"Scott Hahn's Novelties"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tarcisius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have read Dr. Hahn’s comments concerning the Holy Spirit many times and I have found him to be consistantly clear that his views ARE NOT to be taken to impose athrophomorphic language onto the third person of the trinity or to suggest the Holy Spirit is “Female.”

He points out that certain aspects of the Holy Spirit, which have come to be known as marks of the feminine, are more uniquely (but by no means exclusively) manifest in women just as “fatherhood” is more uniquely (but not exclusively) reflected in men!

It is how part of mankind (in this case the female gender) reflects the divine as part of God’s revelation of Himself in our very nature.

While I understand conservatives sesitivity with regards to heretical feminist teachings people have TOTALLY missed the boat on this one! Do they imagine that women reflect less of God’s divinity than men?

I guess once they read “Theology of the Body” the Holy Father will be next!
 
*The Rabbins identified Melchisedech with Sem, son of Noe, rather for polemic than historic reasons, since they wished to set themselves against what is said of him as a type of Christ “without father, without mother, without genealogy” (Heb., vii, 3). In the Epistle to the Hebrews the typical character of Melchisedech and its Messianic import are fully explained. Christ is “a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech” (Heb., vii, 6; Ps., cix, 4); “a high priest forever”, etc (Heb., vi, 20), i.e. order or manner (Gesenius), not after the manner of Aaron. The Apostle develops his teaching in Heb., vii: Melchisedech was a type by reason *
  • *of his twofold dignity as priest and king, *
  • *by reason of his name, “king of justice”, *
  • *by reason of the city over which he ruled, “King of Salem, that is, king of peace” (v. 2), and also *
  • because he “without father without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened unto the [Son of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm), continueth a priest forever.” (v. 3).
The silence of Scripture about the facts of Melchisedech’s birth and death was part of the divine plan to make him prefigure more strikingly the mysteries of [Christ’s (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) generation, the eternity of His priesthood. …*. In the history of Melchisedech St. Paul says nothing about the bread and wine which the “priest of the most High” offered, and on account of which his name is placed in the Canon of the Mass. The scope of the Apostle accounts for this; for he wishes to show that the priesthood of Christ was in dignity and duration superior to that of Aaron, and therefore, since it is not what Melchisedech offered, but rather the other circumstances of his priesthood which belonged to the theme, they alone are mentioned.*

(End of quote)

I know of no heresies Mr. Hahn putatively engages in. However, I prefer my exegesis be based upon the Fathers (and not just one or two but a majority of them) as Trent instructed us to do.

Mr. Hahn has brought a lot of folks into the Church and for that he should and will, undoubtedly, be highly blessed/rewarded.
 
I have read the article (I don’t have a scanner to forward it, sorry) and I have problems with it that others have not mentioned. :mad: Whether Dr. Hahn’s ideas will bear fruit in the long term, time will tell. He is expressing his ideas – neither sins nor crimes at this juncture to my knowledge. I am confident that should the Church give him a “cease and desist” order, he would be the first to be promptly obedient. I will leave it the theologically adept amongst you to discuss the specific ideas. My problems with the article are these:
  1. Who is the author? Except that he “formerly taught religion on the college level” I know nothing of him. I lived most of my adult life in academia. I’d like to know more about him. In academia you are judged by your credentials as well as by what you produce, what are his credentials? We know Dr. Hahn’s.
  2. He (O’Neill) states that Dr. Hahn came from an unusual theological school – “theonomy.” Is this supposed to be forbidden to Catholic scholars and theologians? As a former Protestant, I was frankly amazed at how much OT there is in Catholicism. And no, I am not a Hahn-vert, discovered him much later. I do not see that this methodology or mode of thinking necessarily disqualifies him.
  3. O’Neill suggests by innuendo without accusing. Just one example: He refers to Bishop Bruskewitz’ defense of Hahn in an article a couple of years ago and hopes “that Hahn did not solicit it.” To bring up the possibility is to imply that Dr. Hahn would or could stoop to it. O’Neill does the same on other points in the article as well.:tsktsk: Tacky yellow journalism!
  4. Lastly, O’Neill suggests that: “The popular audience he (Hahn) customarily addresses is in no way prepared to evaluate (his) speculations, and many in that audience are certain to absorb them uncritically.” Thanks a lot, Mr. O’Neill. Some of us my just be brighter than you think!:rolleyes:
If there are good reasons to discuss theological ideas, there are good reasons to do so in a gentlemanly and Christian fashion. I think NOR should issue a public apology.
 
