Scott Hahn

[rien]

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.

This is simply not true. The gifts did fade out generally after around 300. When the Empire converted to Chritianity. But they ebb and flow and seem more manifest at times in history when there is more a need for that witness by the Spirit.

read the lives of the Sainsts - many, many demosnstrated gifts throughout the 1900 years you speak of. One Saint bi-located. The stigmata are a form of the gifts.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

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.

Comparing Scott Hahn and Martin Luther is like comparing apples and oranges. They might be fruits, but they are way, way not the same.

Scott Hahn is not currrently a clergyman, something he renounced to become Catholic. Luther was an ordained Catholic priest who took a hike on the Church.

Hahn is a biblical scholar. He applies scripture and the Early Church Fathers to modern day exercise of the Faith. He likes the tongue-in-cheek a little too often, but not everybody who reads him thinks this bad.

What you expect out of him is not his “job”. Your logic shows a lot of flaws, in my opinion.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Scott Hahn is a devout Catholic. He is loyal to the Church. I hate to see him being downgraded to that of a heretic, especially when it comes from the mouth of fellow Catholics. **Perhaps they are jealous of him. In 2005, he was appointed as the Pope Benedict XVI Chair of Biblical Theology and Liturgical Proclamation at St. Vincent Seminary in Latrobe, Pennsylvania **

**SHAME ON YOU CATHOLICS **AND PEOPLE WHO DEGRADE SCOTT HAHN!!! IT IS ALSO A SIN TO GOSSIP AND SPEAK ILL OF ONE ANOTHER.

This is not Christlike nor is it the behavior of a Catholic. I think those Catholics in here who speak ill of others SHOULD GO To Confession. You defame the Blessed Eucharist by insulting a Catholic Scott Hahn.

SHAME ON YOU!

 

[mercygate]

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.

Although the annual Confraternity of Penitents retreat this year was not a “charismatic” retreat, the retreat master had been involved with the Charismatic Renewal almost from the beginning. He pointed out that for the first EIGHT CENTURIES of the Church, the charismatic gifts were considered to be part of the ordinary life of Christians.

 

[mercygate]

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.

I’m not a huge Hahn follower, but has he ever published anything about the Charismatic Movement? I do not recall ever hearing of it. Not that I have been paying attention.

 

[seandoe]

I have a real problem with Hahn’s belief that part of the Holy Trinity is a SHE!

 

[rien]

Scott Hahn is a devout Catholic. He is loyal to the Church. I hate to see him being downgraded to that of a heretic, especially when it comes from the mouth of fellow Catholics. **Perhaps they are jealous of him. In 2005, he was appointed as the Pope Benedict XVI Chair of Biblical Theology and Liturgical Proclamation at St. Vincent Seminary in Latrobe, Pennsylvania **

**SHAME ON YOU CATHOLICS **AND PEOPLE WHO DEGRADE SCOTT HAHN!!! IT IS ALSO A SIN TO GOSSIP AND SPEAK ILL OF ONE ANOTHER.

This is not Christlike nor is it the behavior of a Catholic. I think those Catholics in here who speak ill of others SHOULD GO To Confession. You defame the Blessed Eucharist by insulting a Catholic Scott Hahn.

SHAME ON YOU!

Frankly I think there is some jealousy among some traditionalists. Over not just Scott but the Protestant pastors who’ve converted and their successful witness. From Scott’s St. Paul Center training thousands of lay catechists. To Marcus Grodi’s Coming Home Network. To the preponderance of former Protestants among orthodox Catholic apologists today.

My personal opinion. One may have the beautiful Tridentine Mass but if one is about that and nothing else - like in following the great commission then what? Traditionalists seem to be very weak on evangelizing the world around them. The indult parishes are generally stagnant. Little growth and few conversions. IMO this is a real problem among traditionalists.

 

[rien]

Although the annual Confraternity of Penitents retreat this year was not a “charismatic” retreat, the retreat master had been involved with the Charismatic Renewal almost from the beginning. He pointed out that for the first EIGHT CENTURIES of the Church, the charismatic gifts were considered to be part of the ordinary life of Christians.

True, as some Protestants want to forget the early Church fathers, some Catholics want to seemingly forget the real presence of the gifts historically in the church and especially for the first 300, 400, 500 years.

