Scott Hahn

[CB_Catholic]

i couldn’t agree with you more de maria.

i know protestants criticize Catholics for not reading Bibles, but i order the Magnificat and take that with me to mass. that way i have the daily readings in a small prayerbook. i have many Bibles at home for Bible study.

i have tried bringing my Bible to the episcopal, Anglican and Catholic church.
but i would either have to have the readings marked before mass or then fumble to find them. meanwhile, i am missing the reading while i am looking for the scripture.

my magnificat does just fine and i keep it. they are not disposable at my house.

once a protestant, always a protestant i say. he might be roman catholic,
but i am sure he brought many protestant ways with him.

and i know he is a folk hero to many people so i won’t say anymore.

I find that “once a protestant always a protestant” statement to be rather offensive, I must tell you that. I hope you rethink that statement and that attitude, because there are numerous converts on this forum, and they probably just got the impression that you don’t think they are fully Catholic, and are still Protestants at heart.

They are as Catholic as you are, make no mistake about it, and that is what the Church says also. Our converts are most emphatically not Protestants, or Jewish, or whatever they came from. Most of the converts to our faith are more faithful to our Church than the majority of cradle Catholics in this country, about 60% of whom don’t even darken the doors of a Church except maybe for Christmas and Easter.

In fact, our Mission on this earth, as given to us by Christ,and re-emphasized by our last 2 Popes, at least, is to go out and find people and make converts. Not just do our devotions, go to Mass, say our rosaries, do our Catholic thing. Our churches should be FULL of converts, if we were doing our job, which we aren’t. And we are to consider them fully and authenticaly Catholic.

And I think people like Cardinal Dulles, Cardinal Newman, St Elizabth Seton, GK Chesterson, etc., would take exception to being thought of as always Protestant.

 

[anon52328184]

if you read the end of the post by de maria, she also said that she doesn’t think he has shed some of his protestant baggage.

also, i am a convert. i recently converted from the episcopal/anglican church.
i am well aware of the famous anglicans who have converted to catholicism.

i grew up in the midwest and lived there off and on for the first 25 years of my life. i moved to the desert about 27 years ago. i still have not forgotten my midwestern roots.

just because you convert, doesn’t mean you forget all of the years you spent in your other churches. that is very naive to think that way.

scott hahn at one time loved his protestant faith and defended it and probably had some anti-catholic beliefs.

now, he is has converted to catholicism and has some anti-protestant beliefs and defends his catholic faith.

however, as de maria posted, he has a few complaints.

 

[juliamajor]

Don’t get me wrong, Scott Hahn is my favorite Catholic Apologist, author and theologian.

However, I don’t like that he belittled a humble woman who speaks to her Marian Statue? Where does he come off? The Spirit blows where it will and he doesn’t have any business belittling a humble Catholic. I heard him say this at a Fullness of Truth seminar, but here is a webpage that has it recorded:

** I’ve got to apologize because they learn of the many Catholics who do weird things, like one ex-Catholic whose Mom has a life-size statue of Mary that she dresses and undresses every day. She’s got no real prayer life. She never reads the Bible, but she continually dresses and undresses her little statue; it’s not so little.
zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/sts.html**

In the same breath, he belittles Catholics who can’t explain Catholic doctrine. That really irks me. 1. Because we aren’t all born with a silver spoon in our mouth. 2. Because it isn’t required by the Church. 3. For centuries, we have followed St.Francis teaching, “Evangelize always, use words if you must.”

And often Catholics not only don’t have a balanced perception of what the veneration of saints is in relationship to Christ but they’ve got little capacity to articulate what they are really doing if it is balanced.
Newman Apologetics Resource

In addition, I don’t like his belittling the misallettes of old. He seems to expect everyone to carry a Bible to Mass. Why? They read the Scripture to you. Why carry a Bible. Its not as though we’re going to have a full blown Scripture study in the middle of the Mass:

**** I’d much rather be called a Scripture junkie. I want to deepen my addiction to God’s Word, I want to encourage you to as well. A bold suggestion: bring your Bibles to Mass. An even bolder suggestion that I scratched out of my sheet here: consider getting rid of cheap throwaway missalettes which I truly suspect condition people to regard God’s Word as disposable.
zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m1/bbl.html****

I guess with fans like me, Dr. Scott Hahn doesn’t need enemies. But I do admire him quite a bit. I just think he hasn’t shed all the Protestant baggage.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Sorry I have to agree with Scott this one . It seems a triumph of form over substance. Too many people willing to see the BVM or Jesus in a cheese Danish.Silly - they might be devout but for what?But if that’s her focus and all that she has her spiritual life then she has a problem. He’s talking about a well rounded spiritual life.If it begins and ends with the statue then it’s not good.You can’t depend on one devotion.

