Scott Hahn and "Prima Scriptura"?

Prima Scriptura is excluded by “Dei Verbum,” which iterates and reiterates the conjoining of Tradition plus Holy Scripture; each acting as a check and rule on each other; all as interpreted through the divinely-guided teaching of Peter and the Apostles. Articles 10 and 24 in “Dei Verbum” explain this dynamic, which is nowhere reduced to anything so simplistic as Prima Scriptura, and encompasses Christ as the Word, and Tradition and Holy Scripture as the word of God, the deposit of faith.

Of course encyclicals like “Dei Verbum” are themselves outside Prima Scriptura. Prima Scriptura is a theological absurdity, as the teaching of the apostolic Church predated any consigning of the Gospel to writing. There is no temporal consonance. Citing “Dei Verbum” as support for Prima Scriptura is an apologetics bluff.

Dei Verbum excerpt:

"10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)
But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."

Can you have this Steubenville grad write me? Thanks and God bless!. nordskoven@yahoo.com

[quote=+veritas+]Thanks everyone for the great insights and references on this!

For the record, my friend is a strongly orthodox Catholic as far as I am aware–this is why it shocked all of us to hear him talk like this about Scott Hahn. He studied at Steubenville and then in Rome for 7 years, he is currently going for his doctorate in theology.

I have no idea what grade he got in Dr. Hahn’s class, he didn’t mention it :rolleyes: but I highly suspect that it may not have been an ‘A’…

He had many personal comments about Dr. Hahn as well, bordering on slander in my opinion (therefore I will not share them here…).

On the theological side, he also disliked Dr. Hahn’s use of non-Christian texts, namely Jewish books. (He did not tell us the titles of these “bad” books however) According to my friend, the use of these books is not allowed for professors who had sought mandatums and official declarations that they would only teach the Catholic faith. He then said that when he confronted Dr. Hahn with the Code of Canon Law about this, Dr. Hahn went and got a dispensation from the bishop and showed it to him… this didn’t seem to appease my friend though, since he still brought it up as being a black mark against Dr. Hahn.

It does not seem like the mere use of Jewish books is a horrible sin against the Church (granted, depending on what they are and in what course they are being used in). I don’t see that it was inherently wrong for Dr. Hahn to use non-Christian books, at least Jewish ones (and the Jews are the fathers of our faith after all!!) :confused:

Does anyone have any thoughts on this issue? Can anyone give me any Church documents referencing the use of non-Christian books in teaching religion?

In any case, it seems to me that this is just one person’s unfair black-balling of a person’s professional status based primarily on their personal relationship with them… very sad. :frowning:

+veritas+
[/quote]

Good grief. I teacher ought to be able to use any book he likes as reference . It is the teaching of the teacher that is important --not that every thing in every book he uses is 100% Ok. Getting a Mandatum on every book one might reference would be impossible.

The underlying assumption of prima Scriptura must be examined: that Tradition as it was initially transmitted before the death of the last was inspired, but Tradition as we receive it today is not inspired.

[quote=tmak]Clint,

Where are we finding that Holy Tradition is from the Holy Spirit??

Tom
[/quote]

Logical consequence if nothing else.

The Holy Spirit is the active agent since Easter (various biblical references including the specific reference that the Holy Spirit will guide the appostles…)

The Church is The Church founded by Jesus.

So what is the mechanism God would use to support His Church if not the Holy Spirit? Sola Scriptura? I think not… that’s been proven not to work… hundreds of distinct denominations is the result of that failed approach.

Clint

[quote=Vincent]that Tradition as it was initially transmitted before the death of the last was inspired, but Tradition as we receive it today is not inspired.
[/quote]

Only Scripture is inspired; Tradition is without error, but the theological notion of inspiration has always been applied to Scripture alone. In line with that, Hahn does not assert that Tradition was ever inspired.

[quote=Chris Burgwald]Only Scripture is inspired; Tradition is without error, but the theological notion of inspiration has always been applied to Scripture alone. In line with that, Hahn does not assert that Tradition was ever inspired.
[/quote]

I don’t know (or in this particular, care) what Hahn asserts - and I didn’t use the term ‘inspired’ in connection with Tradition - but how do you propose to explain the fact that Tradition is without error without The Holy Spirit?

Clint

Tom - RE Where are we finding that Holy Tradition is from the Holy Spirit?? I would offer John 16:13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.

[quote=RCEllis]I don’t know (or in this particular, care) what Hahn asserts - and I didn’t use the term ‘inspired’ in connection with Tradition - but how do you propose to explain the fact that Tradition is without error without The Holy Spirit?

Clint
[/quote]

:confused: Clint, I didn’t say you did use the term ‘inspired’ w/ regard to Tradition, I was quoting someone else (as my comment indicated).

Nor do I understand why you’re asking my your question… I’ve not stated that Tradition is without error, nor have I asserted that the Holy Spirit is uninvolved in the process.

:hmmm:

To the “friend” who dislikes Dr. Scott Hahn so much, I would just reference Mr. Hahn’s priceless additions to the current Catholic communities: books, tapes, and a message that touches the hearts of Catholic Christians, other Christians, and non-Christians alike to desire a truly complete faith in Christ.