Many of Dr. Hahn’s ideas are not new, but resurections of old ideas.
In a book entitled How Christ Said the First Mass, copywrite 1906, the notion of Melchizedek being Noah’s son Shem was stated as a matter of fact, long accepted by many church scholars.
I have head him say on several occassions that he is not the originator of many of his ideas, but that they were ideas held by the church for centuries, until they went by the wayside in favor of more modern ways of thinking.
I find him very refreshing.
 
I have read the article in NOR, and I took it as this O’Neill guy was trying to make a name for himself by nipping at the heels of one of the big dogs in the New Evangelization in the U.S…

After falling over himself complementing Hahn in the beginning of the article, he then went on to take a few low blows and make salacious innuendos. Low blow: that Scott Hahn would ask his old bishop to put in few good words for him; innuendo- that Hahn is making the Holy Spirit a feminine person, bordering on heresy and leaning to far to the liberal, feminist left. Hogwash! O’Neill admits that Hahn himself made a clear point he was not making a woman out of the Holy Spirit, yet O’Neill couldn’t help undermining Hahn’s qualification to imply possible heresy.

Look at the fruits of Hahn’s works…They give glory to God. A man being used by God such as Hahn can be expected to be the target of those who wish to ride his coattails, even while flailing him.

May God send us more Scott Hahns!

Liseux
 
I was recently blessed with the loan of the tapes of Dr. Hahn’s discussion of the “Fourth Cup” of the Last Supper meal. (I have returned the tapes and cannot recall the name.) I was listening while painting my room, and realized after a time that I had stopped painting and was standing stock still in the middle of the room, holding a wet paintbrush, utterly absorbed in what I was hearing, and wishing my hands were clean so I could get out my Bible and follow along.

I personally really like this man’s manner of teaching, and have enjoyed his books very much, especially The Lamb’s Supper.
 
I really think that he was either misquoted or that author made some of those things up, I have read some of his books and I have never heard these strange ideas…
 
As someone who has listened to nearly all of Dr. Hahn’s tapes and read nearly all of his books, I have to say that he has done tremendous good in building up the Kingdom of God on earth. His talks are insightful, engrossing, and often humorous. When I met Dr. Hahn last year, I felt as though I knew him for years because of the tapes I had listened to repeatedly. We are blessed to have him in the Church, because he lights a fire under so many lukewarm cradle Catholics and leads many Protestants to our Faith because he shows them where their Protestant leaders erred in their interpretation of Scripture.

The ideas of covenant and Shem-Melchizedek are for the most part doctoral, theological speculation. Dr. Hahn is not a Magisterium, nor does he try to be. He is a professor, and by definition he “professes” his ideas to others. He is a Catholic intellectual akin to G.K. Chesterton (btw, his favorite author), and his ideas might lead some future theolgian to surpass even those of the likes of St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine, arguably 2 of the greatest Catholic thinkers in history.

Anyone threatened by Dr. Hahn’s works and ideas reminds me of those people who attack JK Rowling and other authors before they have read a single word they wrote: they are threatened only by their own ignorance.
 
I think Dr. Hahn is brilliant. His “novelties” have roots in things that have been taught in the Church for centuries. I haven’t seen it brought up but I think some scholars are jealous of his success. Envy is a terrible sin.
 
Which shows me that you’ve never read a single one of Hahn’s books, at least never looked at the footnotes.

Correct. I haven’t read any of his books. I have heard some of his tapes and I found them instructive - but nowhere near as instructiove as Ecumenical Councils, the Saints and Church Doctors.
 
Karl Keating:
The problem, of course, is that there is nothing in nature that really illustrates three Persons in one nature. The best one can do is to point to something that shows three things “next to” one another or “next to” a fourth thing, but not three things “in” one another or “in” a fourth.
Click to expand...
All analogies “limp”, but try this one:

Water appears in three forms: solid, liquid, vapor (or steam)

Solid - the Father - when water freezes thick enough on a lake, we can walk on it. The Father’s strength and “solidity” can be relied on.

Liquid - the Son - Jesus called Himself the souce of living water.

Vapor (or steam) - the Holy Spirit - a steam engine is a fairly efficient engine. The Holy Spirit provides the “driving energy” to our lives of faith.

So, three forms of the same chemical compound, with three very different properties.

Three persons in one God.

I hope this isn’t too far off topic.
 
“In a book entitled How Christ Said the First Mass, copywrite 1906, the notion of Melchizedek being Noah’s son Shem was stated as a matter of fact, long accepted by many church scholars.”

