Too much Scott Hahn?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JMJ_Theresa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
seabird3579:
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. 😃
Click to expand...
Scott Hahn aside… the idea that that the Church automatically jumps on the first utterance of a heresy is naive. (I know that is not exactly what you have said.) Take Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (Jesuit theologian) as an example. I can’t tell you how many Catholic high schools and Universities taught his… “junk theology” during the 60’s and 70’s. (No real Adam and Eve… no such thing as Original Sin… etc…)

I am definitely not saying Scott Hahn is a Teilhard de Chardin. I appreciate most of his writings. However… Hahn as a theologian… I don’t put him at the top of the list. I also wish he would take some time to address some of the challenges made to his speculations.

Oh… and at least four close acquaintances of mine have studied under him at Stubenville… they were all appreciative of the education they received from him. 😉
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
Well, I would say that the convenant was not mentioned because it was not the same kind that had been made before. If you look at the others, they are about God and His people. The one in Numbers is specifically with Phineas and his descendants about an ever-lasting priesthood. It doesn’t seem to be in the same class as the Mosaic covenant or the Davidic or the “New and everlasting” covenant Christ mentions in the Last Supper.

In fact you could say it prefigures and prophesies the Catholic priesthood and the eternal priesthood of Christ which our priests share in. It was also a covenant that was granted to Phineas, not one made with him. It could be interpreted that Phineas and his descendants were taken into one of the earlier covenants which had all firstborn as priests. There is no mention of the covenant curses to go with the blessings of the priesthood Phineas is given. That is part and parcel of a covenant making from what I gather.

It seems that Dr. Hahn doesn’t mention it because it’s not a new covenant.
40.png
scriabin:
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.
Click to expand...
There’s the problem right there! 🙂

The issue comes from chapter 10 of First Comes Love. Dr. Hahn mentions that he is exploring the fringes here and would willingly rip it from the book should the Church say no.

He is NOT ascribing a feminine gender to the Holy Spirit. He makes that quite clear I thought. He IS saying that many of the human aspects that we consider feminite are also ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Wisdom for instance is often called “she” in the Bible, yet we also ascribe that the Holy Spirit. He is pointing out that what the Trinity posesses in perfection amongst the 3 Persons, we imperfectly reflect in our fallen nature.

Also his pointing out that the Trinity is a family is not his own idea. That is from John Paul the Great. He said that God is not a solitude. He is at His essensce a Family because is eternally Fathering the Son in the love of the Holy Spirit. Human families can only imperfectly mirror this.

When husband and wife fully and totally give everything they are (not have, are) to each other, that is total love. That love can produce a third person, just as the total, mutual self-giving of the Father and the Son is itself a Person we call the Holy Spirit.

Dr. Hahn is quite the philosopher as well as theologian.
 
JMJ Theresa:
And, what do you think of Scott Hahn’s various studies?
Click to expand...
A simple answer to your simple question, Theresa:

I was part of a large Scripture study group that used Scott Hahn’s material for an entire year studying Exodus. It was unquestionably the best material I have ever been given for Bible study. I have no credentials for judging his theological purity, but my MA from a large and respected university is in the development of curricular materials.

🙂

Anna
 
40.png
Fric:
The one in Numbers is specifically with Phineas and his descendants about an ever-lasting priesthood.

In fact you could say it prefigures and prophesies the Catholic priesthood and the eternal priesthood of Christ which our priests share in.
Click to expand...
Thank goodness our Catholic Priesthood doesn’t need to drive a spear through two people copulating in order to be ordained into this priesthood, though, like our good man, Phineas!😃

God Bless, and good responses to the Trinity. I had heard on his EWTN series explained the way you put it, but couldn’t remember it well enough to post it here!

Take Care!

Notworthy
 
There’s the problem right there!
Click to expand...
Thankyou, Fric–
I, too, realize the problem in using web-based information to form opinions. You do realize, of course, in your attempt to help with this “problem;” you have, paradoxically, made yourself–yet another–web-based source of information! :whacky:

Seriously, though, your conjecture sounds quite plausible.

But what I found most interesting in your post was this:
The issue comes from chapter 10 of First Comes Love. Dr. Hahn mentions that he is exploring the fringes here and would willingly rip it from the book should the Church say no.
Click to expand...
This is something I’ve posted in this thread before; but to no avail. Scott Hahn is a good writer, an excellent theologian, and a sound scholar. He knows when he’s speculating; and–get this–he tells us when he is!

Of the 3 books I have of his, Hahn uses telling endnotes and explanatory material to back himself up; and he, quite fairly, leaves his case to reader to make up his/her own mind on the matter at hand.

This is what I don’t understand:

As frogman said earlier in this thread:
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”!
Click to expand...
All I’m trying to say is Scott Hahn is a great writer, theologian, witness to the faith, and evangelizer; but, in the end, *he himself * admits, underscores, goes out of his way to say–that these are his speculations.

Why, oh why, are people getting so bent-out-of-shape when I, frogman, or any other ordinary, faithful, conservative or liberal, reasonably well-informed fellow Catholic dare to disagree with just one iota of Hahn’s self-professed speculations?

