8 And the sons of Noe, who came out of the ark, were Sem, Cham, and Japheth: and Cham is the father of Chanaan.
19 These three are the sons of Noe: and from these was all mankind spread over the whole earth.
20 And Noe a husbandman began to till the ground, and planted a vineyard.
21 And drinking of the wine was made drunk, and was uncovered in his tent.
22 Which when Cham the father of Chanaan had seen, to wit, that his father's nakedness was uncovered, he told it to his two brethren without.
23 But Sem and Japheth put a cloak upon their shoulders, and going backward, covered the nakedness of their father: and their faces were turned away, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
24 And Noe awaking from the wine, when he had learned what his younger son had done to him,
25 He said: Cursed be Chanaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said: Blessed be the Lord God of Sem, be Chanaan his servant.
We at ABE Ministry have perfected the art of apologies and forgiveness-begging because we specialise in sin and error and we have been up to our old sins and errors recently and so, once again, we seek pardon of our sins and pledge fidelity to The Body of Christ as we issue the STOP-ACTING-LIKE-CHAM Edict.
When Christian Catholics (that is what we are supposed to call our own selves) routinely uncover the nakedness of their Father, Pope Francis, by attacking him publicly, Cui Bono?
There is no good that can come from this. We will not be blessed for condemning our Father publicly but we will be blessed for cloaking our Father publicly.
And if IANS fails to bestir his own self to cloak our Father by defending him publicly, the least he can do is follow the counsel of Foley;
Satan can, and does, use everything - especially Tradition * - to attack the Church Jesus established and by publicly uncovering the nakedness of our Father, we are the slaves of Satan and not loyal sons of Our Father in Heaven.
We can not control others, we can only control our own selves and aiding and abetting the AntiChrist ain't an idea we ought be too keen on.
Uncovering the nakedness of our Father publicly is a sign of our own weakness. Are we fearful that if we do not uncover our Father's nakedness, we have somehow failed?
OK, if that is your idea, source it in the Church Fathers; go on, identify one of them who told us we have a duty to attack our Father publicly.
Y'all may do what you desire but as for me and mine?
We will serve the Lord by succoring even he whom soi disant trads call a sucker.
* Satan is exploiting Tradition by using the SSPX
as a stick with which to whip and scourge The Body of Christ, the Church Jesus established and Satan is especially adroit at using the Immemorial Mass as a tool to pry away from Jesus' Church those attached to that Holy Rite. What, you didn't think Satan would use Holy Things to ruin souls and attack the Catholic Church? He does; just look at what Satan has done to the putatively faithful
Catholics who have fallen for the lies of the
Medjugorje Cult -Rosaries and Miracles. Satan
never rests and he is clever and diabolical in his
use of that which is Holy or that which seems to
be Tradition.
I guess we come to the issue of whether or not God is truth. And if He is, then whether truth always leads to God, and untruth away from God.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Satan is the father of lies: but does that mean that we should avoid only lies in the strict sense of moral theology, or whether untruth is also a problem even if not a lie per se.
Personally, I do not believe that we are EVER called to say that which is not true: that's not the loyalty that God wants from us. Moreover, the same logic you offer is equally applicable to bishops and pastors and priests…and religious when they are authorized to teach in the name of the Church.
BTW, I thought we got away from this whole mode of thinking with the scandal…which would still be going on if nobody had publicly objected to the actions of a Church authority...
Dear Mr. Spencer. My Faith is unaffected by what a Pope does or does not say in a sermon or an interview. I guess I have adopted the attitude of Saint Bill Belichick; "It is what it is."
ReplyDeleteNo matter whether I scream of cajole or complain or correct (and especially if I am correct) the effect is always internal division and when that division issues from the competent authorities it is indeed damaging but that is a cross we must silently bear before the world which will mock us for our putative silent cooperation with malign machinations.
We can only control our own selves and any action we take to try and cover the putative nakedness of Our Father will be rewarded.
No matter what is going on in the madness around us we must always wait on the Lord.
