Scott Hahn

[uther]

How about out of Scripture?

Well, when you have a look at the debate, you will find that the claim being made against Hahn is that his thesis goes beyond the metaphors found in the Scripture, or the Syriac Fathers. In fact, in Scripture, there are feminine metaphors used in regards to all persons of the Trinity, not only the Holy Spirit. What Sungenis and Ferrara are claiming is that Hahn’s desire to play out the family theme leads him to stretch the analogy of the Holy Trinity as “family” and actually assign specifically the feminine role to the Holy Spirit. Hahn’s critics say they would be fine with it as long as it remains in the realm of metaphor but they claim that he has gone beyond metaphor to make claims about the Holy Spirit that are not justified in Scripture or Tradition.
On the other side, Hahn’s defenders claim that he has not gone beyond the metaphorical.

otjm:

I am not familiar with Ferrara. However, it seems they both miss what Christ said: “As the Father has sent me, so I send you”. Please, unless you can show a relationship, refrain from painting anything and everything with which you disagree as “modernist”. Modernism has a meaning; I sincerely doubt that Scott Hahn is a mondernist. I have read too much about Modernism to fall into that trap.

For the record, Ferrera writes for the Remnant. Take that as you will. And, I quoted him to illustrate the issue and his contention with Hahn. I wouldn’t call Hahn a modernist. I would call him an enthusiast who perhaps pushes some of his own paradigms and analogies further than is necessary. I wouldn’t impute improper motives to him either, although I’m not ready to canonize him yet.

In this case, I think that what Hahn has done is forgotten to step back and recognize the limitations of the human family model. That is our model, given to us by God, in accord with the very simple and obvious biological fact that we are male and female and reproduce by coupling. Now that fundamental cannot be applied to God. We understand that God has given us the terminology of the Father and Son, begotten, not made, to further our understanding of the one proceeding from the other and yet of the same substance. The point is not about gender, that is our own biological category, but rather of substance.
Now we know that between men and women there are differences other than the obvious biological ones, ie., spiritual, psychological and emotional. It is in this area that Hahn wants to superimpose the male/female/progeny “family” paradigm on the relationship of the Father/Son/Holy Spirit, forgetting that the relational aspects of the human family are rooted in the biological distinctions and are really inseparable from them. This is a human distinction that can’t be applied back to God.

otjm:

And having been familiar with a number of Charismatics, they would all say “Amen”.

Indeed. I have noticed too, that some local leadership of the Charismatic Renewal are seriously re-evaluating their position and relationship within the Church to see how they can work alongside non-Charismatics in the larger goal of the Call to Holiness given to us by the John Paul II. That is good news as far as I am concerned. We can certainly use their help and welcome it.

 

[pnewton]

I, for one, cannot understand how it is possible to put too much emphasis on Jesus Christ.

Excellent post. Thank you for your time and (name removed by moderator)ut and I couldn’t agree more. My only point was that we not misrepresent or exaggerate Hahn’s position, as it seemed The Remnant did.

BTW - This may seem like a naive question at this juncture, but is Scott Hahn invovled in the Catholic Charismatic movement? I usually steer away from that stuff so my question is out of innocent ignorance.

 

[love4mary]

Don’t get me wrong, I own everything that Scott Hahn has written and re-read often. He book on Mary was Top Notch and Rome Sweet Home has been read so many times I actually needed to buy another book. Its just that some of his writtings tend to be over My head at first (like I have stated in past posts, I am not the Brightest Bulb on the Christmas tree-but Jesus loves me anyways )

What DOES drive me a bit nuts is watching him. He seems (my opinion) like he “Knows” he is extremely well educated and talks down to those who are not. Does he mean for this to come across?,I would doubt that, he is sincere in his faith and only wants to share what he knows. I usually stick to reading his works though instead of watching him. Now Kimberly on the other hand:thumbsup: ,.she is just awesome and I could listen to her speak endlessly and completely enjoy all her writtings as well.

Scott and Kimberly make a great team, and together they have taught me so much. What a blessing they are to the Church.