 

[fabricdragon]

Scott Hahn’s books are one of the best evangelizing sources i can think of IF you are trying to reach out to a religiously educated protestant/evangelical. he came from that background, and his “style” is familiar to that background. the style of a writer can make all the difference in how well it is understood by a reader… and a style that reaches out to one reader may leave another cold.

i suspect if anyone has any real issues with him it is because they either are not comfortable with the style of his writings. (as opposed to the content) or they are not comfortable with converts.

i have sadly encountered many people who are quite hostile to any convert taking a leadership role in the church.

as to myself? i have a full bookshelf of his works… “The Mass as heaven on earth” being one i re read again and again… and i credit his books with answering questions that were not answered for me in RCIA… and being a profound help in my conversion to the Church.

 

[fabricdragon]

once a protestant, always a protestant i say. he might be roman catholic,
but i am sure he brought many protestant ways with him.

and i know he is a folk hero to many people so i won’t say anymore.

THAT is not Catholic doctrine, nor is it fair, reasonable or nice. In fact, the fact that “you always say that” makes me question your views on ANY statements by any of our illustrious converts. (or not so illustrious). This kind of prejudice against converts is absolutely and emphatically UN Christian.

and yes i am personally hurt, as a protestant, who like Scott, took a big risk to join the Catholic Church.

i take it St Elizabeth Ann Seton is “still a protestant”?

 

[anon52328184]

did you read my earlier post or did you somehow miss that? or did you choose to ignore it so you could write your rude reply?

never did i say it was Catholic doctrine.

as a convert, i have not been met with any prejudice.

 

[CB_Catholic]

if you read the end of the post by de maria, she also said that she doesn’t think he has shed some of his protestant baggage.

also, i am a convert. i recently converted from the episcopal/anglican church.
i am well aware of the famous anglicans who have converted to catholicism.

i grew up in the midwest and lived there off and on for the first 25 years of my life. i moved to the desert about 27 years ago. i still have not forgotten my midwestern roots.

just because you convert, doesn’t mean you forget all of the years you spent in your other churches. that is very naive to think that way.

scott hahn at one time loved his protestant faith and defended it and probably had some anti-catholic beliefs.

now, he is has converted to catholicism and has some anti-protestant beliefs and defends his catholic faith.

however, as de maria posted, he has a few complaints.

Complaints? I’ve seen more complaining on these forums about things than ever came out of Scott Hahn’s mouth, and about Church matters no less, even things the Church approves of. Scott Hahn is fully Catholic, more Catholic than a lot of people who call themselves such, while fully ignoring Church teachings. Nothing he has written is against Church teaching. It’s just that some people don’t agree with everything he writes. So what? Nobody thinks exactly the same. Doesn’t make a Catholic Protestant.

Don’t worry about “Protestant baggage” . We all have baggage, it doesn’t have to affect us the rest of our lives. God changes people. That’s what conversion is. But if you think of yourself as “always Protestant”, there is a possibility that’s going to be with you for a very long time. You are Catholic now.

 

[fabricdragon]

did you read my earlier post or did you somehow miss that? or did you choose to ignore it so you could write your rude reply?

never did i say it was Catholic doctrine.

as a convert, i have not been met with any prejudice.

i have no idea what post you are referring to as there are many in this thread. i am replying to the one i quoted.

whats rude about it? its an rude thing to say in the first place, i was trying to be polite in my answers…despite, as i said. being hurt that you would say such a thing. your statement is not nice, nor is it doctrinally sound.

i am glad you have not been met with any prejudice, i have.
how can you, as a convert… say “once a protestant always a protestant, i always say…” and NOT understand how hurtful that would be???