 

[seandoe]

Scott Hahn may be a loyal and devout catholic but he does say controversial things sometimes - maybe to sell more books? I don’t know. I have found him readable and informative but let us point out when he is not up to snuff and applaud him when he is, just like the rest of us nobody is perfect!

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I have a real problem with Hahn’s belief that part of the Holy Trinity is a SHE!

Are you sure this is what he believes? Or is this something you just heard from someone. Let me give you some background.

Scott Hahn merely said that in Syriac the word for "Spirit’ is ruah and it is a feminine word. He did not say the Holy Spirit is feminine only pointed out that* ruah *is feminine. He also pointed out that "In the Book of Wisdom, chapters 7-9, God’s Wisdom is referred to as ‘holy spirit’…. The Hebrew word for Wisdom, hokmak, is also feminine…” I believe he also said that the actions of the Holy Spirit are maternal. He meant this in a relational context, but some folks just don’t get that. New Oxford Review read Dr. Hahn’s statements and accused him of gnosticism–believing the Holy Spirit is feminine. In other words, they refused to take into account the context of his statements and practically labeled him a heretic.

I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a He or a She. Let’s get real here, the Spirit is without gender as is the Father. But we use the word “Father” because Jesus taught us to call Him Father. Why? Because He is male? No, He is pure spirit, He is without gender. It is because of the familial relationship God wants to have with His children. To speak of the Holy Spirit as having a maternal love is not to imply that the Holy Spirit is female-- how absurd! It is once again applying familial relationship to God (which happens to be a primary focus of Dr. Hahn’s work) I do not know in what context Dr. Hahn said that actions of the Spirit are maternal, but I do know that he does not believe the Spirit is a She.

 

[seandoe]

If you know personally from Mr. Hahn that is his belief then I stand corrected.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

If you know personally from Mr. Hahn that is his belief then I stand corrected.

You have no need to stand corrected yet, just substantiate your claim that he does indeed believe the Holy Spirit is a “She”. The burden of proof is on you. You have posted on a public forum that you have a problem with Scott Hahn’s “belief that the Holy Spirit is a She” as if it is a fact. You did not cite any evidence to back up your description of Dr. Hahn’s beliefs, which, if true, would be heresy. It is a serious matter and you should probably have said, “if Scott Hahn believes the Holy Spirit is a She, I have a serious problem with that”. Of course, if you know personally that Dr. Hahn does indeed hold that belief, I would like to know more.

I do not know Dr. Hahn and probably should not have said “I know he does not believe the Holy Spirit is a She”. I have based my opinion on reading his work extensively, watching interviews with him and researching the background of this allegation. I have described the background of the accusation and you are free to research it yourself and see if you can substantiate what you said earlier. Based on my research, I do not believe the claim can be substantiated. Furthermore, the fact that Dr. Hahn uses word “He” when referring to the Holy Spirit would strongly suggest that he has been falsely accused.

 

[SemperFidelis]

If you know personally from Mr. Hahn that is his belief then I stand corrected.

I am a fan of Scott Hahn and much of his writings. Rome Sweet Home and Hail Holy Queen have very much helped me on my journey. Not even all of St. Augustine’s theology was accepted. Just like St. Augustine, this doesn’t hinder the worth of his good writings. Scott Hahn, whom I’m sure knows of the accusations made by others, has never come out and said anything to try and repudiate them. Take it for what it is worth, but I believe that says something. Why won’t he publicaly square his beliefs with Orthodoxy and settle this thing? What does he have to lose?

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I am a fan of Scott Hahn and much of his writings. Rome Sweet Home and Hail Holy Queen have very much helped me on my journey. Not even all of St. Augustine’s theology was accepted. Just like St. Augustine, this doesn’t hinder the worth of his good writings. Scott Hahn, whom I’m sure knows of the accusations made by others, has never come out and said anything to try and repudiate them. Take it for what it is worth, but I believe that says something. Why won’t he publicaly square his beliefs with Orthodoxy and settle this thing? What does he have to lose?

He did defend himself, here is a copy of his letter to the editor of the New Oxford Review posted on their site.