~Spartucus,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if the interpretation of the passage is an actual nakedness. I have read that the phrase "father's nakedness" in Hebrew refers to incest. Noah upon waking up, therefore curses Canaan, the offspring of Ham and his own mother.
Without going in to Theological interpretation of the story of Noah, I think your purpose is best served if you simply elaborate on the sin of Detraction.
Dear Eufrosnia. The cloaking vs incest is, by far, the most likely giving the principles of exegesis. Even Dom Orchard's (50s) :A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scriptures" accepts cloaking and offers not a hint of incest that many, Including Dr Hahn as I recall, write about.
ReplyDeleteHmm, I did in fact hear the incest idea from Dr. Hahn. What Dr. Hahn states does seem valid though considering Leviticus 18:6-18, Leviticus 20:11,17 speaks of uncovering nakedness which can only reasonably be seen to speak in the sexual context. Especially Lev. 20:11 states "The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness".
DeleteIt also seems odd that Noah would just curse Ham for seeing Noah naked and telling his brothers about it. Why would there be such an aversion in Ham's brothers toward seeing the father's nakedness given they are males themselves? That is why I feel that the cloaking interpretation is a bit lacking.
But regardless, I think you make a good point about the Pope and our duty toward him.
Haydock's Douay notes:
ReplyDeleteVer. 21. Drunk. Noe by the judgment of the fathers was not guilty of sin, in being overcome by wine; because he knew not the strength of it. (Challoner) --- Wine, Though vines had grown from the beginning, the art of making wine seems not to have been discovered; and hence Noe's fault is much extenuated, and was at most only a venial sin. (Menochius) --- His nakedness prefigured the desolate condition of Christ upon the cross, which was a scandal to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles. But by this folly we are made wise; we are redeemed, and enjoy the name of Christians. Sem and Japheth represent the multitude of believers, Cham and Chanaan the audacity and impudence of all unbelievers. (St. Augustine, contra Faust. xii. 24; City of God xvi. 2; St. Cyprian, ep. 63.[62.?] ad Cæcil.) (Worthington) --- Like the Manichees, modern heretics are very free in condemning many innocent actions of the Patriarchs. (Haydock)
Ver. 23. Neither ought we to be so quick-sighted in discovering the faults of any: which we often represent as real, when they are only apparent. (Haydock)
Ver. 25. Cursed be Chanaan. The curses, as well as the blessings, of the patriarchs were prophetical: and this in particular is here recorded by Moses, for the children of Israel, who were to possess the land of Chanaan. But why should Chanaan be cursed for his father's fault? The Hebrews answer, that he being then a boy was the first that saw his grandfather's nakedness, and told his father Cham of it; and joined with him in laughing at it: which drew upon him, rather than upon the rest of the children of Cham, this prophetical curse. (Challoner) --- Theodoret, q. 57. The children of Sem executed this sentence, in exterminating many of the Chanaanites under Josue. (Worthington) --- They perished for their own wickedness, which God foresaw, and revealed to Noe. Cham was severely punished by this denunciation of his children's misery. See Milton, xi. 754. xii. 27; Deuteronomy ix. 4. (Haydock)
Pope Leo XII cautioned that we ought stick with the exegesis of the Fathers and Dr Hahn's several exegetical novelties do not persuade me to abandon what was once thought solid exegesis
So how do you regard the evidence from Leviticus? Do you consider Leviticus to be speaking of actual nakedness as well? How do you also understand Lev 20:11 "The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness"?
DeleteOn Pope Leo XIII, in Providentissimus Deus he states
"A wide field is still left open to the private student, in which his hermeneutical skill may display itself with signal effect and to the advantage of the Church. On the one hand, in those passages of Holy Scripture which have not as yet received a certain and definitive interpretation, such labours may, in the benignant providence of God, prepare for and bring to maturity the judgment of the Church; on the other, in passages already defined, the private student may do work equally valuable, either by setting them forth more clearly to the flock and more skilfully to scholars, or by defending them more powerfully from hostile attack."
I am pretty sure that the particular part of Noah's story we are discussing has no definitive interpretation as accepted by the Church. So I see no reason why we should just disregard Dr. Hahn on the basis that he disagrees with the Church fathers on a non-definitive interpretation.
