Scott Hahn

[anon52328184]

i am referring back to post #1 which started the thread.

 

[Joe_5859]

While I respect and admire most of Dr. Hahn’s works I always seem to have a problem with people that charge for their preaching. (I saw him speak for $25) I understand the costs that are associated with travel, food, etc. yet I believe that Dr. Hahn along with Steve Ray and some of these recent mainstream Catholics are cashing in. What are your thoughts? I know Jesus never charged people for His teaching. How about JPII or Padre Pio? It is just something I struggle with. Am I wrong? Your opinions?

I understand how this can be a hang-up for many people, but I don’t think it’s accurate to picture people like Dr. Hahn as “cashing in.” It is possible that the fee associated with watching him speak had more to do with a fee for the use of the building (if it was not in a church buidling), or perhaps even as a fundraiser for the parish (if it was at was at a church building). It does not necessarily indicate that Dr. Hahn is making money hand-over-fist with his speaking engagements. In fact, for a man of his talents, I would imagine that he is making significantly less than he could be.

If you look at his personal website, you find the process for inviting the Dr. Hahn to speak. You’ll notice there is a built-in step for prayerfully discerning his speaking schedule. I would not doubt that this means his decision is not always based on the financial aspect. He’s speaking at a parish near my parents soon. That parish is not a very large one, and the cost is small.

In regards to his books, they’re not really much more expensive that most other Catholic books. What drives up the price is the fact that they are in hardcover and published by Doubleday, rather than a smaller Catholic publishing house. It seems reasonable to me to assume that the decision was not necessarily a financial one but about distribution. A large publishing company like Doubleday generally has better distribution. In the work of evangelization, that can be a very good thing!

 

[anon52328184]

good points to think about. thanks.

 

[johnbres2]

If he says all that about Adam and Eve, he is way out on a tangent. First of all people, no serious Catholic theologian takes Adam and Eve literally. It is allegory. So, talking about what the snake did or didn’t say, or what Adam should or shouldn’t have done, is pretty goofy.

I don’t see the error in his view that the snake was making a threat to them. Because, if they had Trusted God, (called out to him for help!!!) when they saw the thing, God surely would have helped them. So, it was a lack of trust that God would come to them I think. I agree with him, because the whole bible is about trusting God, and we say Mary trusted God the most.

 

[Bridge]

If he says all that about Adam and Eve, he is way out on a tangent. First of all people, no serious Catholic theologian takes Adam and Eve literally. It is allegory. So, talking about what the snake did or didn’t say, or what Adam should or shouldn’t have done, is pretty goofy.

I am not fully familiar with what Scott Hahn wrote here, but it seems to me that he was probably speaking to what the allegory was meant to show us, what we are meant to derive from it. And to derive the true meaning from the allegory, we must understand the allegory fully. Therefore, the need to expound upon the different aspects of what was said or not said, what was done or not done. That doesn’t necessarily mean though that he is taking it literally, but perhaps is literally taking it apart in order to understand it better.

EDIT: Or…then again, maybe he was taking it literally…

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

I disagree. This is Catholic doctrine.

If he says all that about Adam and Eve, he is way out on a tangent. First of all people, no serious Catholic theologian takes Adam and Eve literally. It is allegory. So, talking about what the snake did or didn’t say, or what Adam should or shouldn’t have done, is pretty goofy.

 

[johnbres2]

No, it isn’t.

I disagree. This is Catholic doctrine.

 

[RWMorris]

If he says all that about Adam and Eve, he is way out on a tangent. First of all people, no serious Catholic theologian takes Adam and Eve literally. It is allegory. So, talking about what the snake did or didn’t say, or what Adam should or shouldn’t have done, is pretty goofy.

I disagree with the above statement. Our sins are not an allegory. While some of the specifics of the creation story may very well be an allegory, God did create man and woman, there is a serpent (Satan), man did sin and fall from grace.

 

[johnbres2]

Be serious! I didn’t say our sins are an allegory. Geez!

 

[Mea_Culpa]

If he says all that about Adam and Eve, he is way out on a tangent. First of all people, no serious Catholic theologian takes Adam and Eve literally. It is allegory. So, talking about what the snake did or didn’t say, or what Adam should or shouldn’t have done, is pretty goofy.

I guess The Catechism of the Catholic Church is “pretty goofy” then.

Here it talks about “what the snake did or didn’t say”:

392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels. This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: “You will be like God.” The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is “a liar and the father of lies.”

Here it talks about “what Adam should or shouldn’t have done”:

416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

What’s “goofy” is claiming that it doesn’t matter what’s written in Holy Scripture.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Be serious! I didn’t say our sins are an allegory. Geez!

