Scott Hahn

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mea_Culpa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mea_Culpa

Guest
I’ve learned a lot from the writings and presentations of Dr. Scott Hahn. He is co-author of the Ignatius Study Bible series, which has an Imprimatur from Cardinal William Levada, who is now Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Roman Curia, Joseph Ratzinger’s old job.

What I don’t understand is I’ve seen several messages on this forum making snide remarks about Dr. Hahn (he’s not trustworthy, etc.). There is never any evidence presented to back these detracting comments up.

I’d really like to hear why anyone would say Dr. Hahn’s teachings are not faithful to the Magisterium of the Church, as has been implied in several messages on here. Specifically,
From Ron Conte
I’m skeptical that any extensive commentary on Scripture by Scott Hahn would be fittingly described as ‘completely faithful’.
Click to expand...
and
From deborahaz
i also am a little skeptical of scott hahn. glad to know i am not alone.
Click to expand...
I’d like these people to present some evidence from Scott Hahn’s writings that show that he is teaching contrary to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
 
I agree, I love Hahn. He has always shown me that he submits to the Authority of the Church. I have not seen any good evidence from anyone on this site to even begin to convince me that Dr. Hahn is not trustworthy.
 
i have no problem with his teachings from what i have read or heard.

sorry, i guess i can’t be of any help.
 
Mea_Culpa said:
I’ve learned a lot from the writings and presentations of Dr. Scott Hahn. He is co-author of the Ignatius Study Bible series, which has an Imprimatur from Cardinal William Levada, who is now Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Roman Curia, Joseph Ratzinger’s old job.

What I don’t understand is I’ve seen several messages on this forum making snide remarks about Dr. Hahn (he’s not trustworthy, etc.). There is never any evidence presented to back these detracting comments up.

I’d really like to hear why anyone would say Dr. Hahn’s teachings are not faithful to the Magisterium of the Church, as has been implied in several messages on here. Specifically,

and

I’d like these people to present some evidence from Scott Hahn’s writings that show that he is teaching contrary to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I haven’t read or heard anything by Scott Hahn that would make me skeptical of him. I have noted that sometimes converts who are especially enthusiastic about the faith can instill a certain kind of resentment among their cradle Catholic brethren. I don’t know if it’s because they don’t want a “newcomer” telling them what being Catholic means, or if it’s the evangelical tone of their witness that sometimes stirs jealousy, as if they think the convert was trying to be more Catholic than “real” , i.e. cradle, Catholics.
But I would also be interested to hear what Hahn’s critics have to substantiate their animosity.
 
I have lots of Scott Hahn books, tapes and CDs. I think he’s a great Bible study teacher and have learned alot from him.
 
Do you think its because of his association with Opus Dei that triggers concern?
 
I’ve read just about every one of Dr. Hahn’s books and I 've heard him numerous times at the Religious Education Congress. I have never heard him deviate in any way from the official teachings of the Church. He allows people to really dig into Scripture and understand the typology and beauty of the Old Testament in foreshadowing the New Testament.

Dr. Scott Hahn is a theologian that theologians go to and emulate. No, I have absolutely no problem with him and would only pray that everyone would have the opportunity to study his work…teachccd 🙂
 
Some of Hahn’s substantial theological errors:

he claims that Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the tree because Satan threatened them with death.

he claims that the original sin of Adam was in not engaging the serpent (which was really a dragon or other monster) in the garden in mortal combat, at the sacrifice of his own life, for the sake of his beloved (Eve).

he claims that the wine mixed with gall (corrupted wine), on the sponge, the wine that Jesus rejected, is the fourth cup of the last supper (the first Mass). There are numerous theological problems with this claim, including that it equates corrupted wine with the earlier consecrated wine (the Eucharist), that it was rejected by Christ, yet included by Hahn as if equal to the other three cups, that this idea is not found in Tradition, nor does Scripture support the idea of even three cups at the last supper.

he represents the Holy Spirit as feminine, in contradiction to Liturgiam Authenticam, in contradiction to Tradition and Scripture.

Hahn calls the Holy Spirit “mother,” “motherly,” “maternal,” “feminine,” “womanhood,” and “bridal,” (New Oxford Review, newoxfordreview.org/note.jsp?did=0207-notes-gnosticism)

See also this article:
newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0604-oneill

But since Father, Son, and Spirit have one and the same Nature, it cannot be in the nature of the Holy Spirit to be motherly, maternal, feminine, etc.

In addition, Hahn’s theology is often plagued by novelties, not found in Tradition, Scripture, or Magisterium. It is as if he is reinventing the Christian Faith.
 
