Scott Hahn

[De_Maria]

I don’t think the examples you used constitute errors in teaching.

Well, yes they are.

I didn’t say they were examples of his understanding of Catholic doctrine. No, he represents them as his opinions.

But I disagree with those opinions because I consider them uncharitable errors (the first two) and a false understanding of what the Mass is about (the third).

Those examples aren’t teachings but rather anecdotal observations and side comments.

I think they’re a bit more. I think they are cultural attitudes.

If you don’t mind, lets examine the comments in more detail.

**I’ve got to apologize

Apologize? For what? Did he teach her to dress and undress her Marian statue? Or is he apologizing for the rest of us? If so, what did we do?

because they learn of the many Catholics who do weird things,

**How many Catholics do weird things? Really, I’d like to know. Because a whole lot of us, in fact most of us do things which are considered weird by Protestants. But I don’t know ANY which do things which other Catholics would consider weird. And most of the people I’ve known in my life have been Catholic.

Sooo? Is there a statistic to which he is referring? Or is he apologizing for our devotions?

I think and that’s just my opinion, but I think he’s uncomfortable with our devotions to Mary and the Saints. He’d probably be very uncomfortable with a small booklet I used to carry around called the Pieta prayers. And he’s probably uncomfortable with the devotions which say that “Mary saves us.”

I think that is what he’s talking about. What do you think?

**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. **

Now, I heard this anecdote of his at a live presentation. And he gave me the impression that he didn’t know the ex-Catholic nor this woman. So thats my assumption. So if that is true, why would he then make the assumption that this woman has no real prayer life? Does he have that much confidence that the ex-Catholic is portraying his Catholic mother in a good light?

What if this woman has a wonderful prayer life. Is there something wrong with her dressing and undressing her statue then? Or is the problem with the lack of a prayer life?

For all we know, this woman might be in an insane asylum. But suddenly she is representative of “Catholics who do weird things”. How many Catholics do you know who dress and undress their saints?

And even if they did, what is wrong with dressing and undressing a Mary statue? Is there a doctrine against such behavior?

So, personally, I think there’s cultural baggage there. He doesn’t understand it, so he belittles it.

**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.
**
Note the wording here.

OFTEN, I would say that means MOST OF THE TIME. But you may correct me if you think I’m wrong.

NOT ONLYthat means IN EITHER CASE. Or, both. So what follows includes both examples.

DON’T HAVE A BALANCED PERCEPTION. Ok, lets put this together.

*Often we don’t have a balanced perception of the saints.
*
So, most of us don’t have a balanced perception of the saints. Thats what I read. And that is what I heard. What do you read?

But thats not all,
LITTLE CAPACITY TO ARTICULATE even if they do.

So, most of us have an unbalanced perception of the Saints. But even those of us who do have a balanced perception of the Saints have little capacity to articulate it?

Come now? What is a capacity to articulate it? What does that mean?

I’ve heard many Catholics asked, “why do you pray to the Saints?” And they respond something to this effect: “Because they are our advocates.”

My own mother who knows little or nothing about Catholic doctrine will give you that explanation. So what more does he want? Does he want Ecumenical councils? Scripture quotations? What?

I think thats an excellent explanation and I believe most Catholics understand that much of the Communions of Saints. Ask some yourself.

So, again, that’s a cultural problem. And I believe it is his problem and I don’t want it to become anyone else’s who listens to him. Because its wrong.

Protestants expect everyone to be a theologian. Everyone to be a Pope. The Catholic Church just wants us to be humble, honest, hard working and obedient servants of God.

But if the Church does impose on us a requirement that we UNDERSTAND and ARTICULATE our faith, let me know.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

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.

As for this one, well, as you said, it isn’t teaching. But it is more evidence of his cultural baggage. Why does he think that missallettes condition people to consider God’s Word as disposable? Doesn’t he know we are supposed to internalize the Word of God? Certainly we venerate the Bible like one of our statues. More. Some have it enthroned in their house. Is that wrong?

Is every Mass supposed to be a full blown Bible lesson? Or are we there to pray the Scripture and adore the Word of God?

So, I value your judgement. And, as I said in my first message, I value Scott Hahn’s contributions. But these are things which he teaches with which I disagree.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Tom_A_L]

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.

 

[Tom_A_L]

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.