 

[anon52328184]

Complaints? I’ve seen more complaining on these forums about things than ever came out of Scott Hahn’s mouth, and about Church matters no less, even things the Church approves of. Scott Hahn is fully Catholic, more Catholic than a lot of people who call themselves such, while fully ignoring Church teachings. Nothing he has written is against Church teaching. It’s just that some people don’t agree with everything he writes. So what? Nobody thinks exactly the same. Doesn’t make a Catholic Protestant.

Don’t worry about “Protestant baggage” . We all have baggage, it doesn’t have to affect us the rest of our lives. God changes people. That’s what conversion is. But if you think of yourself as “always Protestant”, there is a possibility that’s going to be with you for a very long time. You are Catholic now.

for one thing, i never considered myself a protestant and i wasn’t even in church for 25 years. i was raised in the episcopal church and no one ever explained the difference to me between protestant and catholic. i am learning for quickly on CAF how wide the differences are. you shouldn’t be so confrontational and the remark i made was facetious. you take yourself way too seriously!!

 

[anon52328184]

THAT is not Catholic doctrine, nor is it fair, reasonable or nice. In fact, the fact that “you always say that” makes me question your views on ANY statements by any of our illustrious converts. (or not so illustrious). This kind of prejudice against converts is absolutely and emphatically UN Christian.

and yes i am personally hurt, as a protestant, who like Scott, took a big risk to join the Catholic Church.

i take it St Elizabeth Ann Seton is “still a protestant”?

fabricdragon, try scrolling up to post #261 if you are able and you will see what i replied. don’t take everything you read on hear so seriously.
come down from your pedestal.

 

[De_Maria]

Sorry I have to agree with Scott this one . It seems a triumph of form over substance. Too many people willing to see the BVM or Jesus in a cheese Danish.Silly - they might be devout but for what?But if that’s her focus and all that she has her spiritual life then she has a problem. He’s talking about a well rounded spiritual life.If it begins and ends with the statue then it’s not good.You can’t depend on one devotion.

A lot of IFS there in your statement. And I gather the same from his statement. That means that neither you nor he are privy to what this lady sees, hears or experiences. But Scripture tells us that the Spirit blows where it will. Jesus Christ was born in a stable. The Prodigal Son received the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in a pig sty. The children of Fatima saw the Virgin in the city dump. Are any of those silly?

And if the Catholic Church recognizes private revelation:
[67](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/67.htm’) *Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.
*
On what grounds do you judge this person or any other unworthy of it?

This is what Scripture says:
1 John 41 Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

1 Thessalonians 5 21 But prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

So, although you may be with Scott Hahn on this one. Neither you or he have any spiritual grounds to do so. It is not up to you or Scott Hahn to judge whether these people are being inspired by God or are being fooled by Satan unless YOU are responsible for their souls or privy to the details.

Matthew 7 1 Judge not, that you may not be judged,

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[juliamajor]

A lot of IFS there in your statement. And I gather the same from his statement. That means that neither you nor he are privy to what this lady sees, hears or experiences. But Scripture tells us that the Spirit blows where it will. Jesus Christ was born in a stable. The Prodigal Son received the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in a pig sty. The children of Fatima saw the Virgin in the city dump. Are any of those silly?

And if the Catholic Church recognizes private revelation:
[67](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/67.htm’) *Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.
*
On what grounds do you judge this person or any other unworthy of it?

This is what Scripture says:
1 John 41 Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

1 Thessalonians 5 21 But prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

So, although you may be with Scott Hahn on this one. Neither you or he have any spiritual grounds to do so. It is not up to you or Scott Hahn to judge whether these people are being inspired by God or are being fooled by Satan unless YOU are responsible for their souls or privy to the details.

Matthew 7 1 Judge not, that you may not be judged,

Sincerely,

De Maria

My, My we are a little testy, aren’t we. What I was commenting on was on the article hahn had written about having a rounded spiritual life. Praying or talking to a statue is not enough and not rounded. And though some tested revelation is accepted approved by the Church -we are not required to believe it. Have been involved in prayer groups for a looong time I’ve known a lot of people with private revelations. Very difficult to discern because one can get caught up in it.Even the most sincere person can have difficulties with it- that’s where a spiritual director comes in - or a confessor.I also don’t believe he was attacking but using this person as an example of a certain narrowness of spiritual vision.That is what the article he wrote was about.It can apply to any one -any time.