I have heard nothing but good things about Scott Hahn. A few of my friends have read his books and this month so happens that my sister is just minutes away from the University that he is a professor at in Stubenville. I too would like to get into the works of Scott Hahn.
 
Ron_Conte said:
Some of Hahn’s substantial theological errors:

he claims that Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the tree because Satan threatened them with death.

he claims that the original sin of Adam was in not engaging the serpent (which was really a dragon or other monster) in the garden in mortal combat, at the sacrifice of his own life, for the sake of his beloved (Eve).

he claims that the wine mixed with gall (corrupted wine), on the sponge, the wine that Jesus rejected, is the fourth cup of the last supper (the first Mass). There are numerous theological problems with this claim, including that it equates corrupted wine with the earlier consecrated wine (the Eucharist), that it was rejected by Christ, yet included by Hahn as if equal to the other three cups, that this idea is not found in Tradition, nor does Scripture support the idea of even three cups at the last supper.

he represents the Holy Spirit as feminine, in contradiction to Liturgiam Authenticam, in contradiction to Tradition and Scripture.

Hahn calls the Holy Spirit “mother,” “motherly,” “maternal,” “feminine,” “womanhood,” and “bridal,” (New Oxford Review, newoxfordreview.org/note.jsp?did=0207-notes-gnosticism)

See also this article:
newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0604-oneill

But since Father, Son, and Spirit have one and the same Nature, it cannot be in the nature of the Holy Spirit to be motherly, maternal, feminine, etc.

In addition, Hahn’s theology is often plagued by novelties, not found in Tradition, Scripture, or Magisterium. It is as if he is reinventing the Christian Faith.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are quite correct in this, although I am sure Hahn would have something to say about these items. Hahn, I believe has been asked to talk about these issues publicly, but has failed to do so to my knowledge. It is also far to point out that Hahn has said that if any of his writings/thoughts were deemed contrary to the magisterium he would rip the books up himself.
 
Ron_Conte said:
Some of Hahn’s substantial theological errors:

he claims that Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the tree because Satan threatened them with death.

he claims that the original sin of Adam was in not engaging the serpent (which was really a dragon or other monster) in the garden in mortal combat, at the sacrifice of his own life, for the sake of his beloved (Eve).

he claims that the wine mixed with gall (corrupted wine), on the sponge, the wine that Jesus rejected, is the fourth cup of the last supper (the first Mass). There are numerous theological problems with this claim, including that it equates corrupted wine with the earlier consecrated wine (the Eucharist), that it was rejected by Christ, yet included by Hahn as if equal to the other three cups, that this idea is not found in Tradition, nor does Scripture support the idea of even three cups at the last supper.

he represents the Holy Spirit as feminine, in contradiction to Liturgiam Authenticam, in contradiction to Tradition and Scripture.

Hahn calls the Holy Spirit “mother,” “motherly,” “maternal,” “feminine,” “womanhood,” and “bridal,” (New Oxford Review, newoxfordreview.org/note.jsp?did=0207-notes-gnosticism)

See also this article:
newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0604-oneill

But since Father, Son, and Spirit have one and the same Nature, it cannot be in the nature of the Holy Spirit to be motherly, maternal, feminine, etc.

In addition, Hahn’s theology is often plagued by novelties, not found in Tradition, Scripture, or Magisterium. It is as if he is reinventing the Christian Faith.
Click to expand...
I would appreciate it if you could provide the quotes and references from the Scott Hahn books that your examples are from.

With respect, I don’t think these would be called “errors.” I think they are interpretations of Scripture passages that can’t be proven or disproven.

And I’m guessing that they are based in ancient Catholic teaching that has probably become less familiar in the past forty years or so. Scott Hahn uses a scholarly approach to Scripture; he delves into the past and reads what the early Church fathers wrote.

You say that God can’t have a maternal or feminine side. How do you explain Matthew 23: 37? Surely you accept the teaching that God is neither male or female, and that human males and human females are made in the image of God, therefore God has both male and female traits.
 
Rogerteder said:
Yes, you are quite correct in this, although I am sure Hahn would have something to say about these items. Hahn, I believe has been asked to talk about these issues publicly, but has failed to do so to my knowledge. It is also far to point out that Hahn has said that if any of his writings/thoughts were deemed contrary to the magisterium he would rip the books up himself.
Click to expand...
Many theologians whose works are contrary to Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium say the same. It is often an empty assertion, since the Magisterium rarely reviews and judges the works of theologians, neither those that are heretical, nor those that are faithful, nor anything in between.