You might want to reread that section***. It notes** "Ignatius of Antioch and other fathers say he was a virgin, without father or mother in heaven, fortelling the Redeemer without mother in heaven, father on earth or posterity. "*

The book goes on to cite "The Taragums of PseudoJonathan and Jerusalem, Jewish Cabalistic works, Rabbinical writers, Samaritans of ancient times, with Luther, Melancthon, Lightfoot, Selden ect say Melchisdech was the patriarch Sem, sole survivor of the flood, eldest son and heir of Noe and highh priest of the world."
(end of quote)

In other words, St. Ignatius and other Church Fathers had one view of who Melchisdech was and the Jews who rejected Christ and the Protestants who denied the Truth of the Catholic Church had another view of who Melchisdek was and because a protestant convert now tells me I am supposed to adopt the views of those who rejected Jesus and His Church I ought to because the convert is ubiquitious and folks have turned to him to as THE authority to explain what the Faith really means?

No thanks. I am old school. I’ll stick with the Church Fathers.
 
Karl Keating:
The shamrock may have been a step up intellectually for the Irish pagans, but Sheed’s point was that it shouldn’t have been used by (mainly Irish) priests to instruct their flocks in the mid-twentieth century.
Click to expand...
I heard an analogy regarding Neopolitan Ice Cream to the Trinity. Thought it was interesting…
 
"Dr. Hahn also says that Adam’s sin wasn’t disobedience but was his refusal to fight a dragon! He says, “Would he stand up for his bride by engaging the diabolical serpent in mortal combat? . . . Adam was unwilling to lay down his own life . . . to save the life of his beloved. That refusal to sacrifice was Adam’s original sin.”

Good grief. Does Hahn really teach such stuff? Read Trent’s “Decree on Original Sin” Session, V on June 17, 1546).

Hahn is ubiquitious. He appears to have supplanted Ecumenical Councils and Popes and the Traditons of the Faith. He is everywhere and, apparently, any criticism of him is akin to blasphemy.

If he does teach such claptrap as highlighted above, one ought flee his presence. We live in sad times. Cradle Catholics are ignorant of their Faith and they are taking as gospel the personal opinions of a convert who, if what is said is true, is teaching some very weird (and materially herertical) stuff.

history.hanover.edu/early/trent/ct05os.htm

Romans 5:17 For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just.

Come on Catholic brethren, don’t let anyone pull the wool over your eyes.
 
Catholicguy said:
"Dr. Hahn also says that Adam’s sin wasn’t disobedience but was his refusal to fight a dragon! He says, “Would he stand up for his bride by engaging the diabolical serpent in mortal combat? . . . Adam was unwilling to lay down his own life . . . to save the life of his beloved. That refusal to sacrifice was Adam’s original sin.”

Good grief. Does Hahn really teach such stuff? Read Trent’s “Decree on Original Sin” Session, V on June 17, 1546).

Hahn is ubiquitious. He appears to have supplanted Ecumenical Councils and Popes and the Traditons of the Faith. He is everywhere and, apparently, any criticism of him is akin to blasphemy.

If he does teach such claptrap as highlighted above, one ought flee his presence. We live in sad times. Cradle Catholics are ignorant of their Faith and they are taking as gospel the personal opinions of a convert who, if what is said is true, is teaching some very weird (and materially herertical) stuff.

history.hanover.edu/early/trent/ct05os.htm

Come on Catholic brethren, don’t let anyone pull the wool over your eyes.
Click to expand...

So, I read it and I don’t see the issue. Hahn isn’t disagreeing with the document, he is suggesting what that sin could have been. If you haven’t read anything by Hahn, or heard this speech in full, then how can you suggest it is heretical? Maybe you could point out what you see is heretical, blasphemous or that which supplants any of the sources you list? Or even where the wool is being pulled over our eyes? Overall it is an interesting theory (obviously a theory, which he suggests could be true, and not one that he says is definately the whole truth)

John
 
40.png
Tarcisius:
That is the title of a 12 page article in the June issue of New Oxford Review. The author talks about some of Dr. Hahn’s ideas, which he thinks are strange.

For one thing, Dr. Hahn says Melchizedek was really Noah’s son Shem! :confused: I never heard anyone say that before.

Dr. Hahn also says that Adam’s sin wasn’t disobedience but was his refusal to fight a dragon! He says, “Would he stand up for his bride by engaging the diabolical serpent in mortal combat? . . . Adam was unwilling to lay down his own life . . . to save the life of his beloved. That refusal to sacrifice was Adam’s original sin.” :eek: I never even heard a Protestant say anything like that.

The author refers to other strange ideas. Some of them come from really conservative Protestantism, but some not.