To the angry, bitter (and probably jealous) former student, I would judge Dr. Hahn’s effectivess and selfless dedication to the Faith as evidences of his true standings. In such a case, consider the source before getting to wrapped around the axle about what someone says about Dr. Hahn.

[quote=Chris Burgwald]:confused: Clint, I didn’t say you did use the term ‘inspired’ w/ regard to Tradition, I was quoting someone else (as my comment indicated).

Nor do I understand why you’re asking my your question… I’ve not stated that Tradition is without error, nor have I asserted that the Holy Spirit is uninvolved in the process.

:hmmm:
[/quote]

Opps! Sorry. I guess I was responding to someone else and got your message quoted.

Apparently I getschtalted (sp?) several comments together in reading them quickly. Sorry again.

Clint

[quote=RCEllis]Opps! Sorry. I guess I was responding to someone else and got your message quoted.

Apparently I getschtalted (sp?) several comments together in reading them quickly. Sorry again.

Clint
[/quote]

Ah! Not a problem. :thumbsup:

[quote=RCEllis]Logical consequence if nothing else.

The Holy Spirit is the active agent since Easter (various biblical references including the specific reference that the Holy Spirit will guide the appostles…)

The Church is The Church founded by Jesus.

So what is the mechanism God would use to support His Church if not the Holy Spirit? Sola Scriptura? I think not… that’s been proven not to work… hundreds of distinct denominations is the result of that failed approach.

Clint
[/quote]

Clint,

My mistake. . . I originally began thinking of tradition as the oral traditions exsisting before the Scriptures put into written and edited into written form. I was not thinking of the Apostolic Traditions nor the Earily Church Traditions. I definitely agree with you about the “activity” of the Holy Spirit involved with these. Without a doubt He was and is!

This points to the fact that we must be careful when speaking about traditions. I believe there were early oral traditions which existed before the final editing of the wrttem form of Scripture which would not have been included in Scripture because they were not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Would you agree??

Tom

[quote=tmak]Clint,

…This points to the fact that we must be careful when speaking about traditions. I believe there were early oral traditions which existed before the final editing of the wrttem form of Scripture which would not have been included in Scripture because they were not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Would you agree??

Tom
[/quote]

Yes. The many ‘gospels’ and ‘letters’ not included in the Canon are out of those non-inspired traditions.

Clint

If Scott Hahn is teaching heretically regarding Scripture vs. Tradition, he has done a good job of hiding it in all the books I’ve read and tape sets I’ve listened to.

Can someone please explain how he could have penned “Hail Holy Queen” if not for a sincere belief in Tradition?

[quote=Vincent]In describing prima Scriptura, Jimmy Akin writes, "Apostolic Scripture does have primacy over Apostolic Tradition (and the Church as well; see Vatican II, Dei Verbum 11). We look to it first and foremost because it is inspired, giving us God’s ipsisima verba. But we also look to Apostolic Tradition to help us understand Apostolic Scripture, since it conveys God’s ipsisima vox."As Akin explains, the words of Apostolic Scripture are inspired, but “while the original giving of Apostolic Tradition was inspired, the words in which it has been passed down to us are not inspired.”
[/quote]

Vincent, I do not wish to challenge your post because so far I am in agreement with your conclusion. My only problem is that I went to Dei Verbum 11 and did not find your quote. I assumed that (11) referred to paragraph 11, and the inspiration of Scripture was indeed the subject of paragraph 11 but I do not see the words that you cite. Can you help me in finding that exact quote. I am trying to straighten out an apparent contradiction since another poster citing Die Verbum quoted something that was the exact opposite of yours. Any help?

There have been several quotes from Dei Verbum thus far, but I have not yet seem the most important for this discussion.

Dei Verbum, 9 (from www.vatican.va):

Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

Dei Verbum, 9 (the edition from Dominican Publications edited by Austin Flannery, O.P):

Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence. (6)

There is also a pertinent quote from the Council of Trent.

Trent, Session IV, Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures:

Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession.

Does anyone know anything about the Vincent’s quote from James Akin also quoting from Dei Verbum? Its got the be there somewhere!!!

I read James Akin’s article and Dei Verbum 11, it only mentions that the Scriptures are inspired. It is rather misleading on Mr. Akin’s part to imply that the Dei Verbum supports his position on Prima Scriptura.

If you do not beleive me, here is Dei Verbum 11 in its entirety:

  1. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

[quote=martino]Does anyone know anything about the Vincent’s quote from James Akin also quoting from Dei Verbum? Its got the be there somewhere!!!
[/quote]

James Akin isn’t quoting from Dei Verbum 11. He is referring to it.

[quote=Prometheum_x]James Akin isn’t quoting from Dei Verbum 11. He is referring to it.
[/quote]

Ok, the person that made reference to James Akin had it in parentheses making look like a direct quote. I read Dei Verbum 11 and do not see prima scriptura even remotely implied there so I am not sure what Vincent was talking about.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.