I admit that I do not know Hebrew so perhaps Lev 20:11 is actually different in its original text and has no relevance to this issue. But as it stands, is it not reasonable to think the passage does give Dr. Hahn's theological position more weight over that of the fathers?
Dr Hahn has publicly promoted numerous novelties and we at ABE Ministry have been in a lengthy email exchange with one of his students about his First Class error in his Fourth Cup Thesis.
DeleteI will be summarising the exchange once my guests departs. I know the Hahn-verts are legion but IANS is not amongst them. IANS sticks with the golden oldies - Catena Aureaa, Haydock, and Cornelius a Lapide.
We at ABE Ministry even find the Dom Orchard 1950s Commentary of Holy Scripture far superior to anything we have ever read by Dr. Hahn. Dr. Hahn's sources include a majority of protestants whereas IANS' do not.
Because the Bible - including the Old Testament - is owned lock, stock and barrel by Holy Mother Church, we at ABE Ministry accept as experts only men who are Catholic for how can it be said of a man that he is a Biblical expert if he has yet to figure-ourt that the Catholic Church is the one true Church?
Dear Eufrosnia "I am pretty sure that the particular part of Noah's story we are discussing has no definitive interpretation as accepted by the Church. So I see no reason why we should just disregard Dr. Hahn on the basis that he disagrees with the Church fathers on a non-definitive interpretation."
ReplyDeleteI disregard every claim of his but in this particular instance what he claims is at odds with the consistent orthodox exegesis of well over one thousand years of Ecclesiastical Praxis. What is it about Dr Hahn that makes you think he knows more about the Bible than those who preceded him?
Well, I am not a theologian myself. I do not neccessarily think Dr. Hahn knows more about the Bible either. For most of his work, it would be a compilation and making of connections between the sources that would already be available in different places and times.
DeleteSo I would have no problem assuming Dr. Hahn's authority to be zero in this case. But it still leaves the argument he raises as to how we understand Leviticus (especially Lev 20:11), no? What is the traditional exegesis of that passage?
I think you also make a positive argument that I must address (for it will negate even asking the above question). Your argument seems to be that tradition is unanimously in agreement over one thousand years on the interpretation of Noah's passage. But I would like to point out to you that even if it were true, Pope Leo XIII does not state that one cannot contradict the interpretations of the fathers of the Church. In fact, Pope Leo XIII states that we may not contradict the interpretations already given by the sacred writers (the ones who wrote the inspired texts in the Bible) in the new testament regarding the old testament.
The other criterion that has been asked to not be contradicted is that of the case where the Church has adopted a particular position (presumable when teaching through the ordinary magesterium or the Papal office) regarding a Scriptural interpretation. That too cannot be contradicted. So my understanding is that if Dr. Hahn were to reinterpret the passages from Romans and James in a way that favors the Protestants, he would be in violation.
Since the interpretation of the passage on Noah is neither from the ordinary magesterium or the Papal office, and neither is it interpreted in that way in the new testament (not from what my memory tells me), I do not see how your objection is valid. Perhaps if you explain how you understand Pope Leo's XIII position, it will help me better understand as well.
I am also looking forward to reading your future post on Dr. Hahn's. I am not a Hahn-vert though I do come across his material frequently. So it would be beneficial to know what part of his teachings are illegitimately novel.
Dear Eufrosnia. I was born a Catholic long before Dr Hahn converted and I have yet to read anything produced by him that has made me think he has anything to add to orthodox Catholic exegesis but I do think his novelties are dangerous for several reasons and the piece you are readind lays-out some of those serious problems
DeleteHello again,
DeleteI did read the article you mentioned in full and it was very informative. I agree with the author on the problem of Dr. Hahn with the Holy Trinity. His Covenant focused theories are extended too much to the level of God in the image of man (rather than man in the image of God).