Jeff Cavins now will save that for another thread

 

[Contarini]

Don’t get me wrong, I own everything that Scott Hahn has written and re-read often. He book on Mary was Top Notch and Rome Sweet Home has been read so many times I actually needed to buy another book. Its just that some of his writtings tend to be over My head at first (like I have stated in past posts, I am not the Brightest Bulb on the Christmas tree-but Jesus loves me anyways )

Absolutely

The intent of my post was not to say that you are dumb but actually the opposite. You are probably selling yourself short, and mistaking a lack of acquaintance with theological terminology for a lack of intelligence. With a bit of patience, one can understand nearly anything.

What DOES drive me a bit nuts is watching him. He seems (my opinion) like he “Knows” he is extremely well educated and talks down to those who are not. Does he mean for this to come across?,I would doubt that, he is sincere in his faith and only wants to share what he knows.

I’m sure he doesn’t mean to, but for what it’s worth I get that impression as well.

A very good friend of mine in my first couple years in grad school (before he finished his degree and moved away), Tim Gray (he has a Bible study on EWTN), was a student of Hahn’s at Steubenville and very influenced by him. I learned a lot from Tim, though he failed to convert me!

Edwin

 

[MrS]

A very good friend of mine in my first couple years in grad school (before he finished his degree and moved away), Tim Gray (he has a Bible study on EWTN), was a student of Hahn’s at Steubenville and very influenced by him. I learned a lot from Tim, though he failed to convert me!

Edwin

We both know that is not Tim Gray’s job. Only God can and will convert…in His time. Tim did not fail you. And judging from many of your good posts, God has not failed you either. You will cross the Tiber in His time

 

[SemperFidelis]

You might want to read the information at this site.

unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

It is dated today, Tues the 23rd, and titled “Catholics Show Your outrage”

.

I was about to bring this up, but you beat me to it. This was also discussed on Fr. Z’s blog. Something about how Summorum Pontificum doesn’t apply to Universities… really, did they ask the Pope about that? Anyways, back to the topic at hand.

 

[latinmass]

It is clear that FUS which Mr. Hahn is their touted star has an agenda with the latest knowledge of the University not allowing the ongoing TLM on campus. Mr. Hahn’s and the FUS ties with the charismatic movement and its infiltration on the U make both him and the U suspect. Can we use our properly formed concious to guide us and our beloved Church to make discernments that are not against Church doctrine? Of course. The charismatic movement is in no way “official” church teaching and a blip on the computer screen in the history of the Church. I am using my discernment to let all my beloved Church know to pray for discernmet on this issue. It goes against Church tradition. I realize JP2 has coddled this movement, that does not make it right, it was by no means an ex cathedra pronouncement. I’m just planting a seed for those who have been led otherwise. Jesus did come not to bring peace but to divide. I have never questioned Church doctrine, but have questioned ambigious teachings which go against Chuch doctrine the last forty years. Let us remember no doctrine was established in V2.

 

[otjm]

I think it was Dr Hahn himself who said

“We should accept the reality that there is a place in the Catholic Church for the Charismatic Movement. Unfortunately, many charismatics think there might be a place*** for the*** Catholic Church in the Charismatic Movement.”

Quite so.

 

[otjm]

Well, as an unabashed “Ph.D. type,” I find Hahn annoying because I feel like he’s talking down to me, with his cutesy little quips and his perpetual air of “gee-whiz–ain’t Catholicism cool?” When I get past that and listen to what he is actually saying, I’m often very impressed. But it blows my mind to think that people find him “over their heads.” Sorry to be a snob, but this is my reaction.

I had the same reaction years ago when someone told me that she found C. S. Lewis difficult. I think Lewis talks down less than Hahn, but he does it quite a bit in some of his writings–particularly the ones based on radio talks. Again, I find it hard to imagine that people find Lewis’s popular writings difficult (The Pilgrim’s Regress is a different matter, and while I think the literary criticism is clearly written, I can see how some might find it dense–but I digress!).