 

[De_Maria]

My, My we are a little testy,

I didn’t mean to come off that way. But it does irk me when Catholics put down other Catholics. Especially when there is no real reason to do so.

aren’t we. What I was commenting on was on the article hahn had written about having a rounded spiritual life. Praying or talking to a statue is not enough and not rounded.

And I commented that he is making a judgement about a person who he admitted HE DOESN’T KNOW. Nor does he even know the details of the situation.

From this position of ignorance, he is making a wide generalization that Catholics do weird things for which he is embarrassed and feels he has to make excuses to his Protestant friends… .

And though some tested revelation is accepted approved by the Church -we are not required to believe it.

We are required to believe any revelation which is approved by the Church.
On the other hand, the fact that the Church has given her approval after careful and oftentimes scrutinous examination offers strong evidence for the prudence of human acceptance of a particular revelation. This is specifically the case regarding private revelations that the Church has “made her own” through papal statements, visits, and even liturgical celebrations, such as has happened with the revelations of the Sacred Heart of Jesus to St. Margaret Alacoque or the Marian apparitions of Lourdes and Fatima.

chnetwork.org/journals/mary/mary_8.htm

Have been involved in prayer groups for a looong time I’ve known a lot of people with private revelations.

Do you quench their spirit? Or do you treat them with respect?

I also know a few people who have had private revelations. I believe them. Expecially if the revelation seems consistent with Catholic Teaching. I don’t belittle them but I don’t light candles to them either. I just treat them with respect.

Very difficult to discern because one can get caught up in it.Even the most sincere person can have difficulties with it- that’s where a spiritual director comes in - or a confessor.I also don’t believe he was attacking but using this person as an example of a certain narrowness of spiritual vision.That is what the article he wrote was about.It can apply to any one -any time.

I heard this comment live when he came to my town with the Fullness of Truth group. I think he belittled a whole group of Catholics on a matter which he obviously doesn’t understand.

I’ve known many devout Catholics, all my life, who talk to the Saints as though they were present to them. They direct their comments to the statues and other images as anyone might to a photo of a dear one who is far away.

Did you ever watch the movie “Return to Me”? There was a scene when “Marty” (i.e. Carroll O’Connor) was speaking to the Archangel Gabriel. That isn’t weird, that’s CATHOLIC. That is recognition of the Communion of Saints.

Calling this “weird” behavior is something I would expect from a person who hadn’t written about the family which God has provided for us. It is, in fact, inconsistent, coming from him.

Sncerely,

De Maria

 

[juliamajor]

Any degree of official Church approval does not oblige the faithful to accept a Marian revelation, since it never directly affects the public revelation contained in the deposit of faith. Authentic private revelation, therefore, is normally given the assent of “human faith” based on prudential discernment, but not “divine faith” appropriate for public revelation.

As Pope Benedict XIV stated:

Even though many of these revelations have been approved, we cannot and ought not give them the assent of divine faith, but only that of human faith, according to the dictates of prudence whenever these dictates enable us to decide that they are probable and worthy of pious credence.4

On the other hand, the fact that the Church has given her approval after careful and oftentimes scrutinous examination offers strong evidence for the prudence of human acceptance of a particular revelation. This is specifically the case regarding private revelations that the Church has “made her own” through papal statements, visits, and even liturgical celebrations, such as has happened with the revelations of the Sacred Heart of Jesus to St. Margaret Alacoque or the Marian apparitions of Lourdes and Fatima." we are not required to believe it! the woman was an example of a non well rounded faith- that was his whole point- he didn’t mention her name or identify her in any way. Private revelations are just that- private-.I wouldn’t mention anything unless I thought it contradict the faith… when they talk eschatology- I get worried .I don’t belittle - I ignore their’ revelations’.I’ve had some private revelations myself- and that’s where they stayed, between the Master and me.I’ve seen prayer groups of hundreds fall apart because of 'private revelation".It can be a very dangerous tool in some people’s hands.Unfortunately I’ve seen those ‘visionaries’ take over groups time and time again turning prayer groups into a social club with attendant pecking order. I haven’t changed my mind-'you shall know them by their fruits"-I do find it disconcerting that Hahn is considered untrustworthy because he was a Protestant or has Protestant friends.Maybe we shouldn’t have trusted the apostles Peter or Paul Either. One was a Liar and a coward when he denied Christ- the other a some one who persecuted and murdered.Not exactly stellar recommendations. Paul, because of his previous actions- was considered an interloper and untrustworthy. Of course Hahn ain’t Peter or Paul.

