What's Wrong With Scott Hahn?

[Nathan_Wagar]

Thanks for the clarification Nathan. I thought that was where you might be going, but wasn’t sure. I have recently had to stop and ask myself whether or not I could accept certain practices in the Catholic church and realized that I would need to accept the CHURCH and it’s authority versus ideas of those who have been part the early church only. The whole idea that just because it wasn’t said doesn’t mean it wasn’t part of Tradition has been dawning on me as I read different books. I certainly am part of the group struggling still with some Marian doctrines and praying of the Rosary. I’m slowly getting the idea of apostolic succession and the need of a priest but it leaves me with some questions about how I will think about what communion has been for me in the Lutheran church…the journey continues.

I can appreciate these struggles deeply. This is the same reason when Catholic apologist Dr. Robert Sungenis debated the Assumption of Mary, he didn’t use the normal proof-texts, he went straight to Acts 15, and used it to prove that in the absence of clear Scripture or tradition, the Church has the right to make a dogmatic pronouncement on wghat the faithful are to believe.

If you have the money and are so inclined, I cannot recommend www.brantpitre.com enough. He takes audio from his actual college classes at his university, and takes a highly Catechetichal approach to broader topics than perhaps Dr. Hahn or others do. I’m talking 21 disks sets on Christology, or 17 disk sets on Pauline theology, or 23 disk set on the Eucharist, all backed up with fathers, councils, Catechisms, and his own insights. His set on the Jewish roots of the Papacy (you’ve never heard these arguments on the keys before) was excellent, and his set on prayer literally changed my life. He drew entirely from Catholic theologians, Scripture and mystics to give you an understanding of the 3-fold lust in the fall and how Jesus gave us specific means to combat it, the 7 deadly sins, the stages of the spiritual journey, the dark nights of the senses and the spirit, how they mimic the Jewish Temple, the list goes on. Then he covers the seven deadly sins as outgrowings of the 3-fold lust, and here’s the kicker: he gives a spiritual gameplan from the mystics on what specific actions to take to combat specific sins you are having problems with. He also covers how to tell what stage of the spiritual journey you are in, the type of prayer you will find yourself doing in each stage, on and on. It seriously changed my life. I cannot recommend his works more highly.

 

[Augustine3]

It’s his speculation, but I believe the Catechism alludes to a similar position

Where in the catechism?

God bless,

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

///Converts say “look how ancient the Church is” and they join it, but they think and experience everything in terms of Vatican II. Everything before that is unknown, and still largely foreign to them.////

New convert syndrome.

Yep Nathan that’s me. I admitt it. I still get all exited when I see bishops in full attire walking around with crosiers. Its so exotic
On th other hand I am a fan of the Latin mass. I came into the Catholic church attending Novus Odro Latin Masses. I think I’m at the stage when I’m more interested in the older stuff than the newer stuff.

I still try to prove everything by Scripture… It is a tough habit to break!

I agree it is difficult not to try to prove everything from Scripture, it takes time. Once the initial burn dies down, however, your love for the Church will deepen, warts and all.

 

[Abba]

Medic Mark,

I am personally not a fanatic nor a follower of Scott Hahn. I am with your RCIA instructor. I actually dislike his approach very much. I don’t like his ‘modern scholar’ approach to theology as if it was a field in which ‘discoveries’ could be made independent of God. He is always claiming to have ‘discovered’ something about Catholicism. Several months ago he claimed to have ‘discovered’ that the catechism of Catholics is the calendar. I am repulsed by his arrogance and his propaganda.

I find him very unpleasant and so I stay away. When he goes on EWTN - I change the channel.

 

[pablope]

I mentioned at RCIA tonight that I had just completed The Lamb’s Supper, by Scott Hahn. It came up because my RCIA director was speaking about Revelation and how it is was “code” for the early Church about Rome being Babylon and how John and his followers would have surely been killed if they were caught with the work.

From class dismissed.

I’m not really liking my RCIA class at all. I’ve been around the block a few times and I’m starting to wonder whether this parish is on the liberal side of things but that is another post.
**
What I want to know is if Scott Hahn is a mainstream Catholic or is he some kind of controversial teacher who espouses wild ideas as she infers? I really enjoyed The Lamb’s Supper so I bought a few more books by the man. Are they trash? **

Maybe your RCIA teacher got intimidated? I have read several of Hahn’s books and I find that he makes the theology speak plainly, in simple terms for the ordinary reader to understand. I gave his book on the priesthood, Many are Called, to a priest friend. I asked him later what he thought and said he liked the book and Hahn’s writing made it very understandable for the ordinary reader.

A book of his I really like, and I would recommend, is Lord Have Mercy-the healing power of confession.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Where in the catechism?