If someone would take the time to read Dr. Hahn’s “The Lamb Supper” presentation found on the EWTN web site a few years ago, you would see that Dr. Hahn was demonstrating how Jesus took the Passover meal and re-purposed it into the Eucharist celebration that we as Catholics celebrate everyday.

I once had the opportunity to participate in a Jewish Passover meal and I found that everything that Dr. Hahn talked about in his paper were present in the Jewish celebration that I observed. Dr Hahn uses the Gospels of Mark, Luke and John to show the reader what Jesus accomplished at the Passover Meal He celebrated with His apostles. (I will call Dr. Hahn’s Office to see if I can get his permission to share that paper with you).

As far as Adam and Eve are concerned, Dr. Hahn in his Genesis to Jesus Bible Study program does talk about an intimidating beast who approached Eve, but my take on that was to let us know that this was not your run of the mill garden snake that Eve was dealing with.
The question that we often asked our students is “where was Adam during Eve’s encounter with the Snake” and we are told that he must have been sitting right next to Eve. So the offer that the snake makes to Eve that they will not die, but be on a level with God by knowing good and evil is what kicked in the pride that cause them to eat the apple. I submit that the size of the snake was intimidating and may have contributed to the eating of the fruit, but it was pride that made them do it. Dr. Hahn compares Adam to Jesus in that Adam failed to offer his life if necessary to protect his wife and the garden where as Jesus did give His life for all of us on the Cross.
If one would skim over this part of the Genesis study I am sure that you could come away with the idea that they were being threatened, but the description of the snake was made to place the exchange in the garden in a more realistic setting so we can better understand what is happening. I am reminded of the of the Passion movie and how that put Christ’s suffering in perspective to help me better understand what Christ did for all of us.

On the point of identifying the Holy Spirit as a mother or motherly image, I have not read or heard anything that would back up that claim. If someone could direct me, I would be happy to check it out.

With all that being said, I find it difficult to believe that If Dr. Hahn was teaching error, why would he be invited on a regular basis to Rome to teach at the Vatican Seminar ?

 

[Joe_5859]

De Maria,

Thank you for your reply. I don’t think I will hit on all the points you made, but I’ll try to hit on the big ones. If I miss anything major, let me know.

Respectfully, I think you are reading too much into this. First, I would say that we need to keep in mind that this is a transcript of him speaking. I don’t know about you, but when I’ve been speaking on the faith, sometimes, in my attempt to make a point, I will phrase things in such a way that isn’t the most theologically precise, not because I wanted to but just because it came out that way.

To say that Dr. Hahn is trying to belittle people with Marian devotion seems like an uncharitable interpretation of his anecdote. Let’s say that he does not know this woman who dresses up her Mary statue. That’s certainly possible. And let’s even say that he is incorrect as to the level of her spiritual life. That’s also possible. But that doesn’t change or invalidate the point that he is making (which is the real teaching): that we should make every effort to understand our devotions and not just go through the motions. If Dr. Hahn was identifying by name this woman and encouraging people to judge her, that would be a problem. As it stands, though, she is simply an anonymous person that none of us knows. So whether or not Dr. Hahn’s appraisal of her spiritual life is accurate is really beside the point.

I guess I can see what he’s doing because I know I do it. When I am teaching, I tell stories, too. Some of them are from long ago and I’m not entirely sure I have all the details correct. Sometimes, I will intentionally change the details because it makes the story simpler and it helps to illustrate my point better (even if it paints some anonymous person in an overly-simplistic, and a tad more negative, light). I’m not trying to be dishonest or judgmental when I do this. That’s why I wouldn’t use any identifying information (like names).

In regards to the use of the word “often”, I would first, again, call to mind that he is speaking. So I wouldn’t get too hung up on certain word choices. Even so, to me, the word “often” does not mean “most of the time” but only means that something occurs “frequently”. There are a lot of Catholics out there. Something doesn’t have to be true for most Catholics to occur frequently.

Anyway, I hope I’m not coming off as harsh. That’s not my intent. If these statements make you uncomfortable, I probably can’t change that and I certainly don’t fault you for that. I would only suggest trying to extend the benefit of the doubt. Imagine you are talking to Dr. Hahn and asking him these questions. Do you really think Dr. Hahn would be unconfortable with your Pieta prayer book? He wrote a whole book on Mary. I think it’s safe to say that he is okay with Marian devotion. Do you really think he would say that devotion to the saints is weird? I’m a cradle Catholic, and, frankly, I think dressing a Mary statue is a little weird. At least, I have never seen or even heard of anyone else doing this. It’s not as though Hahn was saying it was weird to say the Rosary or to participate in St. Louis de Montfort’s total consecration to Mary.