 

[De_Maria]

Any degree of official Church approval does not oblige the faithful to accept a Marian revelation, since it never directly affects the public revelation contained in the deposit of faith. Authentic private revelation, therefore, is normally given the assent of “human faith” based on prudential discernment, but not “divine faith” appropriate for public revelation.

Does that mean you can say that YOU DON’T BELIEVE IT?

As Pope Benedict XIV stated:

Even though many of these revelations have been approved, we cannot and ought not give them the assent of divine faith, but only that of human faith, according to the dictates of prudence whenever these dictates enable us to decide that they are probable and worthy of pious credence.4

On the other hand, the fact that the Church has given her approval after careful and oftentimes scrutinous examination offers strong evidence for the prudence of human acceptance of a particular revelation. This is specifically the case regarding private revelations that the Church has “made her own” through papal statements, visits, and even liturgical celebrations, such as has happened with the revelations of the Sacred Heart of Jesus to St. Margaret Alacoque or the Marian apparitions of Lourdes and Fatima." we are not required to believe it!

To believe what? You are required to believe the apparitions of St. Margaret Alacoque, Lourdes and Fatima!

You don’t need to believe that the woman who spoke to the statue was experiencing an apparition. DID ANYONE, even Scott Hahn, say she was experiencing an apparition?

the woman was an example of a non well rounded faith- that was his whole point-

The point was poorly made. I’ve met too many humble and devout Catholics who speak to their Saints through their icons.

he didn’t mention her name or identify her in any way.

Correct. That is because he was using her as an example representing all Catholics. Therefore I said that he belittled a whole group of Catholics.

Besides, you are mixing venues. In the previous message you said that the

And though some tested revelation is accepted approved by the Church -we are not required to believe it

.

But as I have proved, you are required to give it human assent. Which means you must believe it.

Private revelations are just that- private-.I wouldn’t mention anything unless I thought it contradict the faith… when they talk eschatology- I get worried .I don’t belittle - I ignore their’ revelations’.I’ve had some private revelations myself- and that’s where they stayed, between the Master and me.I’ve seen prayer groups of hundreds fall apart because of 'private revelation".It can be a very dangerous tool in some people’s hands.Unfortunately I’ve seen those ‘visionaries’ take over groups time and time again turning prayer groups into a social club with attendant pecking order. I haven’t changed my mind-'you shall know them by their fruits"-I do find it disconcerting that Hahn is considered untrustworthy because he was a Protestant or has Protestant friends.

If you read my original message, I’m not one of those. But I’m not a hero worshiper either. I’ve mentioned my gripes.

I judge most of his other theology to be sound. But I treat him as I would a private revelation. I give him human assent only.

I don’t believe that:

1. The dragon threatened Adam and Eve’s life, because that would mitigate the mortal sin which is their original sin.
2. I don’t call the Holy Spirit, “Mother” as he implies/suggests because I believe the Church teaches that the Holy Spirit is masculine in Divine Revelation.
3. I don’t believe in PRIMA Scriptura.

These are things which he preaches which I don’t accept. As far as I know, he is free to speculate on those things as they fall under the Church umbrella. I am free and I reserve the right to disagree.

Otherwise, I believe his theology is sound and I’ve learned quite a bit from it.

Maybe we shouldn’t have trusted the apostles Peter or Paul Either. One was a Liar and a coward when he denied Christ- the other a some one who persecuted and murdered.Not exactly stellar recommendations. Paul, because of his previous actions- was considered an interloper and untrustworthy. Of course Hahn ain’t Peter or Paul.

If that is what you want to believe, that is your business. The thread is on Scott Hahn and I contributed the few things I didn’t agree with.