However, some of his other concerns are theological battles. It is an argument of whether Dr. Hahn's interpretation of a particular passage seems more accurate than his. There is also no specific Church teaching that either interpretation contradicts directly. The reason why I am hesitant to accuse Dr. Hahn on these grounds is that most parish priests and Bishops (including the Popes) today do the same thing. They give their own theological interpretations of a passage for a homily to draw people in. Since Dr. Hahn seems to write to a general audience and not obviously for Academics, I don't see him as being any different. If we truly believe that what Dr. Hahn is doing is dangerous to the faith and should be actively corrected, then I fail to see how anyone could feel the other way regarding the parish priests, Bishops and Pope.
Note that by the authors own admittance, his issue is with Dr. Hahn not presenting his ideas to academic circles (attempt to publish them academically, I presume). But that only shows that Dr. Hahn himself knows that he hasn't done enormous amounts of thinking on the particular subject. He is just giving speeches (albeit in written books) to draw people to the faith. So its hard to criticize him too much in that sense.
Now with respect to this particular issue. I think you are making this too much about Dr. Hahn. Let us forget that this is Dr. Hahn's theory. Let us say this is coming from a person with zero theological authority like me. So I am asking you how you would explain away Lev. 20:11 which seems to clearly state what is the father's nakedness. The merits of this question does not depend on my theological authority, right? So I would like to know how you would answer such a question and I think we can forget that this argument was originally from Dr. Hahn while we discuss this particular matter.
I just want to add ~Spartacus to what I said about Dr. Hahn and "Theological battles". Although I said that we should let it pass, I myself am not convinced we should. Its just that if we should correct him, then I would also have to correct my parish priest who pulls the weirdest interpretations from Scripture readings of the day. Then there is the Pope too who tends to present theological interpretations of passages that do not coincide with the traditional. I personally gave up trying to correct because of that. It just felt like it wasn't worth it.
DeleteI also must say that I noticed that most people I spoke to after a homily never caught the problematic aspects usually (or perhaps the entire homily). So I came a to practical decision to just ignore these things without voicing my concerns. BUT, I cannot say that I am fully convinced with my own decisions.
Google
ReplyDeleteCONVERTS OR “HAHN-VERTS”? Edward O'Neill Scott Hahn's ...
to read an interesting piece on the novelties of Dr. Hahn.
For our own part, we at Abe Ministry are less than satisfied by the numerous dodges we received in response to our polite questions that were fielded by one of his grad students.
About that, more latter...
Oh, I almost missed this post of yours. I will give it a read. Thanks!
DeleteLev 20:Ver. 11. Father. See chap. xviii. 8. It is supposed that the father was dead, otherwise the punishment would probably be greater than for adultery. The Samaritan, "with the wife of his father's brother." (Calmet)
ReplyDeleteBecause Dr Hahn is wrong about so many things I do not trust him in anything.
I am not sure I understand. Lets forget about Dr. Hahn altogether. Lets say someone is asking you a honest question. That question is
DeleteYou say that Ham's sin is seeing the Noah's actual naked body
But
Q1) It is not Ham's or Canan's fault that Noah was naked and immodest
Q2) Unless we are to assume that Ham is gay, how are we to think that Ham lusted after Noah?
Q3) It is more than likely that any son in their life time saw their father naked, especially in the father's old age as the son helped him change clothes for an example.
Q4) How can such a normal act then warrant the punishment of a curse on the son of Ham who is NEVER mentioned as having even seen Noah naked?
Therefore this explanation given by the Church fathers and yourself seems inadequate and makes more assumptions than necessary.
But wait, Leviticus seems to speak about the nakedness of the father and others and it specifically seems to speak of them in the sexual context. Oh wait, there is even more. Leviticus 20:11 clearly states that the man who slept with the father's wife (aka mother) has "uncovered the father's nakedness". So it seems more reasonable to think that Ham's sin is actually sleeping with his mother. Which also obviously explains Noah's curse upon the offspring of such a union: Canaan.
So I fail to see how you have addressed this argument/questions. Instead of addressing any of these, dare I say it, you attack Dr. Hahn. Since I am not a Hahnvert, I honestly couldn't careless if you thought he was a heretic. But what I do care about is how you address a valid argument. It does not matter if the argument is from a heretic. The argument stands or falls on its own merits or on the basis that it contradicts a definitive teaching of the Church. Even if Dr. Hahn is a heretic, in this case he is not speaking on a matter that is definitive teaching of the Church. So we cannot dismiss his argument on that ground. Then it is up to you to show why his argument is weak, wrong etc. You cannot just prove the argument wrong by showing how Dr. Hahn is wrong on other things.
