Scott Hahn

[Mannyfit75]

As a convert, I found the Lambs Supper to be an excellent and well written book explaining the Mass in more biblical detail. Come to think of it, I have read just about everything that Scott Hahn has written and came away from that with a better understanding of my faith.

The only difficultly I have with Scott Hahn is that sometimes he forgets that he is writing to those of us with “average” intelligence. Jeff Cavins is a great author who writes more for “average” folks like me, same sound teachings but in an easier presentation. An example of this would be the bible study programs. Scott Hahn presents a wonderful study program but I feel like I need a PhD to fully understand it. Jeff Cavins on the other hand, with his bible study program, is easier to follow and understand for us Non-PhD types.

If Scott Hahn writes it though, get it!,.,

I actually find Scott Hahn’s work useful though it requires us to look up new words…

 

[uther]

DustinsDad:

It’s origin is troubling, the “seeking out of the gifts” is troubling, the blending or blurring the lines between the One True Church and protestant religions is troubling, and the downplaying of the Sacrament of Confirmation for emotional experiences is troubling. And perhaps most troubling of all to me is that it appears that overall (and this is just from personal experience and hearsay mind you) I think more catholics get involved with the movement and then leave the Church than do protestants get converted to the Church through the movement.

Hahn’s alleged feminizing of the Holy Spirit, (I say alleged because I have seen both sides of the discussion and haven’t come to a conclusion yet) I think comes out of the entire Charismatic mindset. How often have we heard talk of the “forgotten” person of the Trinity, or words to that effect?

This quote from Ferrara;

“But Hahn seems oblivious to all this. In his bid to augment the role of the “bridal-maternal” Holy Spirit, he declares: “It seems almost blasphemous to say this, but Christians can place too much emphasis on Christ.” Not almost blasphemous, Dr. Hahn. According to Hahn, “if we focus on the works of Christ to the exclusion of the Holy Spirit [a false alternative typical of neo-modernist exegesis] we are missing the most important work of Christ”?i.e. the most important work of Christ is “to give us the spirit.” Hahn has it exactly backwards. As St. Montfort noted in the treatise on Mary quoted above, the most important work of the Spirit is to give us Christ. Christ is the masterpiece of the Holy Ghost, created with the cooperation of the Holy Ghost’s spouse, Mary.”

in the article linked from the Remnant earlier,

catholicintl.com/catholicissues/triple3.htm.

This also is in combination, like recent Protestant Pentecostal movements, with the tendency to downplay repentance and contrition, seeking rather the “experience” of the Holy Spirit. This happens when we put Jesus in the back seat. That is why Scripture tells us in many places and in many contexts that Jesus is the Way, and there is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved.

The Holy Spirit has not been forgotten but rather points us to Jesus Christ, as does our Holy Mother Mary. It is through Jesus that our salvation comes and that is the way that God ordained it. We cannot go wrong by focussing on Christ in humility and repentance. That is when the Holy Spirit does the work of Christ in us.

 

[otjm]

My agenda is the Church. Truth.

Wonderful. Then accept all the truth the Catholic Church teaches, not just what occured prior to Vaticn 2. Either that, or you become a cafeteria Catholic.

This is what I struggle with. Mr. Hahn seems to be mostly Catholic and a little Protestant which create the same in his followers. This is what has infected the Church the last forty years.

Please cite your sources. So far, all you have cited aer others’ opinions of him. You seem to be quite worried about him, but have nothing more official than what in some circles would be called gossip. Making statements about another’s repuation - calling him a bit Protestant is speaking to his reputation - prior to Vatican 2 would be called potentially sinful as it sounds in calumny. Defamation of character and casting aspersions on another when you have no evidence was considered to be sinful. I am not suggesting you are sinful; but I am suggesting that you are relying on others’ inuendo and repeating it with out determining for yourself if it is in fact true.

Instead of simply relying on others’ statements that agree with your preconceived notions, I would invite you to actually read what Dr. Hahn has written. I am sure that you seek to love the Lord; I have listened to him numerous times, and I find him to be someone who loves the Lord greatly; so greatly that he gave up a career potentially to follow where the Lord led him. He put his reputation at risk, and even his marriage at risk, to follow where he felt God was leading him - to the truth of the Catholic Church.

 

[nilofc]

I’ve heard almost all of Scott’s audio tapes over and over again. And each time I hear it, I find something new. Something that I learn and strengthens my catholic faith.

I think Scott’s wisdom is God-given and I truly believe the Scott Hahn is a gift from God to us.

 

[otjm]

Hahn’s alleged feminizing of the Holy Spirit, (I say alleged because I have seen both sides of the discussion and haven’t come to a conclusion yet) I think comes out of the entire Charismatic mindset.

How about out of Scripture?