AND THE REASON I POSTED THESE COMPLAINTS is because I find that too many Catholics are following in his footsteps. Too many Catholic apologists are belittling old fashioned Catholics who are humble and devout but do their speaking through their actions. Too many of my forebears fit that description and I don’t like that this INTERNET generation which has the answers to every question at their fingertips suddenly considers itself superior to the Catholics who went before them, simply because they couldn’t answer every theological question.

I think that is plain sorry.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Joe_5859]

In the professional guilds, neither “theologian” nor “philosopher” is used in the narrow way you describe. Professors of theology are called theologians, and professors of philosophy are called philosophers. Shucks, people even call me a theologian because I’m currently teaching Systematic Theology, even though my degree is in church history.

I think that as a rule narrowing profession-related words and giving them a qualitative sense (i.e., equating “theologian” with “an important theologian everyone should study”) is a mistake. It’s like the use of “poet” to mean only someone who produces top-quality poetry, or “Christian” to mean only someone who lives according to Christian teachings. These semantic shifts seem plausible, but they create chaos and confusion.

Edwin

Excellent point to think about, Edwin. Thanks!

 

[juliamajor]

Does that mean you can say that YOU DON’T BELIEVE IT?

To believe what? You are required to believe the apparitions of St. Margaret Alacoque, Lourdes and Fatima!

You don’t need to believe that the woman who spoke to the statue was experiencing an apparition. DID ANYONE, even Scott Hahn, say she was experiencing an apparition?

The point was poorly made. I’ve met too many humble and devout Catholics who speak to their Saints through their icons.

Correct. That is because he was using her as an example representing all Catholics. Therefore I said that he belittled a whole group of Catholics.

Besides, you are mixing venues. In the previous message you said that the .

But as I have proved, you are required to give it human assent. Which means you must believe it.

If you read my original message, I’m not one of those. But I’m not a hero worshiper either. I’ve mentioned my gripes.

I judge most of his other theology to be sound. But I treat him as I would a private revelation. I give him human assent only.

I don’t believe that:

1. The dragon threatened Adam and Eve’s life, because that would mitigate the mortal sin which is their original sin.
2. I don’t call the Holy Spirit, “Mother” as he implies/suggests because I believe the Church teaches that the Holy Spirit is masculine in Divine Revelation.
3. I don’t believe in PRIMA Scriptura.

These are things which he preaches which I don’t accept. As far as I know, he is free to speculate on those things as they fall under the Church umbrella. I am free and I reserve the right to disagree.

Otherwise, I believe his theology is sound and I’ve learned quite a bit from it.

If that is what you want to believe, that is your business. The thread is on Scott Hahn and I contributed the few things I didn’t agree with.

AND THE REASON I POSTED THESE COMPLAINTS is because I find that too many Catholics are following in his footsteps. Too many Catholic apologists are belittling old fashioned Catholics who are humble and devout but do their speaking through their actions. Too many of my forebears fit that description and I don’t like that this INTERNET generation which has the answers to every question at their fingertips suddenly considers itself superior to the Catholics who went before them, simply because they couldn’t answer every theological question.

I think that is plain sorry.

Sincerely,

De Maria

too bad-you’ve read but not understood.Narrow faith-he’s talking about faith in devotions without understanding them.doing a devotion because ones ancestors did it is not conducive to salvation.and piety does not come automatically from these devotions.devotions in and of themselves can do nothing- how these devotions bring you closer to God is what is important. Devotion to Mary should bring you close to her Son.Nobody is condemning devotions or simplicity of Faith.but it should have a salvic purpose , not make you just feel good about doing .Or believing that you have fulfilled your obligation to Him via these.I don’t know why you have an axe to grind or why you see enemies when there aren’t any.He’s not God or the Magesterium but he has never been censured and has been on EWTN for a long time, writes for prestigious Catholic theology magazines and holds a chair in a solid Catholic University. If that’s not enough- then I don’t know what else will move you.Goodbye good luck- God bless

 

[De_Maria]

too bad-you’ve read but not understood.Narrow faith-he’s talking about faith in devotions without understanding them.doing a devotion because ones ancestors did it is not conducive to salvation.

See, that is what is called a “say so” statement. The kind your mom and dad might respond to, “But why?” “Because I say so!”

