Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Catena Aurea contra Fourth Cup claims

7:30am, 9:00am, 11:Dr. Han avers that DR00amDr Hahn

BEDE; When the rites of the old Passover were finished, He passed to the new, in order, that is, to substitute the Sacrament of His own Body and Blood, for the flesh and blood of the lamb. Wherefore there follows: And as they did eat, Jesus took bread; that is, in order to show that He Himself is that person to whom the Lord swore, You are a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec. There follows: And blessed, and broke it.

BEDE; This may be also taken literally, for from the hour of supper up to the time of resurrection He was about to drink no wine. Afterwards He partook both of meat and drink, as Peter testifies, Who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

BEDE; Having finished the rites of the old Passover, He passes on to the new, which He desires the Church to celebrate in memory of His redemption, substituting for the flesh and blood of the lamb, the Sacrament of His own Flesh and Blood in the figure of the bread and wine, being made a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. …

BEDE; For this reason then the Apostles communicated after supper, because it was necessary that the typical passover should be first completed, and then they should pass on to the Sacrament of the true Passover. But now in honor of so great a Sacrament, the masters of the Church think right that we should first be refreshed with the spiritual banquet, and afterward with the earthly

THEOPHYL. But how is our Lord said to sit down, whereas the Jews eat the Passover standing?

But Dr. Hahn claims that Jesus followed the Order (Seder) which was actually established by Messias-Deniers after the destruction of the City of Deicide.

How can all of this clear and convincing evidence from Catholic Tradition be cast aside which such a cavalier look-what-I-discovered egoism?

Well, I have tried my level best to show where Dr. Hahn is wrong. I have nothing left to write on this particular topic as it is crystal clear he is in error and belaboring facts will not pierce an Ideology nor curtail the hunger for novelty amongst the Hahn-verts.

As for Dr. Hahn his own self. I have seen him only once in person and I have read a few of his books and so I know enough about his errors in serious matters to not trust him in any matters.

I will send what I have discovered to Dr. Hahn's R.A. with the expectation that it will have zero effect on either of them.

C'est la vie.


  1. Perhaps you would consider sending your thoughts to other Catholics in the blogosphere who do not have a stake, financial or otherwise, in Hahn's continued popularity. Seems to me this would make for some jolly good discussion and edification. Prolly anyway.

  2. Dear Gloria. I have sent it to others who are, understandably, reluctant to oppose Dr. Hahn because he was the one who led them to conversion.

    In any event, I love the use of "prolly." I picked up use of it from reading Flannery O'Connor.

    Dr. Hahn will be in my neck of the woods on Jan 25 and I will be there to hand him a packet of info.

    O, I also gave this info to my Parish Priest with zero response from him - but then again, the Parish hosted his Fourth Cup Lecture :)

    All one can do is try one's level best and then let the chips fall where they may.

  3. Too bad! I hope you will find some willing listeners. FYI, I was also drawn to the Church by way of Hahn (sort of obliquely, I saw him on EWTN one night and kept tuning in to find him again and instead found myself listening to priests teaching about the Eucharist) but I am more than willing and able to hear the truth. His explanation of the Noah's nakedness never made any sense to me so I'm interested in your posts on that topic as well. The truth will win out, or so I am told anyway.