Just something to consider.

 

[Latrellc69]

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,”
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.

Print Edition » Commentary- National Catholic Register

In Defense of a Theologian Who Keeps
by Bishop Fabian Sunday, Oct 13, 2002 2:00 PM

Sixteen years ago, when I was a pastor in Milwaukee, a graduate student in theology at Marquette University, a Protestant, began showing up at my Masses and later for meetings in my office.

We struck up a friendship, and I was delighted to be the one to receive Scott Hahn into the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil in 1986.

In the years since, I have come to consider him a spiritual son, and I know that he considers me to be his spiritual father. I have enjoyed, as every father does, watching this son “grow up” and do great things with his life.

In his theological and exegetical research, in his lectures and writings, Scott has found a way of conveying the deepest mysteries of our Father’s saving plan to hundreds of thousands of people, and he has inspired a generation of young Catholics who are faithful to the magisterium and passionate about the spread of the Gospel.

I was astonished to pick up the latest issue of the New Oxford Review (September 2002) and read an editorial that seemed to heap accusations of an irresponsible kind upon Scott Hahn and his latest book, First Comes Love: Finding Your Family in the Church and the Trinity (Doubleday).

What the editorialist attacks is Scott’s exploration of ancient Catholic (and Jewish) tradition regarding the bridal and maternal actions attributed to the Holy Spirit in the economy of salvation. In this effort, Scott stands in a long line that begins with the very texts of the Sacred Scriptures as they have been interpreted by saints and doctors of the Church, and by the Church’s living tradition and liturgy—not to mention by some of the finest orthodox theologians of our generation.

Among others, he quotes from the great Fathers of the Church—St. Methodius of Olympus and St. Ephrem of Syria, who is also a doctor of the Church—and from St. Catherine of Siena (also a doctor), St. Maximilian Kolbe and St. Edith Stein. He also cites the contemporary thinking of the eminent Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

All of these have suggested the fruitfulness of the theological reflection on the maternal and bridal dimension of the mission of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, nowhere does Scott suggest any such things as his accuser alleges, let alone change the traditional use of male pronouns to refer to God or the Holy Spirit. In this, the editorialist strangely appears to think, for instance, that our belief in the fatherhood of God somehow establishes a physical “gender identity” for God, and that the overshadowing of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit in the Incarnation was somehow a sexual act.

In these times, we need more theologians and exegetes like Scott Hahn—people who make the sacred page the wood of their theology and see their work as a vocation.

In short, the editorialist seems to distort Scott’s ideas into a sick parody.

I am troubled by the harm and confusion that such an attack can have at a time when the Catholic flock in the United States is already reeling from scandal—and at a time when many faithful Catholics are already profoundly distrustful of theologians and biblical exegetes.

I can certainly understand the great sensitivity that many in the Church feel in the face of the cultural onslaught of the radical feminist agenda and the homosexual ideology, and I would be the first to agree that the Church has been less than well-served by many of its theologians and exegetes in recent years.

However, I do feel the need to speak up to defend Scott Hahn’s reputation.

Indeed, I would say that, in these times, we need more theologians and exegetes like him—men and women of deep faith who make the sacred page the wood of their theology and who see their work as an ecclesial vocation, carried out in the Church and for the Church and in complete adherence to the supreme teaching authority of the Church.

First Comes Love bears the endorsements of two of my brother bishops, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver and Bishop Donald Wuerl of Pittsburgh. To their voices I add my own.

More importantly, First Comes Love bears yet another bishop’s imprimatur, and for good reason—it is both completely orthodox and exceptionally useful.

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz is the ordinary of Lincoln, Nebraska.

 

[Latrellc69]

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.

Amen!!! All of these posts about Scott Hahn are nothing but Calumny!!! and clearly these are breaking of a commandment of the Lord!!!
Check out article in his defense by Bishop Fabian ncregister.com/site/article/in_defense_of_a_theologian_who_keeps

 

[Latrellc69]

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.

Agreed!!! Its all calumny as I have posted before! There are several Cardinals that have vouched for Dr. Hahn. He is a great Theologian and excellent Catholic in complete agreement with the Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church!