This quote from Ferrara;

“But Hahn seems oblivious to all this. In his bid to augment the role of the “bridal-maternal” Holy Spirit, he declares: “It seems almost blasphemous to say this, but Christians can place too much emphasis on Christ.” Not almost blasphemous, Dr. Hahn. According to Hahn, “if we focus on the works of Christ to the exclusion of the Holy Spirit [a false alternative typical of neo-modernist exegesis] we are missing the most important work of Christ”?i.e. the most important work of Christ is “to give us the spirit.” Hahn has it exactly backwards. As St. Montfort noted in the treatise on Mary quoted above, the most important work of the Spirit is to give us Christ. Christ is the masterpiece of the Holy Ghost, created with the cooperation of the Holy Ghost’s spouse, Mary.”

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.

in the article linked from the Remnant earlier,

catholicintl.com/catholicissues/triple3.htm.

This also is in combination, like recent Protestant Pentecostal movements, with the tendency to downplay repentance and contrition, seeking rather the “experience” of the Holy Spirit. This happens when we put Jesus in the back seat. That is why Scripture tells us in many places and in many contexts that Jesus is the Way, and there is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved.

The Holy Spirit has not been forgotten but rather points us to Jesus Christ, as does our Holy Mother Mary. It is through Jesus that our salvation comes and that is the way that God ordained it. We cannot go wrong by focussing on Christ in humility and repentance. That is when the Holy Spirit does the work of Christ in us.

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

 

[mercygate]

Several Traditional Catholics dislike his feminine theology regarding the Holy Ghost ie: the Holy Ghost is the feminine part of the trinity. Other than this, he is very orthodox, and I enjoy much of his writing.

Yeah. I read an article carping about this in the New Oxford Review a couple of years ago. They complained that Hahn’s view lent itself to supporting the idea that the Holy Spirit is feminine and leading to goddess worship and the ordination of women. Poppycock. SOMETHING in the Holy Trinity must be ‘feminine’ because God could not create something in his own image and likeness that did not include the feminine.

Hahn is orthodox.
He is a GREAT popularizer of complex concepts and has a way of writing that regular folk can easily grasp.

 

[mercygate]

How can one understand preV2 teachings and not question the false ecumenism that are rampant today?, charismatic movement?, altar girls?
Where is his book on decline of confession? Catholics leaving Church? Decline in belief of Presence? Fewer priests? He mixes truth with modernism, very dangerous, because people take it all in as truth. A wolf in sheeps clothing? Bringing people to this faith with errors?

This is a delirious assessment of Dr. Hahn’s work and almost amounts to libel. In fact, Hahn has actually written a nice little book on Confession: Lord, Have Mercy.

If you would like to see books on the subjects you mention here, why not write them yourself instead of carping at Dr. Hahn?

 

[MH84]

If you would like to see books on the subjects you mention here, why not write them yourself instead of carping at Dr. Hahn?

This is basically what I was thinking!

 

[pnewton]

Hahn’s alleged feminizing of the Holy Spirit, (I say alleged because I have seen both sides of the discussion and haven’t come to a conclusion yet) I think comes out of the entire Charismatic mindset. How often have we heard talk of the “forgotten” person of the Trinity, or words to that effect?

I think you bring a valid point to the discussion. Perhaps he has not done the best possible job in communicating the point about the Holy Spirit. However, I am suspicious of the “Remnant” when they make a deliberate exaggeraion of his position. It is a quantum diference between:

“It seems almost blasphemous to say this, but Christians can place too much emphasis on Christ"

and

“This happens when we put Jesus in the back seat.”

Talk about miscommunicating! But the interchange between theologians like Hahn and some of his opponents is nothing new to the Catholic Church. It is one of the ways doctrine is developed over time. Both Scott Hahn and his dissenters are fallible. As long as neither promotes some heresy such theological speculations may one day prove helpful. If after dialogue and time he changes, it wouldn’t be the first time. After all, he was wrong about the Catholic Church at one time too.

 

[newbetx]

Scott and his wife, Kimberly were my inspiration to finally get off my butt and do something about my chosen faith. I thank God they are here and on our side.

They are to be respected for the great writings they have produced. And while not infallible, they are quite credible.

Jesus told us that there would always be poor in this world. He told us there would be the jealous and self-righteous, as well. I agree with some of the other posters… while we nit pick each other, the wolves are circling to devour us!

 

[DustinsDad]

…I would suggest that since the Church has officially approved of the Charismatic Movement, you might want to follow the mind of the Church and quit presuming that if there is any error anywhere, that the whole thing must be thrown out…

I don’t think “officially approved” is correct. Certainly it seems JP2, always the optimist and ecumenist at heart God bless him, personally approved of it. But “officially” - nawww.

While presently allowed (or tolerated) the jury is still out on this one. A few decades in the “time” of the Church is a blink of an eye. We’ll see in time if this is a novelty that did more harm than good and eventually is quelched from above or fizzles out from below - or one that is fruitful for the Church and is the long term “wave of the future” its enthusiasts make it out to be.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[THurifer2]

As an apologist Scott Hahn is unmatched. James R. WHite at Alpha and Omega Ministries REFUSES to debate Hahn.

Like the rest of us Hahn would reduce White to ashes in a debate…and he would do it graciously.