A faithful theologian is not one who says whatever he wants, then adds the provision that he will yield to the Magisterium, but rather one whose works are thoroughly based on Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium from the start.
 
I don’t see the error in his view that the snake was making a threat to them. Because, if they had Trusted God, (called out to him for help!!!) when they saw the thing, God surely would have helped them. So, it was a lack of trust that God would come to them I think. I agree with him, because the whole bible is about trusting God, and we say Mary trusted God the most.
 
Cat said:
With respect, I don’t think these would be called “errors.” I think they are interpretations of Scripture passages that can’t be proven or disproven.

And I’m guessing that they are based in ancient Catholic teaching that has probably become less familiar in the past forty years or so. Scott Hahn uses a scholarly approach to Scripture; he delves into the past and reads what the early Church fathers wrote.

You say that God can’t have a maternal or feminine side. How do you explain Matthew 23: 37? Surely you accept the teaching that God is neither male or female, and that human males and human females are made in the image of God, therefore God has both male and female traits.
Click to expand...
The figures used in the Bible to refer to God are mere figures, referring to God as One. By contrast, Hahn uses feminine terms to distinguish the Spirit from the Father and the Son.

I’ve read the Church fathers extensively, as well as many writings from various Saints and Doctors of the Church. There is no support for any of the above stated novelties of Hahn, nor does he state any support from such sources. But if you know of any ‘ancient Catholic teaching’ that supports these claims, then cite it.

Catholic teaching on the nature of God and on the Trinity: Creation is like God, but God is not like Creation. The Divine Nature is One, with no divisions or parts at all. God does not have traits. In God, existence is the same as knowledge is the same as will is the same as love is the same as justice is the same as mercy, etc. God does not have ‘male and female traits’.

Furthermore, since the Divine Nature is One, the Spirit cannot have different ‘traits’ from the Father and the Son. The Spirit cannot be maternal, feminine, motherly, bridal, etc. in contrast to the Father and Son who are properly described as Father and Son, not mother and daughter.

Also, the distinctions between the Three Persons are based on procession. But none of the Three Persons proceeds from the Spirit. So the Spirit does not have the role of mother; a mother is a woman who conceives a child, but no Persons proceed from the Spirit. The Son is called Son because he proceeds solely from the Father. There is no basis for calling the Spirit mother within the Trinity.

As concerns the role of the Spirit with the Virgin Mary, He is her Spouse, so He cannot be feminine, maternal, bridal, etc. Also, Christ was conceived by a miracle of God, making God His Father, not the Spirit His Mother.
 
i am very pleased to read ron conte’s reponses about scott hahn. since i am a recent convert, i have heard nothing but good things about scott hahn and i have seen him on tv, so i am glad to read an intelligent post of why others are skeptical of him. i can form a more balanced opinion. having only read his book about confession, i don’t have enough background on any of his teachings or most of his writings to comment about those. i was a little skeptical of him for other reasons.
 
notsmart said:
I don’t see the error in his view that the snake was making a threat to them. Because, if they had Trusted God, (called out to him for help!!!) when they saw the thing, God surely would have helped them. So, it was a lack of trust that God would come to them I think. I agree with him, because the whole bible is about trusting God, and we say Mary trusted God the most.
Click to expand...
His view is not merely that the serpent was a threat, but that original sin consists for Adam in his refusal to engage the serpent (a dragon or monster) in combat to the death. This view of original sin is not compatible with Catholic teaching.
 
Ron_Conte said:
His view is not merely that the serpent was a threat, but that original sin consists for Adam in his refusal to engage the serpent (a dragon or monster) in combat to the death. This view of original sin is not compatible with Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
Hello Ron,

Why isn’t it compatible? A husband should protect his wife from danger. He did not seem to be near her when she was talking to the snake. If he was, he should have said something and told the snake to leave. He had dominion over the animals. God gave him that authority.
 
I also really enjoy reading and listening to Scott Hahn, and have learned so much from him - his book “Rome Sweet Home” was a turning point for me and really renewed my faith and inspired me to learn more about the Catholic Church and to begin on the road to truely embrace my Faith…

He is not infallible, of course. He’s human, and like each and every one of us, he’s going to make mistakes and his teachings are never going to be 100% accurate…

But I think that he has got the vast majority of it right. And he knows much more about the Catholic Church and its teachings than the majority of Catholics do, and I think that he’s a wonderful teacher and has helped many, many understand and defend their faith.

If we automatically rejected any teacher who ever made a few errors in their teachings, think about where we’d be. There would be no teachers, no mentors (with the exception of Jesus:D ). But God blessed people with knowledge and curiosity with the intention that we would learn from one another.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top