Is this the start of a cult? Just kidding! 😛
 
Well, I am not getting bent out of shape. I merely wanted to post some details as I understood them. Especially on the female Holy Spirit claim that you seemed to be making based on what you had read elsewhere. If you read that chapter, it is simply not true and Dr. Hahn in no way makes the claims others are asserting he does. It can be misinterpreted that way and twisted that way though.

My point on this one was that I believe the assertion was totally incorrect and was actually damaging to his reputation in a way that was not justified.

As for the covenant piece and the family/Trinity parts, do you still think he is glossing over something or is outside the bounds of what is acceptable? Or has gone off the reservation there?

I agree that creating a cult of personality around anyone can be very dangerous. Anyone that claims there is one and one only interpretation of some part of Scripture/Tradition is in my opinion whacked. I doubt there are more than a handful or so of verses or events that the Church has declared must be interpreted in one way only. And that is the key… Only the Church can do this.

While I am no theologian nor am I a full time Scripture scholar, I think what he has produced in A Father Who Keeps His Promises (haven’t finished the book, just the audio so I could still be wrong) and First Comes Love is pretty good and solid. FCL is probably what seems most speculative because I think it is material that isn’t covered very much at all.

That being said, I also recognize Dr. Hahn has tendencies to think he has come across some unknown insights that no one else has. He could be correct. He might not be. I was listening to a recording of a study he did on Acts of the Apostles in the classroom and he made such a comment that he believed the Holy Spirit had given him some unique insight.

Possible?

Sure. Not my call though. The point he was making seemed pretty plausible to me and didn’t seem to be contrary to Church teaching.

Anyway… As you say, he has a load to say and is one of the bright stars of the Church today. This wouldn’t be a problem if:
  1. People actually listened/read when he says he is speculating big time.
  2. Our priests and bishops would preach and teach as solidly as he does.
And…
  1. We had more shelf-space at the bookstores with a wider variety of authors like the Protestants do.
Later!
 
Thanks guys, I am so pleased to read the discussion. I do not know enough to know what I do not know. 🙂 I was surprised to see so few criticisms. In any case, I have picked my next scripture interpretation book…drumroll…You Can Understand the Bible by Peter Kreeft. I’m only on Chapter three, but I love it. Now I guess I should start a thread on Peter Kreeft? 😃
 
JMJ Theresa:
Thanks guys, I am so pleased to read the discussion. I do not know enough to know what I do not know. 🙂 I was surprised to see so few criticisms. In any case, I have picked my next scripture interpretation book…drumroll…You Can Understand the Bible by Peter Kreeft. I’m only on Chapter three, but I love it. Now I guess I should start a thread on Peter Kreeft? 😃
Click to expand...
I’m right there with you, around Chapter 3, too!

Mr. Kreeft seems to understand so many things on two levels, doesn’t he?

God Bless!

Notworthy
 
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.
Click to expand...
Have you seen any retractions from him yet?

If not, consider it an omen, as even the Doctor of the Church, St. Augustus admitted to being wrong on occasion.

Andy
 
JMJ Theresa:
Thanks guys, I am so pleased to read the discussion. I do not know enough to know what I do not know. 🙂 I was surprised to see so few criticisms. In any case, I have picked my next scripture interpretation book…drumroll…You Can Understand the Bible by Peter Kreeft. I’m only on Chapter three, but I love it. Now I guess I should start a thread on Peter Kreeft? 😃
Click to expand...
I know nothing about Kreeft. Go ahead, start a new thread. I’ll ask my question there.
 
I thought Scott’s a human being, and some of his speculations will be wrong! As long as He’s willing to admit that, and to submit his teachings to the Church I’m okay with him.

I think the real question with anyone is: Is this person willing to submit his teachings to the Church, and as long as people stay with the teachings of the Church and recognize that the Church is the authority not Scott, than they will be okay…
 
Actually, I use Scott Hahn material often. Protestant approach? I don’t think so. I see it as a conversion approach… from a convert. Especially, since so many of our Catholic brothers and sisters are being approached and proselytized by non-Catholics, Mr. Hahn’s material communicates well. I, myself, and a “read the black and do the red” type of priest. And, after seeing so many Theologians who call themselves “Catholic” who stray so far, Scott Hahn is a breath of fresh air. He also stimulates my teaching style, for I was once caught up in Protestantism in my teen years, living in the deep south at that time. I think we have to be very careful with our criticism, especially when many haven’t experienced much of the various cultures just in these United States. I think we forget often to apply the same mercies we’ve received when jumping on others in error. Scott Hahn is an excellent example of “pastoral style” without compromise. While some my see his approach as a Protestant one, the evidence is that it produces Catholics.
 
A thread may very well be dedicated to “Too much of St. Augustine?”

It is a tendentious angle, guaranteed to precipitate a shower of criticism.

When I see the state of Catholicism in the US, Scott Hahn is without question a bright spot; an oasis of pure Catholicism!

Just about finished with his Politicizing the Bible What a tour-de-force!
 
This may sound too simple:

If you have a good grasp of his ideas–read only the Bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top