Too much Scott Hahn?

[seabird3579]

scriabin:

The one beef I have is that some of us Catholics are confusing his good theological speculations with good Catholic theology.

P.S. I can’t give you the Hahn book and page for the female Holy Spirit (I don’t happen to have *that * Hahn book); just google “Scott Hahn female Holy Spirit” and you’ll get a host of references and explanations for this inaccurate theology.

If his “speculations” were “bad” Catholic theology, the Church would have condemned his books as heresy, as it is, many “good” theologians praise his works (not to be confused with worship).

The Church allows for private revelations as long as they don’t contradict Catholic doctrine. Unless you can be more specific than I “googled” it and found it on the internet, I’m afraid you haven’t convinced many of us that Scott has been misled on some issues.

In case no one has noticed, there is a sizable protestant group (out there on the internet and elsewhere) who would love to put Scott and his books in a bad light. It doesn’t bode well for a “former” protestant to sing the praises of Mary (not to be confused with worshipping her )

That said, you are welcome to disagree with him but, unless you provide solid Catholic doctrine and illustrate where he has strayed from that… you’ll be doing this :banghead: over and over and we’ll be doing this everytime you make an unsubstantiated critique of his works.

 

[scriabin]

Someone earlier in this thread said that we need to be careful when we paint someone with a broad brushstroke–Catholic or Protestant, good or bad.

I agree. People and theologians aren’t all good or all bad. The work of theologians are good or bad to the degree that their results conform, more or less, to the teachings of the Church.

The answer to the question of this thread, Too much Scott Hahn?, is not a yes or no answer. It’s a question of degrees.

To the degree that Scott Hahn’s reputation as a sound, Catholic theologian persuades people into believing that everything he writes is sound, Catholic theology is the degree to which, I believe, there is too much Scott Hahn.

 

[seabird3579]

scriabin:

To the degree that Scott Hahn’s reputation as a sound, Catholic theologian persuades people into believing that everything he writes is sound, Catholic theology is the degree to which, I believe, there is too much Scott Hahn.

Yes, but you still have not given specifics about his “lacking” in the area of Good, Catholic theology. To say that you googled it and “others” believe…based on what specifically???

I wandered onto a Reform site and referred to Scott Hahn and his support of the Blessed Mother and they all came unglued. Not only for their disbelief that she was the Mother of God, but they totally maligned Scott and tried to make it look like he didn’t have a clue what he was talking about.

My experience is that anyone who Defends the Blessed Mother will quickly encounter her arch enemy, Satan. He fears her – as he should, recall Genesis 3:15:

“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”

 

[scriabin]

Here’s one I’ve already mentioned: Hahn completely glosses over the covenant with Phineas (Num 25). Sirach 45 says Phineas has a covenant of peace (NJB) or friendship (NAB). Since this covenant just happens to be out of sync with Hahn’s ‘bigger and better’ covenant chart on page 35 of A Father Who Keeps His Promises, he just doesn’t include Phineas’ covenant, which I think is unfair to Scripture.

Scripture testifies there was a covenant made–I think Hahn should’ve dealt with it; especially in a book whose main theme was Biblical covenants.

As far as a female Holy Spirit: I’m using other Catholic websites as a reference source. Yes, I know to be careful about that practice; but I’ve no reason to doubt them–yet.

I’ve bought *Rome Sweet Home * 3 time over the years. I keep giving the books away as great evangelizing tools. I’ve read and believe *Lamb’s Supper * was right on target. I intend to buy ALL of Hahn’s books. He is a blessing to the Church.

 

[frogman80]

scriabin:

To the degree that Scott Hahn’s reputation as a sound, Catholic theologian persuades people into believing that everything he writes is sound, Catholic theology is the degree to which, I believe, there is too much Scott Hahn.

I have similar if not the same opinions of Scott Hahn that Scriabin has been writing about. I do not know how often I heard “new expounded teachings of the faith” or “common belief among theologians” that just so happen to be new speculations of Scott Hahn. This is not always a problem, but sometimes it is.

I also have problems with some of his interpretations of the Bible. An example… In “A Father Who Keeps His Promises” I specifically remember his interpretation of the Noah and the nakedness situation… In the book I remember thinking… “Wow… that makes sense, I would have never thought of that before!” Then I actually read the bible verse myself… “What the heck? The only way he got that interpretation is if he forgot to read half the verses here!?” Ok… so its just his personal interpretation… but it wasn’t a week later, that verse came up in a conversation, and the other person was arguing SH’s interpretation as gospel. I was then accused of being some super dissident traditionalist because I didn’t agree with “Professor Hahn”!

I think it is a problem when people start to equate Scott Hahn’s speculation to “Universal teaching of the Magisterium"

 

[seabird3579]

frogman80:

I think it is a problem when people start to equate Scott Hahn’s speculation to “Universal teaching of the Magisterium"

I think most of us are smart enough to know the difference between doctrine and private revelation. Many of the Saints had private revelations that “became” doctrine. Catholic doctrine only further explains a “truth” that has been known from the beginning, it doesn’t invent new ideas or contradict truths previously declared. The reason protestant doctrine is not accepted is because it is either heresy or declares that Catholic doctrine is heresy.

If Scott says anything related to private revelations and they are heresy, the Church would condemn his writings. Haven’t seen that yet, so his “speculations” are just as good as yours or mine, but given his education and spiritual life, they’re probably better than ours.

Right now, Saint Faustina’s revelations about the Divine Mercy are still “private revelations.” Many of us feel it won’t be long before much of her revelations will be declared “doctrine” of the church. They are undergoing that scrutiny right now.

I look forward to the Day, the vatican announces that they are.

 

[scriabin]

Seabird, there is a distinction between what Hahn does (theology) and private revelation.

Private revelation refers to *supernatural phenomena * (i.e. locutions, visions, prophecy, etc.).

Theology is completely *natural, human reasoning * to explain a supernatural truth. A theologian may use good, valid logic or faulty logical reasoning. Hahn uses both (he’s only human).

And as to his opinions being more learned than ours–please look at the start of this entire thread: The initial thread was started because someone was hearing from college professors/theologians on the Master’s degree level (which probably means PhD’s are teaching the class) that Hahn’s writings were frowned upon by other theologians.

Let’s be Catholics and not sCotthahn-ics.

 

[seabird3579]

scriabin:

Theology is completely *natural, human reasoning * to explain a supernatural truth. A theologian may use good, valid logic or faulty logical reasoning. Hahn uses both (he’s only human)…

I keep looking for an opportunity to Agree with you, but gee whiz if you don’t just shoot down every opportunity. Hey listen, Good theologicans also PRAY and are OPEN to the inspirations of the Holy Spirit.

Completely natural, human reasoning??? Don’t think so. They wouldn’t be worth a dime if they didn’t pray and take into account the scholarly and holy insights of the Church over the past twenty centuries.

 

[scriabin]

Of course we all pray. Yet all for us still make mistakes. Prayer doesn’t gurantee truth in interpretation or reasoning.

Ludwig Ott in *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma * defines supernatural theology as “the scientific exposition of the truths about God.” The principle of cognition being: human “reason illuminated by faith.”

Just because Hahn makes a few errors in reasoning that his fellow PhD theologians don’t appreciate doesn’t mean we throw out all of his writings.

Do you honestly think he’s flawless? He’s only human, a theologian–albeit a praying one.

 

[seabird3579]

scriabin:

Just because Hahn makes a few errors in reasoning that his fellow PhD theologians don’t appreciate doesn’t mean we throw out all of his writings…

So let me understand, so far his “big” errors are that he left out one covenant when writing a book on a number of covenants in the Bible. Is that about it? Or are there other errors. If so, what are they?

 

[scriabin]

Seabird, so can we agree that Scott Hahn is an excellent theologian, an inspiring writer, a powerful witness to the truth of the Catholic Church, and an awesome evangelizer; but—makes theological speculations that his fellow Catholic PhD’s don’t agree with?

 

[seabird3579]

scriabin:

Seabird, so can we agree that Scott Hahn is an excellent theologian, an inspiring writer, a powerful witness to the truth of the Catholic Church, and an awesome evangelizer; but—makes theological speculations that his fellow Catholic PhD’s don’t agree with?

Well, depends. Who are the other Catholic PhDs? I may choose to disagree with their “speculations” and choose rather to agree with Scott’s “speculations.”

Can you name them, and, at what points they disagree with Scott and why?

There are a lot of liberal theologicians in Catholicism that don’t necessarily agree with the Magisterium. I’m sure some of them have PhDs. I generally would have to disagree with liberation theology altogether. Sorry bout that.

 

[seabird3579]

scriabin:

I believe there is one over-arching theme: God’s will–simple enough for a child to know; and mysterious enough for great theologians to get lost in. Hahn, like the rest of us, is some where inbetween.

Okay, scriabin, I’ll give you this one. It is true. Hahn is somewhere inbetween (but the rest of us are behind him ) …only kidding!

Have a good day!

 

[AndyF]

Theresa:

I found at least one area of disagreement in his work, and since then I avoid his writings. Hahn wrote some inspiring work until the day he said that taking an oath was OK, which is a sin. I sensed he was trying to fit in secular political correctness.

There is no exception, Christ said it was not appropriate to take an oath upon the throne of God, and not “…only if it’s outside of judicial trials, or the confines of the justice system, or for a good purpose”. We are simply to say yes or no. Mat 5,33

The purpose of taking an oath at trial is a man made rule to incorporate a tool that forces the taker to place himself at risk in the event of making it, in hopes it will favor the position of the requestor. It uses the personal sacred agreement between man and his creator as a tool to achieve the aim of a third party.

If it were OK, and applying the same rule as a generality, and to ensure the virtue of all court reps that every accused is guaranteed, and no conflict of interest is evident, it would also be appropriate to force the requestor and the judge to take an oath in front of the court that he has never committed any crime weather caught or not. Here the revolver passes to 3 persons instead of just one in this risky game of Russion roulette.

Andy

 

[Mijoy2]

AndyF:

Theresa:

I found at least one area of disagreement in his work, and since then I avoid his writings. Hahn wrote some inspiring work until the day he said that taking an oath was OK, which is a sin. I sensed he was trying to fit in secular political correctness.

Andy

Did I misunderstand something? Taking an oath is a sin? If so what is a catholic to do when instructed to take an oath on the witness stand? Refuse?

 

[scriabin]

One of the reasons I think we like to read Hahn is that his books are easy to consume. I mean, the real stuff (JPII / papal encyclicals, the catechism, Aquinas’ Summa, Dark Night of the Soul, etc.), are, at times, very challenging to read.

Hahn writes for us, the common laity. I enjoy his light, breezy style; I even find his corny puns funny. He’s modern, unlike Chesterton or Sheed, and he’s a convert from Protestantism, which comforts cradle Catholics who’ve been up against dynamic speakers from Protestantism for years–now one of those dynamic speakers is ours.

 

[NotWorthy]

AndyF:

Theresa:

I found at least one area of disagreement in his work, and since then I avoid his writings. Hahn wrote some inspiring work until the day he said that taking an oath was OK, which is a sin. I sensed he was trying to fit in secular political correctness.

“In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen!” is an oath. What’s wrong with this? It’s what Pliny the younger was talking about around 110AD when he wrote of the Christians taking an oath.

Notworthy

 

[AndyF]

Mijoy2:

Did I misunderstand something? Taking an oath is a sin? If so what is a catholic to do when instructed to take an oath on the witness stand? Refuse?

Refuse on the grounds of conscientious objection.

One other area where decisions such has this are justified is in the case of being called for fighting in an unjust war. Also a Catholic may be required to make many more unpopular but right choices.

Andy

 

[AndyF]

“In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen!” is an oath.
Notworthy

I see it has…

“That which I am about to state, I do so on the sanction, authority and blessing of [subject/s].”

In exorcisms…

“In the name of Jesus Christ [or, on the Authority of], I command you to …”

Oaths are not necessary in the spirit of Christian trust, this is why a “yes and no” (Mat 5) assumes honesty and good intent. If it has it’s place, then I see it in personal dealing with/between God and a person. But even here, God understands our weaknesses, and knows we may fail in keeping up to our promise, therefore Christ’s emphasis in staying clear of promising anything on the throne of God.

If one asks another a question, the requestor being Christian implies acceptance by him that what he hears is true. As a Christian, the queried is held to the promise to tell him the truth. The queried, not being a Christian is a failing to keep Christ’s commandment to become one with the Church to begin with, and cannot be used as credentials to lie. Doing so compounds the sin.

The world is a trustless place filled by peoples and sects not within the fold as yet, as Christ waits for their return as Christians, and do not understand what is expected of them. They may clothe themselves with black robes of office and place wigs on their heads in hopes that will compensate for breaking Christ’s will, but it fools no one.

First is the Authority of God, second is the Authority of State.

Pliny…

I am not familiar with this, but venture a guess that perhaps he did not grasp the full meaning of his data.

Andy

 

[Seamus_Sully]

I like Hahn.

I have read three or four of his books.

He seems to teach faithfully. He seems to be a Roman Catholic.