I am indulging in this snootiness because I really think modern Americans (or modern people generally–you may of course not be American, but I think you are from your style) sell themselves way short. You do not need a Ph.D. to understand Hahn, and claiming that you do is a form of coy anti-intellectualism. You just need to sit down and think a little. Maybe even crack open a dictionary if you have to. Nothing wrong with that.

Edwin

Does that come with a remote? If not, the couch potatoes probably won’t be able to handle the challenge.

It is not lack of brains, but the anesthesia of them that is the source of the problem.

 

[otjm]

It is clear that FUS which Mr. Hahn is their touted star has an agenda with the latest knowledge of the University not allowing the ongoing TLM on campus. Mr. Hahn’s and the FUS ties with the charismatic movement and its infiltration on the U make both him and the U suspect. Can we use our properly formed concious to guide us and our beloved Church to make discernments that are not against Church doctrine? Of course. The charismatic movement is in no way “official” church teaching and a blip on the computer screen in the history of the Church. I am using my discernment to let all my beloved Church know to pray for discernmet on this issue. It goes against Church tradition. I realize JP2 has coddled this movement, that does not make it right, it was by no means an ex cathedra pronouncement. I’m just planting a seed for those who have been led otherwise. Jesus did come not to bring peace but to divide. I have never questioned Church doctrine, but have questioned ambigious teachings which go against Chuch doctrine the last forty years. Let us remember no doctrine was established in V2.

What is clear is not that. What is clear is that unless something is defined ex cathedra, you will pick and choose what you believe of what the Church approves of.

 

[latinmass]

What is clear is not that. What is clear is that unless something is defined ex cathedra, you will pick and choose what you believe of what the Church approves of.

It is our God given right to use our concious when it comes to teaching that is not doctrine in the Church. Many times in history the Church approved of things, that were not doctrine, and were wrong in the end, and changed i.e. abuse of indulgences, how blessed were those in the 1500’s who followed there conciouces and did not follow this errored teaching? Stay on the narrow path, and don’t be led astray by false teachings. Sacred scripture, and sacred tradition are the key, be wary of novel charismatic practices. As far as I know Luther is still a heretic. The roots of the charismatic movement is in the protestant community. Looking at the Church today, it almost looks as if Luther has one. Liturgy, music, charismatic movement, lack of confession, fewer believe in Presence, fewer Catholics, fewer priests But he won’t.

 

[otjm]

It is our God given right to use our concious when it comes to teaching that is not doctrine in the Church. Many times in history the Church approved of things, that were not doctrine, and were wrong in the end, and changed i.e. abuse of indulgences, how blessed were those in the 1500’s who followed there conciouces and did not follow this errored teaching? Stay on the narrow path, and don’t be led astray by false teachings. Sacred scripture, and sacred tradition are the key, be wary of novel charismatic practices. As far as I know Luther is still a heretic. The roots of the charismatic movement is in the protestant community. Looking at the Church today, it almost looks as if Luther has one. Liturgy, music, charismatic movement, lack of confession, fewer believe in Presence, fewer Catholics, fewer priests But he won’t.

You are hilarious. You might review what the Church actually teaches about following your conscience when something that the Church teaches is not dogmaticly defined.

The roots of the Charismatic Movement are in the Holy Spirit. You might pause to remember that those people in the Protestant churches are made members of the One Church - that is, the Catholic Church, by baptism; that is why people who are Protestants and convert are not re-baptized. They may not be full members, but the Church’s teaching on the matter is clear and not subject to your intperpretation. Further, the Holy Spirit is not constrained to working only within members who are in full union with Rome, andother thing that the Catholci Church teaches but which you seem unwilling to recognize. And the Charismatic Movement is ultimately rooted in the Holy Spirit, and in the Catholic Church. Your belief that the Holy Spirit stopped giving the gifts which were manifested at Pentacost is a very Protestant idea.

 

[pnewton]

Your belief that the Holy Spirit stopped giving the gifts which were manifested at Pentacost is a very Protestant idea.

You are correct in that many Protestants believe this, although I do not know if it was an exclusive belief of theirs. It is core to dispensationalism.