In response to your New Oxford Note “A Little Bit of Gnosticism” (Feb.) about me, I have to wonder whether you read what I wrote about the Holy Spirit.

First, I expressly deny that the Holy Spirit is feminine, in both the hardcover and paperback editions of my book First Comes Love. In this connection, I cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and its teaching about God: “He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective ‘perfections’ of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband” (#370).

Second, I always refer to the Holy Spirit as “He” – never “She” – in all my writings and teachings.

Third, it is absurd to say that modern defenders of Gnosticism (such as Elaine Pagels) derive any support whatsoever from exploratory study of maternal aspects of God and the Holy Spirit, whether by me or the orthodox Catholics I cite (e.g., St. Ephrem, St. Methodius, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Edith Stein, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Louis Bouyer, Matthias Scheeben).

Fourth, what you imply about me supporting lesbian marriage is unspeakably vile and slanderous. And on what basis do you argue: That if the Spirit has a maternal function, then Jesus had two mommies? The same twisted and perverse logic could be turned right around to show that Dale Vree, the Editor of the NOR, must support gay marriage between men: “If the Spirit’s role is really paternal, then Jesus had two daddies – at least (the first and third Persons of the Trinity), not to mention St. Joseph.” As I said, this is twisted and perverse.

Your readers deserve better. Indeed, I invite them to read my chapter and judge for themselves, which they can now find online (courtesy of Doubleday).

Scott Hahn
Steubenville, Ohio

 

[SemperFidelis]

He did defend himself, here is a copy of his letter to the editor of the New Oxford Review posted on their site.

This settles it for me, thank you very much!

 

[DustinsDad]

True, as some Protestants want to forget the early Church fathers, some Catholics want to seemingly forget the real presence of the gifts historically in the church and especially for the first 300, 400, 500 years.

I know of no traditionalists who deny miracles happen - in fact, I think they’re more apt to readily believe in miracles than others - but the recent phenomena of tounge speaking (the kind nowadays anyway that don’t appear to be of the type mentioned in Scripture on say, Penticost), the method of “seeking such an experience out”, the slain in the spirit phenomena - those are quite novel in and of themselves, and characterize the “gifts” spoken of in relation to the Charismatic movement.

Couple that with the facts that the great saints and mystics themselves warned of the inherent DANGERS of seeking mystical experiences, the fact that the “birth” of the movement came from a heretical religion, the fact that more people seem to be led out of the Church rather than into it by the movement - the fact that liturgical abuses are rampant at “Charismatic Healing Masses”…these things are just causes for caution in my humble opinon.

Like I said, I know there are devout faithful folks involved in the movement - some very close to home. But there’s just too many red flags for me personally. Any attempt to defend the movement almost always amounts to an appeal to emotion rather than logic and doctrine. Therefore, just for safety, I would not let my son attend a Charismatic “teen” retreat or any such thing. Too many dangers involved. I’ll stick with the tried and tested.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

…My personal opinion. One may have the beautiful Tridentine Mass but if one is about that and nothing else

I know of no traditionalist who is about the TLM and nothing else. It may seem that way to you since that is the most visible aspect of “traditional spirituality” (if we must call it that) and probably the most often debated and discussed. But they are the among the most faithful devout Catholics you’ll meet - at least they are sincerely trying to be.

If they seem a little cold to you - perhaps it’s because they’ve been beat up so much (inside and outside the Church) they’ve got the guard up - and therein might be the problem. Get to know 'em in the real world though…you might just be surprised how charitable they can be.

…like in following the great commission then what? Traditionalists seem to be very weak on evangelizing the world around them. The indult parishes are generally stagnant. Little growth and few conversions. IMO this is a real problem among traditionalists.

Okay, couple of things. I don’t think the indult parishes are generally stagnant. If anything they are flourishing anywhere they are “allowed” - and that is crucial. Further, I think the Holy Father even addressed the good fruit from those adhearing to the TLM - surprisingly so it seems in the eyes of many a prelate.

If it seems traditionalists are weak in bringing in converts (I have no idea on the stats) - that doesn’t seem to be entirely they’re fault. I’m not even sure if it is required by most bishops to have converts come in through RCIA in a NO parish as opposed to the old method used in traditional parishes. See even a non-Catholic who has converted to the Church through a traditional parish might have to go to a neighboring NO parish to enter Sacramentally as per the new regulations post VII. I’m not sure of this - but that would make sense to me.