All you’ve provided there is your opinion without support. Please show me where the Church teaches we must understand our faith or it is not conducive to salvation?

and piety does not come automatically from these devotions.devotions in and of themselves can do nothing- how these devotions bring you closer to God is what is important. Devotion to Mary should bring you close to her Son.Nobody is condemning devotions or simplicity of Faith.but it should have a salvic purpose , not make you just feel good about doing .

And devotions have no purpose or efficacy in our salvation because YOU SAY SO.

Or believing that you have fulfilled your obligation to Him via these.I

Have you spoken to any people who follow these devotions? How many of them believe the devotion alone fulfills their obligations to God?

don’t know why you have an axe to grind

I have no axe to grind. These are simply errors in his theology of which people should be made aware.

or why you see enemies when there aren’t any.He’s not God or the Magesterium but he has never been censured and has been on EWTN for a long time, writes for prestigious Catholic theology magazines and holds a chair in a solid Catholic University. If that’s not enough- then I don’t know what else will move you.Goodbye good luck- God bless

Did I say that he had? All I mentioned were the things he teaches which I believe are errors.

Why does that bother you?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

too bad-you’ve read but not understood.Narrow faith-he’s talking about faith in devotions without understanding them.doing a devotion because ones ancestors did it is not conducive to salvation.

See, that is what is called a “say so” statement. The kind your mom and dad might respond to, “But why?” “Because I say so!”

All you’ve provided there is your opinion without support. Please show me where the Church teaches we must understand our faith or it is not conducive to salvation?

and piety does not come automatically from these devotions.devotions in and of themselves can do nothing- how these devotions bring you closer to God is what is important. Devotion to Mary should bring you close to her Son.Nobody is condemning devotions or simplicity of Faith.but it should have a salvic purpose , not make you just feel good about doing .

And devotions have no purpose or efficacy in our salvation because YOU SAY SO.

Or believing that you have fulfilled your obligation to Him via these.I

Have you spoken to any people who follow these devotions? How many of them believe the devotion alone fulfills their obligations to God?

don’t know why you have an axe to grind

I have no axe to grind. These are simply errors in his theology of which people should be made aware.

or why you see enemies when there aren’t any.He’s not God or the Magesterium but he has never been censured and has been on EWTN for a long time, writes for prestigious Catholic theology magazines and holds a chair in a solid Catholic University. If that’s not enough- then I don’t know what else will move you.Goodbye good luck- God bless

Did I say that he had? All I mentioned were the things he teaches which I believe are errors.

Why does that bother you?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Joe_5859]

Did I say that he had? All I mentioned were the things he teaches which I believe are errors.

I don’t think the examples you used constitute errors in teaching. Those examples aren’t teachings but rather anecdotal observations and side comments. I haven’t read the whole transcripts, but I suspect those comments are only peripheral to the actual teaching he is doing.

Simply because he thinks it’s a good idea to bring your Bible to Mass doesn’t constitute an error in teaching. Now, if he was going around saying that all Catholics need to bring a Bible to Mass, and if they don’t, they’re not really Catholic, then I can see having a problem with it.

As for the comments about devotions, it is simply a true statment that many Catholics have trouble articulating why they do the things they do. It’s not a condemnation, simply a fact.

When people are teaching and/or giving presentations, it’s not uncommon to use hyperbole to make a point. We have to look at the larger context and see what point he’s trying to make. It’s not as though Hahn is advocating that those Catholics with no education in the faith can’t be as holy as those who are educated. If you asked him that, I am positive, he would be the first to disagree with such a thought. However, he used an example of someone (who none of us know, but of whom he appears to have some personal knowledge) who had an outward devotion, but no interior prayer life. It seems he’s bringing up this example to point out that we need to avoid the “going through the motions” mentality. He’s not saying we need to have advanced degrees in theology in order to be truly Catholic, only that prayer matters more than empty actions.

I often call to mind the words of Pope Benedict in the foreword of his recent book. Immediately after he says that this is not a work of the Magistereum and people are free to disagree, he says this:

“I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding.”

• Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, p. xxiv.

Whenever we see comments like these of Hahn, even if they rub us the wrong way, we should always first assume goodwill. Only as a last resort (and after much deliberation and evidence to the contrary) should we conclude otherwise.

In reading these three quotes you provided, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that Hahn intended no disrespect and is not promoting anything contrary to any Church teaching that I have ever come across.