Also, while I do admit that Dr. Hahn is wrong on somethings, I am not sure how you can say he is wrong on "many things". Why do I say this? Because Dr. Hahn as far as I have read him recycles the same stuff that is from the Church fathers or Saints for the most part (in a language and organization more appealing to a lay person). So I would say its a bit unfair to say that he has taught so much error that anything he says should be an error (which is a logical fallacy anyway).
So can you please address the objection here for now and we can discuss Dr. Hahn specifically when you get around to writing the fresh post detailing your exchange with his grad student.
"You say that Ham's sin is seeing the Noah's actual naked body"
DeleteDear Eufrosnia. Where did I ever write that?
Sorry about that. It was not you who said it but it was the quote you cited to me from Haydock with respect to verse 25.
DeleteHowever, I feel that this only weakens your case. Because now you are also giving the words "uncovered", "nakedness" different meanings. In doing so, your pit yourself against a meaning that has already contained in Scripture itself in Leviticus.
Dear Eufrosnia. At 9:43 you write "Lets forget about Dr. Hahn altogether.." and then you go on to write many sentences about him in the very same post.
ReplyDeleteWe are just going to have to disagree about Dr. Hahn. I have no use for his novelties and if he does indeed recycle the Fathers as you claim he does, why would I read his recycling rather than the works of those Early Church Fathers?
In any event, I am done with Dr. Hahn in this particular thread. I answered your questions about Leviticus by posting the long-standing orthodox Catholic exegesis but if you want to supplant those with what Dr Hahn teaches, be my guest.
I wrote many sentences about him so that I can at least make it clear to you why your logic is a bit flawed. You seem to have this concept in your mind that "If its Dr. Hahn, I can dismiss the argument because he has made many mistakes". That is a fallacious line of reasoning. But from the way you reply I can see that you do not want to address the argument itself because you think 'its from that Dr. Hahn'. So naturally, I felt it best to try and alleviate your concerns.
DeleteAs for Lev 20:11, the exegesis you gave is not even relevant to the matter. It only explains why the punishment is not as severe as the one reserved for adultery.
If you do not want to continue on this thread, that is fine. I respect that. But please do keep a bit more of an open mind in the future and don't just dismiss arguments based on who they are from.
Catholic Encyclopedia. Cham
Delete(A.V. Ham). Son of Noah and progenitor of one of the three great races of men whose ethnographical table is given by Genesis 10. Wherever the three sons of Noah are enumerated in the Bible, Cham is placed between Sem and Japhet. We may gather, however, from Genesis 9:24 that this enumeration is not based on their age, since Cham is there spoken of as the "younger son" of Noah, as compared, apparently, with both his brothers. The only incident of the life of Cham after the deluge, which is recorded in the Bible, is that related in Genesis 9:21-24. Cham sees his father under the influence of wine lying naked in his tent. He tells his brothers, who respectfully cover the patriarch. The sequel makes it plain that Cham was, on this occasion, guilty of great irreverence. For when Noah hears of the conduct of his sons he blesses Shem and Japhet, with their posterity, and he pronounces a curse, not on Cham, but on his son Chanaan and his descendants, predicting that they will be the servants of their bretheren. (For a fuller treatment of this point see Chanaan, Chanaanites.)
City of God Book 16:
DeleteChapter 2.— What Was Prophetically Prefigured in the Sons of Noah.
