R
rlg94086
Guest
Did you pay for a New Oxford Review subscription? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ New Oxford Review will thank you for that!
- Status
Scott Hahn is a theologian, and while I do believe his writings are well within Catholic teaching and do not deviate from what is allowed, no one is obligated to join the Scott Hahn fan club. I myself like him, however, and I enjoy reading him.
Feel free to steer from him if you are not comfortable; it does not make one any less Catholic.
A
anon52328184
Guest
no, i read the links provided by another poster in this thread.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Has anyone on this thread told you that?
I agree with one of the posters that acknowledges that Hahn may have some errors. I read a lot of different Catholic authors. While I am not a “Hahn-vert,” his books, along with those of Archbishop Chaput, Tim Staples, Patrick Madrid, John Paul II, etc., have helped me become a more faithful Catholic. I don’t fault any author for charging money for his books.
R
rlg94086
Guest
…then you didn’t read their whole review. How do you know it doesn’t contain errors?
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
Then that’s what you should do.
I’ve never heard anybody say that. As far as I know, reading Scott Hahn is not a requirement for salvation. If you don’t want to do it, then don’t.
In my Father’s house, there are many rooms. We are the Catholic (universal) Church. There are Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Jesuits, Benedictines, etc. all existing under the umbrella of the Church. If you’d rather not read books by Scott Hahn, then you shouldn’t read them. But is it OK with you if some of us do enjoy his works? Can we enjoy them without being called suckers, unformed in the Faith, heretics, and closet protestants?
R
RWMorris
Guest
Ron, maybe I am misunderstanding my Bible, but your interpretation seems easily proved wrong. Hebrews mentions two early priests by name. They may have been prefigurments of Jesus, but they were priests nonetheless.
My understanding of Hahn’s teaching is that Adam did not establish a priesthood, but that God created Adam to establish such a priesthood. Of course we all know that Adam “failed the test”.
Now I know that Paul was using this as a justification of how women were to behave, however it says more than that. If Adam was not deceived, how much greater was his sin than Eve’s? I notice that when God came for a visit after this, Eve admitted that she was deceived and blamed the serpent. Adam blamed Eve and God for his sin. Adam sounds pretty cowardly to me. He ate the fruit with full knowledge that he was sinning. And then, like the guilty coward he was, paraphrasingly exclaimed, “It wasn’t my fault!”
Could this disagreement with Hahn be just a problem with semantics?
A
anon52328184
Guest
ooops, did i say anything like that? i don’t think so.
A
allhers
Guest
I am a cradle Catholic and I think Dr. Scott Hahn and his wife Kimberely are awesome. I have seen both of them on EWTN for years, and listened to all they say when I have seen them on there and both of them know what they are talking about.
I do believe that Dr. Scott Hahn is one of the very few theologians that is able to teach Priest’s. So, apparently the Church doesn’t see a problem with him either.
If he is good enough for EWTN and the Catholic Church, he’s good enough, especially since he is able to teach Priest. How many of you skeptics can say that?
I do believe that Dr. Scott Hahn is one of the very few theologians that is able to teach Priest’s. So, apparently the Church doesn’t see a problem with him either.
If he is good enough for EWTN and the Catholic Church, he’s good enough, especially since he is able to teach Priest. How many of you skeptics can say that?
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
There is a discussion of the same article by Hahn here:
catholicintl.com/catholicissues/triple3.htm
Quoted from the article by Sungenis:
“From this novelty a grave problem arises: If Adam sinned before Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, then his own eating of it could not have been the Original sin but only Adam’s second sin. That is precisely Hahn’s contention. But, as I have just shown, the Church has always taught that it was not Eve’s sin but rather Adam’s that caused the Fall: “Adam’s sin is the basis of the dogma of original sin…” Hence, if only Eve had sinned there would have been no Fall.”
The Hahn article is called: “What Does the Bible Teach Us About the `Most Elusive’ Person of the Trinity?”
It’s not online that I could find.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
I find Scott Hahn’s theology, even when he does not err, to be superficial. He takes theology, dumbs it down, and makes it more entertaining and more palatable. It is like Popular Science magazine versus Nature magazine. He gives a pop-theology version of even correct ideas. It is as if he is teaching children, not adults. I think that his popularity is based on his ability to teach in an entertaining and easy to understand way, but that does not make his teaching correct.
And in my view, Hahn also makes many theological errors.
His understanding of the roles of men and women in God’s plan is heavily influenced by certain trends in Protestantism and in secular society, erasing differences in men’s and women’s roles, but also, when there are differences, it is always to the detriment of men and the exaltation of women. As a result, he feminizes the Holy Spirit, I think to try to exalt the feminine to the level of divinity. He misunderstands the different roles that Christ and Mary have in salvation; it is as if she has the same type role as Christ (in his view). This same fault in his theology also damages his understanding of Adam and Eve, and of original sin.
I also think that he still uses the approach that is common among some Protestant preachers, they start with Scripture, but use it merely as a springboard for their own novel ideas.
R
rlg94086
Guest
“That?” Well possibly not…what is “that?”
Such a question and follow-up statement make absolutely no sense if you don’t quote the post you are referring to. 
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Not everyone is as intellectual as some. His approach can be understood by a lot of people and not just the learned. Scott brought a lot of converts into the Church, how is that a bad thing?
Someone has asked you once, but have you contacted Scott about his “errors”?
I’d be glad to preview one of your books.
I don’t think his approach is to attract feminists as much as it is to impress the covenant of family.
As for his books on Mary, I’ve never got the impression that he is telling us she has the same type role as Christ. To be honest, I don’t get the exact same understanding from his perception of Adam and Eve as you are stating. I think I even remember, in his book, that he states it’s his hypothesis.
Scott converted himself through scriptures. He has opened my eyes to the types listed in the Old Testament and how they prefigure the New Testament. His scriptural teaching of the Mass takes away any doubts, in my mind.
I don’t understand the harsh judgements on him myself. As a Protestant theologian he was set for life. Once he converted, he wasn’t sure of what he could do to support his family. His books, tapes, dvds and cds have benefited many more than just his family, in my opinion.
S
strngrnrth
Guest
Wy do some people act as if it were wrong to sell writings? Singers are allowed to sing for a living. Painters are allowed to paint for a living. Actors are allowed to act for a living. This is so even if their subjects are religious. But to sell books! Some people seem to think selling one’s labor and talent is OK as long as one isn’t born to write. Writers must starve. Or they must take unrelated work and no more writing may be done. Why? 
I know some people sell writing for more than it’s worth, but some people sell pipe cleaners for more than they’re worth too. The market depends on people’s choices, and people don’t always choose exactly what someone else might wish they would. I think the answer to the sale of bad writing is to promote, not try to preach against, better writing.
I know some people sell writing for more than it’s worth, but some people sell pipe cleaners for more than they’re worth too. The market depends on people’s choices, and people don’t always choose exactly what someone else might wish they would. I think the answer to the sale of bad writing is to promote, not try to preach against, better writing.
B
Bridge
Guest
Just for the record, the article appears to be by Ferrara and not Sungenis.
I haven’t read anything by Scott Hahn but i have been impressed whenever i’ve seen him on EWTN; however, this article makes a strong case that he hadn’t thought through the implications of some of his novel theological ideas as much as perhaps he should have. Hopefully he’ll address these apparent problems at some point.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
With some of the “new age” teachings that have inflitrated the Church, I don’t see Scott Hahn’s teaching as our problem.
To give you an example, I had a nun teaching a Bible study class. We read a book that stated, “obviously, Jesus had brothers and sisters.” When questioned about this, the nun said there was nothing wrong with this, afterall Mary was married. When I defended the perpetual virginity, the nun said she took ever virgin to mean ever faithful.
I quit the Bible study, but in a prayer group the same nun read a part of the Gospels, where Jesus healed the Apostles mother-in-law. After reading it, the nun asked, whose mother-in-law? Someone said, Peter’s. The nun said, how do you know it doesn’t say whose mother-in-law. Couldn’t it have been Jesus’ mother-in-law. There would have been nothing wrong with that, it wouldn’t change her opinion of Him. I quit the prayer meeting.
Then came the homily from the priest. The homily about the feeding of the 5000. He told us it was a miracle of sharing because they all had food, Christ just convinced them to share. He told us mothers were there with children and mothers never go anywhere without taking food for the children. He also told us the disciples had food on a boat and asked how many boat trips we’ve ever been on that everyone didn’t bring icechest after icechest full of goodies.
I’ve wrote a Msgr. at the diocese about it and he said he would take care of the “erroneous” teachings and asked that I not approach the priest or the nun on this, as he knew I had already objected to them when these issues came up with the exception of the homily. The homily was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me, so I wrote an email to the diocese.
I’ve never seen any of Scott’s writings go anywhere near where a nun and priest had gone with their new age teachings.
P
peary1
Guest
Some of Hahn’s substantial theological errors:
he claims that Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the tree because Satan threatened them with death.
C’mon, Ron. Show us where…source?
he claims that the original sin of Adam was in not engaging the serpent (which was really a dragon or other monster) in the garden in mortal combat, at the sacrifice of his own life, for the sake of his beloved (Eve).
Source?
he claims that the wine mixed with gall (corrupted wine), on the sponge, the wine that Jesus rejected, is the fourth cup of the last supper (the first Mass). There are numerous theological problems with this claim, including that it equates corrupted wine with the earlier consecrated wine (the Eucharist), that it was rejected by Christ, yet included by Hahn as if equal to the other three cups, that this idea is not found in Tradition, nor does Scripture support the idea of even three cups at the last supper.
Source?
he represents the Holy Spirit as feminine, in contradiction to Liturgiam Authenticam, in contradiction to Tradition and Scripture.
**Source? **
Hahn calls the Holy Spirit “mother,” “motherly,” “maternal,” “feminine,” “womanhood,” and “bridal,” (New Oxford Review)
So do many of the saints down through the ages. Your point?
But since Father, Son, and Spirit have one and the same Nature, it cannot be in the nature of the Holy Spirit to be motherly, maternal, feminine, etc.
Compassion can be a ‘motherly’ or maternal feeling.
In addition, Hahn’s theology is often plagued by novelties, not found in Tradition, Scripture, or Magisterium. It is as if he is reinventing the Christian Faith.
Source?
**And you above everyone else in here, should have your sources!**
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
Nice article you linked to. It ends by ridiculing the Pope. I definitely don’t recall Scott Hahn saying things like that about the Successor to Peter.
The neo-Catholic establishment is a house built on the shifting sands of celebrity, including the celebrity of a hugely popular Pope who will not rule his Church, but rather basks in the adulation of a profoundly disoriented laity whose plight he does not seem to understand. The Church cannot be sustained in her mission by celebrities who hunger after novelty, whether it be carnal or theological. The Church does not need knights in shining armor from Washington, or books that make Hahn-verts instead of old fashioned converts, or even a Pope who is always celebrated but never feared.
B
Bridge
Guest
Yes, you’re right, and i am shocked to read about a nun saying those things. I would have been shocked by the priest too except that i remember you mentioning that story a while back
Scott Hahn by most all accounts has done far more good than any potential “harm” in the Catholic world. Still, it would be nice to see these issues re-visited by him; either to be defended or else modified perhaps. That in my opinion is what scholarly work should be about. On the other hand, if the critics had been less harsh, more charitable, perhaps Mr. Hahn would have been more open to them and more willing to dialog.
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
Condescending much?
You’re right, he should write so only other Ph.D.'s can understand what he’s talking about. Let the rest of us dummies fend for ourselves theologically.
Wasn’t there another guy, about 2,000 years ago, who taught in parables so everyday people could understand what he was talking about? What was that guy’s name?
With nothing to back up these assertions, they remain just your opinions. (In my view, that is what I think, anyhow.)
- Status