 

[CB_Catholic]

This thread is getting off topic. The topic is Scott Hahn, not the Charismatic Renewal or what’s wrong with the Church. There are other threads for that. I hope the moderators step in here.

 

[SemperFidelis]

The roots of the Charismatic Movement are in the Holy Spirit.

One fails to recognize however that the Church went without this kind of charisma for almost 1900 years, and that this “form” of Mass is not at all continuous with the Mass that has been celebrated since Pentecost.

You might pause to remember that those people in the Protestant churches are made members of the One Church - that is, the Catholic Church, by baptism; that is why people who are Protestants and convert are not re-baptized. They may not be full members, but the Church’s teaching on the matter is clear and not subject to your intperpretation.

I don’t know where LatinMass claimed that their baptisms were not valid. What does this have to do with the Charismatic Movement?

Your belief that the Holy Spirit stopped giving the gifts which were manifested at Pentacost is a very Protestant idea.

Why then did the Holy Spirit allow the Church to go without speaking in tongues for such a long period of time?

 

[otjm]

This thread is getting off topic. The topic is Scott Hahn, not the Charismatic Renewal or what’s wrong with the Church. There are other threads for that. I hope the moderators step in here.

The OP asked for opinions on Scott Hahn. He has been attacked for not taking up the banner of all that is perceived wrong wtih the Church, and for being a Charismatic, which in turn has been connected to the Protestants, thus making him to some a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”. While I don’t like to see things wander off course, I would submit that the attacks on Dr. Hahn cannot be addressed without addressing the matters which they bring to use to attack him.

 

[dessert]

I have a Father Who keeps His promises, I like it a lot and when I am done devoreing it over and over I might lend it but I don’t know sometimes I don’t get them back
D.

 

[otjm]

One fails to recognize however that the Church went without this kind of charisma for almost 1900 years.

As an official, if you will or sidely recognized group of individuals who asked for the gifts of the Holy Spirit, I would agree. As to nothing at all for 1900 years, I would disagree; one onlyl needs to look at the lives of the saints to see those who were gifted by the Holy Spirit.

I

don’t know where LatinMass claimed that their baptisms were not valid. What does this have to do with the Charismatic Movement?

It has to do with her rather strong dismissal that anything holy could come from heretics. One needs to read her posts only to see where she is going with this.

Why then did the Holy Spirit allow the Church to go without speaking in tongues for such a long period of time?

It is entirley possible that it was because no one asked. Not having consulted with the Holy Spirit, I do not presume to answer for the Spirit. Nor do I know that no one was so gifted, only that I know of no specific instances. Further, the gift of a prayer tongue is specific to the person. The gift of tongues as in Acts, where the Apostles preached and others heard in their own language was specific to evnagelization at the time. I have no evidence that it has not occured, especially among missionaries, and it would not come as a shock to find that it had. Elsewhere in Paul it is noted that the gift of tongues also requires an interpreter; so one would perhaps not see the gift manifested if someone else did not have that.

But the presumption that it didn’t happen means that it couldn’t happen makes for an interesting view of the power of the Spirit and the gifts (including miracles) that God deigns to give to us.

 

[SemperFidelis]

As an official, if you will or sidely recognized group of individuals who asked for the gifts of the Holy Spirit, I would agree. As to nothing at all for 1900 years, I would disagree; one onlyl needs to look at the lives of the saints to see those who were gifted by the Holy Spirit.

But these same Saints never spoke in tongues or went to Masses that were celebrated in this way.

It has to do with her rather strong dismissal that anything holy could come from heretics. One needs to read her posts only to see where she is going with this.

There have been several Church Fathers and Saints that have said that nothing good comes from heretics (excluding the fact that they might have valid baptisms), are they also wrong in this regard?

 

[rien]

You are correct in that many Protestants believe this, although I do not know if it was an exclusive belief of theirs. It is core to dispensationalism.

Fundamentalists - like Baptists - beleive the gifts ended with the death of the last Apostle. That is not the belief of Catholics or Pentecostals.