The things which then were hidden are now sufficiently revealed by the actual events which have followed. For who can carefully and intelligently consider these things without recognizing them accomplished in Christ? Shem, of whom Christ was born in the flesh, means named. And what is of greater name than Christ, the fragrance of whose name is now everywhere perceived, so that even prophecy sings of it beforehand, comparing it in the Song of Songs, Song of Songs 1:3 to ointment poured forth? Is it not also in the houses of Christ, that is, in the churches, that the enlargement of the nations dwells? For Japheth means enlargement. And Ham (i.e., hot), who was the middle son of Noah, and, as it were, separated himself from both, and remained between them, neither belonging to the first-fruits of Israel nor to the fullness of the Gentiles, what does he signify but the tribe of heretics, hot with the spirit, not of patience, but of impatience, with which the breasts of heretics are wont to blaze, and with which they disturb the peace of the saints? But even the heretics yield an advantage to those that make proficiency, according to the apostle's saying, There must also be heresies, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 1 Corinthians 11:19 Whence, too, it is elsewhere said, The son that receives instruction will be wise, and he uses the foolish as his servant. For while the hot restlessness of heretics stirs questions about many articles of the Catholic faith, the necessity of defending them forces us both to investigate them more accurately, to understand them more clearly, and to proclaim them more earnestly; and the question mooted by an adversary becomes the occasion of instruction. However, not only those who are openly separated from the church, but also all who glory in the Christian name, and at the same time lead abandoned lives, may without absurdity seem to be figured by Noah's middle son: for the passion of Christ, which was signified by that man's nakedness, is at once proclaimed by their profession, and dishonored by their wicked conduct. Of such, therefore, it has been said, By their fruits you shall know them. Matthew 7:20 And therefore was Ham cursed in his son, he being, as it were, his fruit. So, too, this son of his, Canaan, is fitly interpreted their movement, which is nothing else than their work. But Shem and Japheth, that is to say, the circumcision and uncircumcision, or, as the apostle otherwise calls them, the Jews and Greeks, but called and justified, having somehow discovered the nakedness of their father (which signifies the Saviour's passion), took a garment and laid it upon their backs, and entered backwards and covered their father's nakedness, without their seeing what their reverence hid. For we both honor the passion of Christ as accomplished for us, and we hate the crime of the Jews who crucified Him. The garment signifies the sacrament, their backs the memory of things past: for the church celebrates the passion of Christ as already accomplished, and no longer to be looked forward to, now that Japheth already dwells in the habitations of Shem, and their wicked brother between them.
But the wicked brother is, in the person of his son (i.e., his work), the boy, or slave, of his good brothers, when good men make a skillful use of bad men, either for the exercise of their patience or for their advancement in wisdom. For the apostle testifies that there are some who preach Christ from no pure motives; but, says he, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. Philippians 1:18 For it is Christ Himself who planted the vine of which the prophet says, The vine of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel; Isaiah 5:7 and He drinks of its wine, whether we thus understand that cup of which He says, Can ye drink of the cup that I shall drink of? Matthew 20:22 and, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, Matthew 26:39 by which He obviously means His passion. Or, as wine is the fruit of the vine, we may prefer to understand that from this vine, that is to say, from the race of Israel, He has assumed flesh and blood that He might suffer; and he was drunken, that is, He suffered; and was naked, that is, His weakness appeared in His suffering, as the apostle says, though He was crucified through weakness. 2 Corinthians 13:4 Wherefore the same apostle says, The weakness of God is stronger than men; and the foolishness of God is wiser than men. 1 Corinthians 1:25 And when to the expression he was naked Scripture adds in his house, it elegantly intimates that Jesus was to suffer the cross and death at the hands of His own household, His own kith and kin, the Jews. This passion of Christ is only externally and verbally professed by the reprobate, for what they profess, they do not understand. But the elect hold in the inner man this so great mystery, and honor inwardly in the heart this weakness and foolishness of God. And of this there is a figure in Ham going out to proclaim his father's nakedness; while Shem and Japheth, to cover or honor it, went in, that is to say, did it inwardly.
DeleteDear Eufrosnia. Please, no more about this. It is you who are opposing orthodox exegesis by succoring Dr Hahn whose exegesis is carnal on this pint - and others.
You are impressed by Dr. Hahn and his many novelties that are contrary to orthodox catholic exegesis. I get that.
But he e has not one thing to offer that I am interested in.
By continuing to pursue this matter, you are walking into haymakers and that ain't logical.
This thread is over. Please stop responding