALL these have EARLY church witness to support these beliefs.

But there is NO early church tradition that states that Mary after her assumption, was crowned Queen of heaven, reigning alongside of the triune God in heaven, having power and authority over the angels, the apostles and all departed saints in heaven. There is no traditional church support for this outlandish claim. No doubt the blessed Mother intercedes for the saints, as do ALSO the OTHER noteworthy saints in heaven do. But her intercession is not GREATER than the other saints, but one of many. Who was greater in the faith than the Apostles Peter and Paul?

I do ask Mary silently to watch over me and my loved ones, but unlike some Catholics I know, I don’t trust in her for my salvation. That rests alone with Christ.

You have been honest enough to admit that Marian teachings did evolve over the centuries. I thank you for that honesty. But has the evolution of Marian devotion gone to far? I believe so. There are more graven images erected to Mary in the world, then to her son Jesus. More Catholics seek out Mary in prayer then coming directly to Jesus. So Marianism has truly become a cult, especially in Latin America… Take care and thank you again.

Ron from Ohio

 

[mayra_hart]

“queen of heaven” has its foundation firmly in scripture :" a great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head" (rev 12:1) although evangelicals may not agree that this speaks of mary, they should be willing to admit that this is a possible interpretation. an important clue is to be found in the next verse. this same woman is described as being the mother of jesus: “she was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth… she gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter” (rev12:2-5) even evangelicals admit that the " male child" is jesus. than you mr david currie for this quoted:tiphat:

 

[rayne89]

rarndt01:

Veritas

. There is no traditional church support for this outlandish claim. No doubt the blessed Mother intercedes for the saints, as do ALSO the OTHER noteworthy saints in heaven do. But her intercession is not GREATER than the other saints, but one of many. Who was greater in the faith than the Apostles Peter and Paul?

Just an unresearched humble opinion (common sense?) Since Mary is Jesus’ mom wouldn’t it be natural that her intercession would be more powerful.:ehh:
I do believe there are some in the church that go to far with Mary but not many.
Another humble opinion: Faith is not just based on evidence, historical writings ect, that’s why it’s called *faith. *Not to say we should follow mindlessly but I trust the Holy Spirit to protect the Church Chirst established on earth from the Early Church Fathers until now.

 

[pennyh]

One of the very best books I have read on purgatory is “After Life” by Michael Brown, followed up by “The Unpublished manuscript on purgatory”. Very powerful and easy reads.

 

[mrS4ntA]

rarndt01,

First of all, as a Catholic, if one starts to doubt the infallibility of the Church as “the bulwark of Truth,” against which “the gates of hell shall not prevail”, this is a dangerous heresy. The dogma of the infallibility of the Church’s Magisterium is final and authoritatively binding.

Second of all, you keep insisting on a connection to the writing of the Early Fathers. Whilst we have given you some, you just ignored them and refused to see.

Moreover, Many of the Early Fathers writings are written even before the Sacred Scripture was compiled! If you insist that teaching the teachings of Christ must be based on something someone wrote before… that’s just plain logical impossibility.

St John did say that not everything that Jesus taught was written. This is why we have Sacred Tradition.

Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are equally important footstools of our Catholic Faith. What you’ve been doing is denying Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the Magisterium. Well, isn’t this where the heresy of Sola Scriptura started?

Being a Catholic is “accepting in all that the Holy Catholic Churches teaches, because they are true.” In good faith and holy obedience. Denial and refusal to submit is early signs of heresies and apostasies.

Please consider what I said.

Pax Christi,
In Cristus via Maria,
S4ntA.

 

[princz23]

Rome Sweet Home

Because it is the only one I’ve read! No really, it is, but only because with work and four small children, it usually takes me forever to finish a book. I read my Bible frequently, but other things take time. I read this book in 48 hours tops. I could barely put it down. I am a convert of 17 years and it put me on fire for the Lord and the Catholic Church. Also you get Kimberly, his wife’s, perspective as well. When my brother converted year before last, I bought it for him as a gift. Just my 2 cents.
God Bless

 

[puzzleannie]

looks like this thread has been hi-jacked, look for my new post on Miscellaneous asking “Worst Scott Hahn pun?”