The biggest problem seems to be that Dr. Hahn applies the idea of covenant to just about everything. He even says the Trinity is a covenant, which makes it a kind of contract by the three persons. He also talks about the Holy Spirit in feminine language that sounds like a liberal Catholic talking. :bigyikes:

This is a long article. I’m really worried by it. The problems the author brings up look real to me. If you have read it, let’s hear what you think about it.
Click to expand...
I don’t get the New Oxford Review (much too liberal), but someone gave this month’s edition to my friend, for whom it also was much too liberal. She then gave it to me. However, I had a road trip back home from Chicago Saturday, and I read this article on the way home. I think it bring up valid points. Scott Hahn, I hear, was going to be a Traditionalist but copped out to “mainstream neo-conservatism” as it is often called. I think what he wrote concerning the Fall of Man was the most hilarious theological analogy I have ever heard: “Much like Humpty Dumpty after his great fall, the human race cannot mend itself and restore unity through its own efforts alone.” It is hard to believe that Hahn was even serious when he wrote that. Other section headers are also very goofy, such as in A Father Who Keeps His Promises “Prime Rib” (in reference to creation of Eve from Adam’s rib) as well as “Flood, Sweat and Tears” in reference to the Great Flood. What was a very good article was the one directly before Hanh. It was called “Putting Catholic Men on Ritalin” by Dale Price. For a neo-con publication, that was certainly good. I would suggest that you read that if you have not already. God bless.
 
Catholicguy said:
*"*If he does teach such claptrap as highlighted above, one ought flee his presence. We live in sad times. Cradle Catholics are ignorant of their Faith and they are taking as gospel the personal opinions of a convert who, if what is said is true, is teaching some very weird (and materially herertical) stuff.
Click to expand...

I know you said if, but I suggest that you read Scott Hahn’s writings to determine what he says instead of relying on a quote of a quote. I find his analyses to be insightful and well-researched, and usually interpret the scriptures on several levels. Don’t let a news magazine with an agenda determine your opinion. Also, his being a convert is irrelevent as he has pledged to remain faithful to the magisterium and his books contain the imprimateur.

Ellen
 
40.png
EENS:
I don’t get the New Oxford Review (much too liberal), but someone gave this month’s edition to my friend, for whom it also was much too liberal. She then gave it to me. However, I had a road trip back home from Chicago Saturday, and I read this article on the way home. I think it bring up valid points. Scott Hahn, I hear, was going to be a Traditionalist but copped out to “mainstream neo-conservatism” as it is often called. I think what he wrote concerning the Fall of Man was the most hilarious theological analogy I have ever heard: “Much like Humpty Dumpty after his great fall, the human race cannot mend itself and restore unity through its own efforts alone.” It is hard to believe that Hahn was even serious when he wrote that. Other section headers are also very goofy, such as in A Father Who Keeps His Promises “Prime Rib” (in reference to creation of Eve from Adam’s rib) as well as “Flood, Sweat and Tears” in reference to the Great Flood.
Click to expand...
So, what were the valid points? And you lost me on the whole I hear, was going to be a Traditionalist but copped out to “mainstream neo-conservatism” thing. What does that bring to light? Also (excuse me, but I’m too lazy to insert this in the proper places in quotes), you seem to slam Hahn on the Humpty Dumpty thing, are you saying that the analogy is silly, or are you saying that the part following about the human race being unable to restore itself is was in question?

Just want to make sure I understand you.

John
 
Fr. Frank:
All analogies “limp”, but try this one:
Water appears in three forms: solid, liquid, vapor (or steam)
Solid - the Father - when water freezes thick enough on a lake, we can walk on it. The Father’s strength and “solidity” can be relied on.
Liquid - the Son - Jesus called Himself the souce of living water.
Vapor (or steam) - the Holy Spirit - a steam engine is a fairly efficient engine. The Holy Spirit provides the “driving energy” to our lives of faith.
So, three forms of the same chemical compound, with three very different properties.Three persons in one God.
I hope this isn’t too far off topic.
Click to expand...
Code: 
   Has anyone seen the children's book explaining the
   Trinity from the apple? The apple is made up of 3 
   things: skin, core, and seeds. Each is separate, yet
   each is apple. i always like that one.
 
i consider scott hahn worked excellent. at this point iam doing a bible studies of his, is the beginner one, an even do a lot of question has come ,that hopefully through the study i will be able to answer . iam in the adam’s part an even do i have question i been able to understand this much better than i ever have. sometimes i wish i can have him in front so i can ask him. i have heard several of his tapes an amazed by the way he explained catholic topics. sometimse i think he knows more than a lot of catholics. but that’s is good because then you can learned from it.🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top