Do you know what “Geez” means?

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines it as “a euphemism for Jesus Christ. A mild oath.”

You might want to refresh yourself on the Second Commandment.

CCC 2146 The second commandment forbids the abuse of God’s name, i.e., every improper use of the names of God, Jesus Christ, but also of the Virgin Mary and all the saints.

 

[anon52328184]

i don’t know. i guess i am one of the old fashioned catholics that believes the creation story. i don’t see the story of adam and eve as allegory.
if you want to you can, but i always believed that adam was created first and that eve was created from adam’s rib and they lived in the Garden of Eden. call me naive.

 

[Armenian_cpa]

$$$$$$$$$$ and scott hahn will thank you for that!

I get tired of questioning someones motives just because they might make some $$$$.

Now if they make it dishonestly then one can complain!!!

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

Oh but it is.

Go back to the earlier posts on this thread and you will see an outline of what Catholics must believe. All Catholic theologians must believe these doctrines.

Before you reply to this, go back and read the earlier points on this blog. The story of Adam and Eve is not allegorical.

No, it isn’t.

 

[Chancellor]

What’s “goofy” is claiming that it doesn’t matter what’s written in Holy Scripture.

I was with you until this line. If I am wrong and there have been posts in this thread claiming that it doesn’t matter what is written in scripture then I will add an amen to your quote.

On the other hand, it really doesn’t matter if any particular story in the Old Testament is history. Jesus taught us in parables and parables are allegories. When I see somebody who spends alot of time arguing for the six day story of creation I often wonder if I am seeing someone who is trying to avoid God by refusing to go deeper.

The other Bible passages you quote, whether historical or allegorical, can only start to teach us when we prayerfully ask the Holy Spirit to open the meaning and purpose for us today.
In this way I applaud your choices. You bring up passages that truly reward a deeper examination.

The Chancellor

 

[anon52328184]

This is by far the craziest thread I’ve seen on these forums.

there are definitely a lot of different opinions. i am having a hard time keeping everything straight. don’t know if anyone else is. some of it is going over my head i think.

 

[RWMorris]

Be serious! I didn’t say our sins are an allegory. Geez!

I thought you were being serious! Ok, you believe in sin. Do you believe in original sin?

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I was with you until this line. If I am wrong and there have been posts in this thread claiming that it doesn’t matter what is written in scripture then I will add an amen to your quote.

On the other hand, it really doesn’t matter if any particular story in the Old Testament is history. Jesus taught us in parables and parables are allegories. When I see somebody who spends alot of time arguing for the six day story of creation I often wonder if I am seeing someone who is trying to avoid God by refusing to go deeper.

The other Bible passages you quote, whether historical or allegorical, can only start to teach us when we prayerfully ask the Holy Spirit to open the meaning and purpose for us today.
In this way I applaud your choices. You bring up passages that truly reward a deeper examination.

The Chancellor

I didn’t say everything in the Bible is literal history. But everything in Holy Scripture is God-breathed (theopneustos) 2 Tim 3:16 and therefore important. To say that it doesn’t matter what’s written, what the serpent says, what Adam does or doesn’t do - that is “goofy” because everything in Holy Scripture matters, or it wouldn’t be in there.

Also, a parable is not the same thing as a allegory.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

i don’t know. i guess i am one of the old fashioned catholics that believes the creation story. i don’t see the story of adam and eve as allegory.
if you want to you can, but i always believed that adam was created first and that eve was created from adam’s rib and they lived in the Garden of Eden. call me naive.

I thought you were a recent convert? Now you’re an old-fashioned Catholic?

Anyhow, Catholics are allowed to believe a range of things about the Creation story. Both things you wrote about above are allowable - allegory or literally true.

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

This issue came up on the Evolution/Genesis thread.

I learned from others the following:

Jeff Cavin’s Lecture “Adventures in the Bible” #2 of 24) says these are…

Truths that must be believed in FAITH for all Cathollics"

The creation of all things by God at the beginning of Time.
The special creation of Man. (Eve from Adam)
The formation of the first Woman from Man.
The Unity of the Human race. (Because of our common parents.)
The Original happiness of our first parents.
The Divine command placed upon Man to prove his obedience.
His transgression of that command sy the instigation of the devil by the serpent.
The fall of our first parents from the state of Innocence.
The Promise of a future Redeemer.

Buffalo mentioned some points that may be added to this list:

bodily immortality before the fall
preternatrural gifts
infused knowledge

I thought you were a recent convert? Now you’re an old-fashioned Catholic?

Anyhow, Catholics are allowed to believe a range of things about the Creation story. Both things you wrote about above are allowable - allegory or literally true.