 

[rarndt01]

MrS4ntA

What you don’t understand is apostolic tradition. You equate anything the PRESENT DAY MAGISTERIUM decrees is tradition and must be accepted, just as much as the tradition of the apostles. Who told you that?

As I previously posted. Jesus told his disciples what to say and preach and they in turn taught others what to say and teach. THAT was the TRUE church tradition. That tradition was passed on to the early church fathers such as Clement of Rome, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr. They SPOKE by the authority of the apostles. Why? Because it had been passed on to them.

Nothing had been passed on to them about bishops not being permitted to marry or allowing homosexuals to become bishops. Nor was it passed on to these early fathers that Mary was their co-redeemer and their Queen of heaven over all the angels and saints themselves. They ADDED nothing unto the traditions they had been taught.

But over the centuries Rome sure did. Rosaries, graven images, incense, homosexual priests, adulterous Popes, Mary worship, indulgences for money, the Spanish inquisition of thousands and the covering up of pedophile priests in America today.

Can you imagine this occurring in the post apostolic church? These things would NEVER have been permitted. The early church was PURE and holy and most were MARTYRS for their faith. Today millions of dollars are spent to pay off families who are abused by priests. Today Rome STILL refuses to allow young men to marry who are in the priesthood, despite the FACT that for a THOUSAND years in church history young bishops were allowed to marry.

Also, as I posted Rome today denies the church lay people the right to receive BOTH the consecrated wine and bread during Mass. ONLY the priest receives both. Is this the example Jesus set before his disciples? Is this what the post apostolic church did when assembled? Never.

So respectively, DON’T tell me that I should believe and follow the present day magisterium, when they do not even follow the early apostolic tradition of the Catholic church. The present day church changes apostolic tradition to FIT THEIR TRADITION.

Ron from Ohio

 

[Sarah_Jane]

rarndt01:

Today Rome STILL refuses to allow young men to marry who are in the priesthood, despite the FACT that for a THOUSAND years in church history young bishops were allowed to marry.

The priests can be married in oriental Catholic Church.

Also, as I posted Rome today denies the church lay people the right to receive BOTH the consecrated wine and bread during Mass. ONLY the priest receives both. Is this the example Jesus set before his disciples? Is this what the post apostolic church did when assembled? Never.

“So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.” (Redemptionis Sacrementum)

 

[yossarian]

Just a quick note to MariaG in response to her choosing The Lambs Supper. Scott Hahn & Mike Aquilina did an 12(?) part series on the book. You can buy the video in their online store or you can download it in Real Audio format from their audio library. I thought it was a good way to reinforce the reading.

good luck.

(now back to our regularly scheduled debate.)

edit to add: Here’s the link to the download files

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/file_index.asp?SeriesId=6607&pgnu=7

 

[wisdom_3_5]

mrS4ntA:

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.​

I have to add:

Regina Caeli, laetare, alleluia (Queen of heaven, rejoice, alleluia)

 

[MariaG]

As the starter of this thread, just wanted to give my “blessings” on going off track. I got the information I needed for now. The Lamb’s Supper followed by Rome Sweet Home.

I may come back and put in my :twocents: but probably not. No offense Ron, but you drive me nuts:whacky: I’m pretty sure you’re a nice guy, but frankly, you are the worst of both worlds. A Catholic convert who is still basically Bible alone and seems to have no room for doctrine development.

I mean the whole Queen of Heaven is quoted by 2nd century Church fathers (or was it third?). But beyond that, Queen Mother is a secular term used to apply to the mother of a King. Mary was certainly mother of THE King and deserving the title “Queen of Heaven”.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria