Scott Hahn

[allhers]

Thanks for the link, I didn’t realize they had their own network. I was calling it by the program name on EWTN, Journey Home.

LOL, I always thought of it that way too, but, when I did a “google” on the journey home, it took me to someplace that definately was NOT Marcus Grodi’s show. I just had to do a google on Marcus Grodi himself to come up with his show.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

i will have to see if i can catch the journey home with scott hahn as that is one of my favorite programs. thanks for the background. i guess this would be a title for another thread, but i would be interested to know the differences between the protestant perspective on revelations and the catholic perspective. thanks.

Hahn has been on the show a couple of times. He was just on a week ago. It’s best to record the show, because you need to watch it more than once. He has a lot to say and the ideas come fast and furious.

 

[Chancellor]

Scott Hahn’s teaching has had a powerful positive effect on the faith of a great number of Catholics. The fact that the criticism of him is so shrill and hostile is leading me to change Hahn from the category of “teacher” to that of “prophet”.

As Jesus said: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I have wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!”

OH NO!! We have just caught Jesus acting motherly and wanting to act in a fashion customarily assigned to females!!

Could it be that all of this touting of male superiority among some of our CA friends is just bigotry trying to disguise irtself as orthodoxy?

The Chancellor

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Scott Hahn’s teaching has had a powerful positive effect on the faith of a great number of Catholics. The fact that the criticism of him is so shrill and hostile is leading me to change Hahn from the category of “teacher” to that of “prophet”.

As Jesus said: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I have wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!”

OH NO!! We have just caught Jesus acting motherly and wanting to act in a fashion customarily assigned to females!!

Could it be that all of this touting of male superiority among some of our CA friends is just bigotry trying to disguise irtself as orthodoxy?

The Chancellor

Reminds me of Acts 5:40-42 when the apostles are brought before the Pharisees:

So they (Sanhedrin) took his (Gamaliel) advice, and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. And every day in the temple and at home they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.

Dr. Hahn is not really suffering much dishonor, based on who is criticizing him, but hopefully he will “not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.”

 

[anon52328184]

maybe saint would be better. i know he is very educated and probably a good teacher, but i don’t think we should over do it. just my opinion.

i am sure he wants to remain humble.

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

Scott Hahn is clear when he states

(1) the doctrines of the Church

and

(2) Theological speculation based on corroborating evidence in scripture and tradition.

He is very careful to distinguish these.

This is one role of a theologian though: to go beyond what is known and test theories about what may be found in God’s revelation. I like the fact that He theorizes about what took place at the Fall. Testing alternative theories against the scriptural data to see if some seemingly confusing/mysterious aspects can be understood is what I expect from a theologian.

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

I disagree.

Scott Hahn does not claim Adam and Eve were threatened with death. He clearly states that this is theological speculation consistent with the data- a theory to be ruled out. I found it interesting and understood the tentative nature of his assertion. The same is true for the other points you make. He states the Church doctrine, but then like a theological scholar, he suggests one or two hypotheses to test against the scriptural data with the aim of clarifying (if possible) some of the sketchy details which are provocatively not understood.

The same goes in his four cup lecture. He presents a very clear rationale for the propriety of this hypothesis and compares it to the scriptural data and ties together multiple facts in a novel way. Again, he does issue caveats and specifies this is tentative.

To be fair, your rival hypotheses are welcome. This is consistent with theological scholarship. But do not claim that Scott is making “theological errors”. This reflects a misunderstanding of his intent.

Regarding “this idea is not found in Tradition, nor does Scripture support the idea of even three cups at the last supper.” Here we must distinguish between the development of doctrine and doctrinal innovation. Moreover, we must remember His acknowledgement of the tentative nature of these theories.

I feel he is acting within his capacity as a talented theologian.

Regarding the Holy Spirit and feminine terminology: I would never believe that He assigns a gender to God or the Father and the Holy Spirit. He is actually use these terms because the Holy Spirit is described in a way that includes feminine attributes.

I am quite clear that He knows God is neither male nor female because I have heard him say as much.

I feel that your reaction to…

"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. "

… is a result of a rendering of what he has said in such a concrete way that it misrepresents the spirit of what he is saying.

God’s “nature” is being used ambiguously here.

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.

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).

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.

he represents the Holy Spirit as feminine, in contradiction to Liturgiam Authenticam, in contradiction to Tradition and Scripture.

Hahn calls the Holy Spirit “mother,” “motherly,” “maternal,” “feminine,” “womanhood,” and “bridal,” (New Oxford Review, newoxfordreview.org/note.jsp?did=0207-notes-gnosticism)

See also this article:
newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0604-oneill

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.

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.

 

[masha]

I’ve read some of Scott Hahn’s books, been to a Bible study with his wife, and had the chance to observe him somewhat at Franciscan University, where he teaches some theology classes.

The theological issues that Ron Conte has with him are all in his books. I’m sorry I can’t give exact citations right now, but as so many here have read most of his books, they should be easy to find. Some of them are problematic for obvious reasons, others require a more indepth look at Catholic theology as much of the problem lies with the attitude that generally accompanies such viewpoints.

One of the biggest problems with Scott Hahn’s writing is the way he presents his material. He writes pop-theology for a crowd of converts or re-verts, his style is so basic so as to be almost banal. But his material is speculative. He isn’t writing basic theology to help laymen more fully understand their faith, he’s selling his semi-othodox ideas to an audience unprepared to challenge them.

In A Father who Keeps His Promises, for example, Scott Hahn claims that the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch “though not infaillible per se.” is authoritatively and bindingly accepted by the Church. This is not at all true. Hahn either misunderstood, or misrepresented the Church’s more open view of the Pentateuch, and presented it to his unsuspecting readers, who most likely are not terribly familiar with the Church’s guidelines for exegetes.

Scott Hahn does not publish in upper level theology journals. He does not present his ideas to his peers for review and critique. In theological circles, he is not considered to be a theologian so much as a student of theology, because his ideas, while not always Catholic, are far from novel.

At the University, Mr. Hahn not only assigned all of his own books for several theology classes (avaliable only new), he used only one or two in class, leaving students saddled with unnecessary and expensive extra books. (for those who have be out of school for quite some time this is not only extreme academic pride, it also shows very little consideration for his students, who are paying upwards of $300 per semester without the added burden of Scott Hahn’s books.

 

[Ron_Conte]

thanks masha, good comments.

I continue to learn a great deal from the Summa Theologica, from papal documents, from Counciliar documents, from theologians such as Avery Dulles. I’ve studied theology for many years. I’ve written theology. I don’t find Hahn to be instructive on any topic, even when he does not err seriously.

As for the frequent requests for citations above, it is beyond the scope of my few posts here to research and extensively document his errors.

This is all I have to say on the topic for now.

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

I’ve read many of his books.
I’ve listened to many of his tapes (back in the '90s I transcribed painstakingly every word of a few tape series for personal use).
I’ve seen him at the Defending the Faith conference a couple of times.

I find him intellectually honest. He is very careful to identify what you are referring to as theologicaly speculative. I find the framing theoretical framing useful ways of tying up scriptural text. This is the function of theory. His theories do not contradict doctrine- that is an important point.

You are principally reacting to his personality rather than his ideas which I am not going to comment on. I do not know if he makes money off the books in question. I do know that many intense courses at universities require a lot of outside reading that goes beyond a textbook, especially in liberal arts where a demanding course will have students read more than what is covered explicitly in class.

I believe he IS writing basic theology to help laymen more fully understand their faith. Sometimes he tries to make sense of curious facts found in scripture and endeavors to develop a theory to explain these nuances using what is know about the Passover meal for instance (four cups). I think it is an interesting approach.

I cannot comment on the rigor of his theological work, because I am out of field here. He does seem to be more motivated to evangelize than contribute to deep, arcane theology unknown to the public as you say.

I have questions for you on this.
What theological journals in his area are considered top tier? (by name).

Which journals does he publish in most often?

I’ve read some of Scott Hahn’s books, been to a Bible study with his wife, and had the chance to observe him somewhat at Franciscan University, where he teaches some theology classes.

The theological issues that Ron Conte has with him are all in his books. I’m sorry I can’t give exact citations right now, but as so many here have read most of his books, they should be easy to find. Some of them are problematic for obvious reasons, others require a more indepth look at Catholic theology as much of the problem lies with the attitude that generally accompanies such viewpoints.

One of the biggest problems with Scott Hahn’s writing is the way he presents his material. He writes pop-theology for a crowd of converts or re-verts, his style is so basic so as to be almost banal. But his material is speculative. He isn’t writing basic theology to help laymen more fully understand their faith, he’s selling his semi-othodox ideas to an audience unprepared to challenge them.

In A Father who Keeps His Promises, for example, Scott Hahn claims that the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch “though not infaillible per se.” is authoritatively and bindingly accepted by the Church. This is not at all true. Hahn either misunderstood, or misrepresented the Church’s more open view of the Pentateuch, and presented it to his unsuspecting readers, who most likely are not terribly familiar with the Church’s guidelines for exegetes.

Scott Hahn does not publish in upper level theology journals. He does not present his ideas to his peers for review and critique. In theological circles, he is not considered to be a theologian so much as a student of theology, because his ideas, while not always Catholic, are far from novel.

At the University, Mr. Hahn not only assigned all of his own books for several theology classes (avaliable only new), he used only one or two in class, leaving students saddled with unnecessary and expensive extra books. (for those who have be out of school for quite some time this is not only extreme academic pride, it also shows very little consideration for his students, who are paying upwards of $300 per semester without the added burden of Scott Hahn’s books.

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

I don’t mean to be contentious, but I want you to know I read papal and concilliar documents rather regularly. I do not need spoon feeding per se as I enjoying going to the source. Separately, I have found Scott Hahn very good about recommending such reading. In His Sola Scriptura Tapes, he recommends Vatican II documents, Divino Afflante Spiritu and more. He tapes and books frequently lead the listener/reader as it were to church documents. He just serves it up hot and spicy. He’s a great teacher.

thanks masha, good comments.

I continue to learn a great deal from the Summa Theologica, from papal documents, from Counciliar documents, from theologians such as Avery Dulles. I’ve studied theology for many years. I’ve written theology. I don’t find Hahn to be instructive on any topic, even when he does not err seriously.

As for the frequent requests for citations above, it is beyond the scope of my few posts here to research and extensively document his errors.

This is all I have to say on the topic for now.

 

[allhers]

I don’t mean to be contentious, but I want you to know I read papal and concilliar documents rather regularly. I do not need spoon feeding per se as I enjoying going to the source. Separately, I have found Scott Hahn very good about recommending such reading. In His Sola Scriptura Tapes, he recommends Vatican II documents, Divino Afflante Spiritu and more. He tapes and books frequently lead the listener/reader as it were to church documents. He just serves it up hot and spicy. He’s a great teacher.

I agree, as a life long Catholic, he only affirms what I already was taught and knew to be true by 12 years in Catholic Schools that was taught by Nuns and Priests and lay Catholics.

My parents, grandmother and the rest of my extended family did a pretty good job also.

Plus, on my own, I still study Church teaching.

I find nothing wrong with Dr. Scott Hahn and if I ever do, which I doubt, I would try to find a way to see where I obviously was going wrong because I am sure he has far more knowledge on just about any topic than I do. I never even went to College but if I did I would have chosen Franciscan University, and that is where he now is teaching.

Perhaps if anyone on here, which is only really a couple of people, could provide any links that one of them has repeatedly been asked to provide we could all see what their objections to him are.

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

Ron,

On a different note, I’d like to learn something that you may be able to teach me if you have the time. As I said, I have not made my way to the best theology journals.

Would you happen to know of a theologian who is doing exciting work in a top tier journal? I’d like to have a better understanding of what is truly exciting in the most scholarly circles of Catholic Theology. (Anyone else is welcome to answer this- I’m here to learn as much as anything else).

thanks masha, good comments.

I continue to learn a great deal from the Summa Theologica, from papal documents, from Counciliar documents, from theologians such as Avery Dulles. I’ve studied theology for many years. I’ve written theology. I don’t find Hahn to be instructive on any topic, even when he does not err seriously.

As for the frequent requests for citations above, it is beyond the scope of my few posts here to research and extensively document his errors.

This is all I have to say on the topic for now.

 

[tm30]

You are taking something and vastly oversimplifying it. Hahn doesn’t claim that they ate the fruit “because” Satan threatened them. He claimed that Satan threatened them, and that was part of what led them to eat the fruit. The other part was that the serpent “says, too that they will be like “gods who know what is good and bad” (see Genesis 3:5).” Hahn is putting the decision to eat the fruit in the context of being frightened.

Wait a second. This is not a small statement you’re making here. In fact, it illustrates the error in Hahn’s approach on this.

What you’re describing is not a sin of pre-meditiation, but a sin committed under duress, which relieves the guilt of a formally mortal sin. If this were the case, then Adam’s sin would be venial, not mortal. Consequently, Genesis and every book following it, every bit of revelation following it, including the Gospel, up until Apocalypse, would be demonstrably false.

 

[tm30]

**Squanto wrote: ** So, if he has three or four controversial ideas - even if some of them are flat wrong - is that so bad?

All it takes is one to lead a soul into heresy. I’m not pronouncing judgment on Hahn’s body of work - I find some of it very insightful, but a lot of it has already been touched on in one form or another in Catholic thought.

That said, when one has a following and is as respected and listened to as Scott Hahn, you’d better believe that some “flat wrong” ideas is a bad thing. I’m not denying his humanness. We all err. But it can’t be swept under the rug when someone who garners such devotion goes askew, even in minor fashion. It’s a huge HUGE responsibility that he’s elected for himself, by publishing books and going on the speech circuit. His position as a mouthpiece of theology inherently demands little or no slack be given when there is controversy, confusion, or error. It goes with the territory.

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

I think the way to discuss this is to separate the person (Hahn) from the hypothesis. Once this is done, it makes sense to compare this hypothesis to rival hypotheses.

In this vein, the question is the error in the hypothesis rather than the person (refrain from ad hominem argumentation).

Hahn identifies a Biblical pattern wherein every covenant leader is tested just as Jesus was tested in the desert. He hypothesizes that Adam’s test was one of courage. It is interesting, but the question you are raising is whether this diminishes his responsibility in the matter such that what would have been a mortal sin is now a venial sin.

Approaching an analysis this way I feel is more scholarly and does not smack of ad hominem argumentation.

Wait a second. This is not a small statement you’re making here. In fact, it illustrates the error in Hahn’s approach on this.

What you’re describing is not a sin of pre-meditiation, but a sin committed under duress, which relieves the guilt of a formally mortal sin. If this were the case, then Adam’s sin would be venial, not mortal. Consequently, Genesis and every book following it, every bit of revelation following it, including the Gospel, up until Apocalypse, would be demonstrably false.

 

[Martin_Davis]

As a convert from an “anti-roman” position like Scott Hahn, I can only give him credit for opening my mind to my prejudices and opening my heart to the truth of Catholicism.

I do not recommend that anyone take everything that ANY bible teacher says purely on face value - but follow the advice of the Apostle Paul and “search the scriptures” to see if what they say is true.

As Catholics we have the additional support of the “Traditional” understanding of scripture as handed down through the ages. In this I find that Scott Hahn invokes this comforting level of awareness.

It might be worth remembering that St.Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine and other Church Fathers were not fully embraced in ALL their teachings - there are still controversies over some of their teachings.

I owe Scott Hahn a debt of gratitude for being a key influence in my journey home to Catholicism.

Thanks Scott - I’ll pray for you.

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

I think the idea needs to be separated from the person and then tested. His hypotheses need to be treated as free standing. This would be less personal and could actually ferret out some truth. It muddies things to toss in personality attributes.

Again, I think Hahn is clear about when he is theologically speculative. He has not said something that conflicts with tradition or scripture, but his hypotheses that tie together Biblical data can be tested and evaluated objectively.

---

That said, when one has a following and is as respected and listened to as Scott Hahn, you’d better believe that some “flat wrong” ideas is a bad thing.

 

[averheyen]

I’ve learned a lot from the writings and presentations of Dr. Scott Hahn. He is co-author of the Ignatius Study Bible series, which has an Imprimatur from Cardinal William Levada, who is now Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Roman Curia, Joseph Ratzinger’s old job.

What I don’t understand is I’ve seen several messages on this forum making snide remarks about Dr. Hahn (he’s not trustworthy, etc.). There is never any evidence presented to back these detracting comments up.

I’d really like to hear why anyone would say Dr. Hahn’s teachings are not faithful to the Magisterium of the Church, as has been implied in several messages on here. Specifically,

and

I’d like these people to present some evidence from Scott Hahn’s writings that show that he is teaching contrary to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

I started reading “Iiving the Mysteries” by Scott Hahn, and RIGHT away, I was skeptical. Some of the stuff he was quoting from St Basil sounded a little too good/Too modern day Roman Catholic to be true. Something smelled fishy. Like he was using old historical texts and church father writings on liscence to justify current catholic beliefs.

The only problem was, when I checked his sources (the original text) it turns out he wasn’t.

It really REALLY feels as though what he is saying is too good to be true, but his sources stack up. They stack up extremely well.

Is Scott Hahn credible? Yeash, I can’t really say he isn’t, he sites his references to the “T”.

And he’s good too. Really good.

 

[tm30]

Scott Hahn’s teaching has had a powerful positive effect on the faith of a great number of Catholics. The fact that the criticism of him is so shrill and hostile is leading me to change Hahn from the category of “teacher” to that of “prophet”.

As Jesus said: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I have wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!”

OH NO!! We have just caught Jesus acting motherly and wanting to act in a fashion customarily assigned to females!!

Could it be that all of this touting of male superiority among some of our CA friends is just bigotry trying to disguise irtself as orthodoxy?

The Chancellor

Prophet? Sheesh. Now that kind of reponse is reason #1 it’s important not to let controversial positions go unaddressed. Here we have a person who is so enthralled with Mr. Hahn, he/she will declare him a prophet before questioning his views.

That’s frightening, and it has nothing to do with a “male superiority” complex.

I take it you’re in favor of women priests, too? (since you oppose “male bigotry”)?