Another thing…I have a Protestant friend that’s been to the TLM with me several times (keep him in your prayers) - and I still have to reassure him from time to time that we’re actally Catholic…he says the people there are so different (heh, they dress different, they pray different, they act different, etc) and the mass is so different from other’s he’s seen - he has trouble believing that we are of the same religion. Something to think about.

Point being that if the average Catholic looks at us with suspicion - what do you think the non-Catholics think? I guess I’m trying to say that when even fellow Catholics label you as schismatics and “watch out for them”, it’s kind of hard to bring in converts. All in all I think it’s just plain “easier” - culturally speaking - to convert to a NO parish than to a traditional one. If a faithful catholic in a NO parish is an oddball in society - the faithful traditional catholic is really realluy an oddball (in a good way of course).

That being said, I think traditionalists are more up front about the call to conversion. The muffled call hidden in today’s common practice of ecumenism hasn’t really affected us as much. How it actually plays out in numbers of converts - I’m not sure. Haven’t seen any data on it.

And again - for the record, I owe alot to Scott Hahn, have no real problem with him, and still give out his conversion story when trying to evangilize non-catholics around me. Most recently a baptist fella I met at a bookstore. His name is Scott. Keep him in your prayers too

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[SemperFidelis]

Great posts DustinsDad. As someone who has recently decided to convert, I probably would have looked somewhere else if I wouldn’t have been able to find Traditional beliefs and a Traditional Liturgy in the Church (ie: SSPX or Orthodoxy). Never mind that the parish I am attending RCIA at is quite liberal. Just knowing these kind of parishes are out there in good numbers is enough for me, as it will only be a couple years until I move away. I didn’t join the Catholic Church to worship like a protestant. I could have done that right where I was, and I wouldn’t have to deal with catching “flak” from my family and friends.

 

[MrS]

I know of no traditionalist who is about the TLM and nothing else. … But they are the among the most faithful devout Catholics you’ll meet - at least they are sincerely trying to be.

Another thing…I have a Protestant friend that’s been to the TLM with me several times (keep him in your prayers) - and I still have to reassure him from time to time that we’re actally Catholic…he says the people there are so different (heh, they dress different, they pray different, they act different, etc) and the mass is so different from other’s he’s seen - he has trouble believing that we are of the same religion. Something to think about.

. All in all I think it’s just plain “easier” - culturally speaking - to convert to a NO parish than to a traditional one. If a faithful catholic in a NO parish is an oddball in society - the faithful traditional catholic is really realluy an oddball (in a good way of course).

, d

Well said, and I for one agree totally… from experience and from common sense too.
Thanks.

.

 

[latinmass]

Frankly I think there is some jealousy among some traditionalists. Over not just Scott but the Protestant pastors who’ve converted and their successful witness. From Scott’s St. Paul Center training thousands of lay catechists. To Marcus Grodi’s Coming Home Network. To the preponderance of former Protestants among orthodox Catholic apologists today.

My personal opinion. One may have the beautiful Tridentine Mass but if one is about that and nothing else - like in following the great commission then what? Traditionalists seem to be very weak on evangelizing the world around them. The indult parishes are generally stagnant. Little growth and few conversions. IMO this is a real problem among traditionalists.

The original thread wanted insight on Mr. Hahn. I have given mine, as others have. Because you do not agree with with our discernment means we should go to confession? Believe me I think you are wrong, just as much as you think we are wrong. I will think about what you said though. You can make the judgement whether you need to go to confession or make a change in your thinking. To say that TLM attendees are weak in evangelizing is funny, since the Church was is so much better shape before the NO an liberal thinkers like you and other post V2 folks took over and so many left the Church. I never question doctrine. But I do question some of the practices that even popes have tolerated recently when they go against scripture and tradition. Canon Law allows me to do this with my properly formed concious. You know a tree by its fruit. The protestant undertones of Mr. Hahn and much of what came out of V2 I will question and fight for the Holy unchanging Traditions to remain as our Lord and the Docrinal Council of Trent proclaimed for our Mass and Church.