I personally think Hahn is St. Michaels favortie weapon.

There are very few people in this world that Know scripture like Scott hahn

 

[PatienceAndLove]

As an apologist Scott Hahn is unmatched. James R. WHite at Alpha and Omega Ministries REFUSES to debate Hahn.

Like the rest of us Hahn would reduce White to ashes in a debate…and he would do it graciously.

I personally think Hahn is St. Michaels favortie weapon.

There are very few people in this world that Know scripture like Scott hahn

I did always think that was funny. Go Hahn!

 

[KatieD]

I think he’s terrific. His book, “Rome Sweet Home” has been one of the best things my Protestant husband could read. Dr. Hahn explained all of the questions that my husband has because at one time, he himself had the same arguments against the Church. My husband’s understanding of the Church and our faith is much better now, and he is considering converting. We need more people like the Hahns.

 

[danonwaveland]

As an apologist Scott Hahn is unmatched. James R. WHite at Alpha and Omega Ministries REFUSES to debate Hahn.

I’ve never heard this. What reason does White give for this refusal? Has White ever had an exchange with Fr. Mitch? I would think that Fr. Pacwa would have good answers to White’s objections, as well.

By the way, I want to thank everyone for their thoughtful posts. I enjoy reading them and I enjoy the generally considerate interaction among the posters. God bless!

 

[MrS]

When I was at Fran U, there was a bi-monthly TLM. That was 5 years ago. I believe it is at least weekly now, if not daily.
I don’t see why people don’t just call the chapel and get their questions answered.

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”

.

 

[Contarini]

The only difficultly I have with Scott Hahn is that sometimes he forgets that he is writing to those of us with “average” intelligence. Jeff Cavins is a great author who writes more for “average” folks like me, same sound teachings but in an easier presentation. An example of this would be the bible study programs. Scott Hahn presents a wonderful study program but I feel like I need a PhD to fully understand it. Jeff Cavins on the other hand, with his bible study program, is easier to follow and understand for us Non-PhD types.

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

 

[MrS]

I would suggest that since the Church has officially approved of the Charismatic Movement, you might want to follow the mind of the Church and quit presuming that if there is any error anywhere, that the whole thing must be thrown out. .

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.”

 

[mercygate]

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

Ditto all.

Hahn’s cutesy style is deceptive. You tend to dismiss him because of it, but under the colloquialisms there is good thought. He’s a popularizer: and a good one.

 

[uther]

I think you bring a valid point to the discussion. Perhaps he has not done the best possible job in communicating the point about the Holy Spirit. However, I am suspicious of the “Remnant” when they make a deliberate exaggeraion of his position. It is a quantum diference between:

“It seems almost blasphemous to say this, but Christians can place too much emphasis on Christ"

and

“This happens when we put Jesus in the back seat.”

Talk about miscommunicating! But the interchange between theologians like Hahn and some of his opponents is nothing new to the Catholic Church. It is one of the ways doctrine is developed over time. Both Scott Hahn and his dissenters are fallible. As long as neither promotes some heresy such theological speculations may one day prove helpful. If after dialogue and time he changes, it wouldn’t be the first time. After all, he was wrong about the Catholic Church at one time too.

I, for one, cannot understand how it is possible to put too much emphasis on Jesus Christ. For the record, I am Catholic and I am not talking about the kind of thinking that causes many Protestants to reject our Holy Mother or any of the Saints as intercessors. What I mean is this. Where one person of the Trinity is, there are also the other two persons. God is indivisible. But we as human beings were sent the Word, the second person of the Trinity in the form of a man (Incarnation) for our salvation. We are Christian. That is, we follow Chirst. He is the Way, the mediator, through whom we have access to the beatific vision. Thus, it is not wrong to be Christocentric as some would claim. It is who we are, followers of Christ. God has made Christ King over all. He gave us the Son for us to believe in, take hold of, and become part of that kingdom. This is why Jesus speaks of the Kingdom in virtually all of his parables. That is what it is all about. Seek ye first the Kingdom, and who is the King? Jesus. So how could we over-emphasize Christ?

I’ve heard it said that Jesus had to ascend so that he could then be everywhere at one time, present in the Eucharist, present in assembly of Christians where they are gathered in his name, present in the hearts and minds of people seeking him. How does he accomplish this? The third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, because, as we pointed out, where one person of the Trinity is, so are the other two. So even as Jesus permanently took on humanity, he is with us in the Holy Spirit, and it is the Holy Spirit that gives grace, it is the Holy Spirit that effects the sacraments, that causes the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of who? Christ.

So, when we seek Christ the Holy Spirit brings him. We need have no fear of neglecting the Holy Spirit. Every time we pray in the Holy Name of Jesus it is the Holy Spirit that brings us the answer to our prayers. He is with us, about us, indwells us, and is the power of God to pour out Grace upon us. He is God and as God honours the position of authority, of Kingship that has been given to the Son. We do no disservice, no disrespect to God the Father or God the Holy Spirit by worshipping and praising the Son, because that is how God has ordained it, and the Son is God as well.