God bless,

1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord’s command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: “He took bread. . . .” “He took the cup filled with wine. . . .” The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154 fruit of the “work of human hands,” but above all as “fruit of the earth” and “of the vine” - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who “brought out bread and wine,” a prefiguring of her own offering.155

1334 In the Old Covenant bread and wine were offered in sacrifice among the first fruits of the earth as a sign of grateful acknowledgment to the Creator. But they also received a new significance in the context of the Exodus: the unleavened bread that Israel eats every year at Passover commemorates the haste of the departure that liberated them from Egypt; the remembrance of the manna in the desert will always recall to Israel that it lives by the bread of the Word of God;156 their daily bread is the fruit of the promised land, the pledge of God’s faithfulness to his promises. The **"cup of blessing"157 at the end of the Jewish Passover meal **adds to the festive joy of wine an eschatological dimension: the messianic expectation of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, he gave a new and definitive meaning to the blessing of the bread and the cup.

1339 Jesus chose the time of Passover to fulfill what he had announced at Capernaum: giving his disciples his Body and his Blood:

Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the passover meal for us, that we may eat it. . . .” They went . . . and prepared the passover. And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you I shall not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”. . . . And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."166
1340 By celebrating the Last Supper with his apostles in the course of the Passover meal, Jesus gave the Jewish Passover its definitive meaning. Jesus’ passing over to his father by his death and Resurrection, the new Passover, is anticipated in the Supper and celebrated in the Eucharist, which fulfills the Jewish Passover and anticipates the final Passover of the Church in the glory of the kingdom.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190

1403 At the Last Supper the Lord himself directed his disciples’ attention toward the fulfillment of the Passover in the kingdom of God: "I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom."243 Whenever the Church celebrates the Eucharist she remembers this promise and turns her gaze “to him who is to come.” In her prayer she calls for his coming: “Marana tha!” "Come, Lord Jesus!"244 "May your grace come and this world pass away!"245

(In the above, the Gospel of John makes clear that this moment of Jesus “hour” and the coming of the kingdom is the cross)

All it would take is to look at how the traditional passover was celebrated to see that Jesus had not finished the fourth cup, and Dr. Hahn does a fantastic job of showing the theology behind this, and how the cross and the Eucharist are united as one act, because the passover it fulfills is not over until the cross. Dr. Pitre expounds on this, and shows how Jesus also fulfilled the Jewish Tamid sacrifice, as well as the major Jewish feasts throughout his life. It’s good stuff.

 

[excubitor]

///Converts say “look how ancient the Church is” and they join it, but they think and experience everything in terms of Vatican II. Everything before that is unknown, and still largely foreign to them.////

Well that’s not the case with me. I was 30 years a protestant, then over a period of several years I researched intensively all the protestant/catholic issues and the history of the reformation and the church. By the time I decided to convert I was thoroughly orthodox, but I knew nothing about Vatican 2. When I got to my local parish I was shocked. It was more like a protestant service than I expected. I felt like I was more Catholic than the Catholics. So I ended up at a traditional Latin mass.

Vatican II is a dangerous set of documents if it is not read and interpreted with a solid understanding of the traditions of the church, Trent, Vatican 1 etc. If read properly it is thoroughly orthodox, but if read from a shallow modern perspective then you can end up with, … , well you can end up with the modernist parishes we have today.

It’s not protestant converts that are the problem, it is cradle catholics who have had attrocious catechesis, who know nothing about the church, nothing about Vatican 2, nothing about Scott Hahn; and yet think they know everything about the spirit and intent of Vatican 2. These are the wreckovaters of the church who have basically destroyed the church in the name of Vatican 2.

When protestants convert it is because they want to become joined with the one holy apostolic catholic church. If I am anything to go by, then I would say that most converts feel cheated when what they get instead is a crude copy of a protestant church which sings English hymns badly, plays guitar and drums badly, plays hillsong badly, and has almost entirely lost its cultural identity.

What is so dreadful to see amongst Catholics is this cultural cringe. They feel almost embarrassed about their Catholic heritage. They try to downplay it by avoiding Catholic things like the rosary, headcoverings, litanies, novenas, altars, statues, processions, pilgrimages and the sign of the cross, and set Catholic prayers. They think hillsong is something to aspire to, to attract the youth. Trust me, the youth are not attracted. If they were attracted by hillsong they would go to hillsong.

Please Catholics, just be Catholic. You can’t sing, you can’t do happy-clappy properly, you can’t do coffee and cake after the service properly; but you can pray very well, you can worship very well, you can be sobre and reverent in a sacred place well. So be Catholic, do Catholic things, believe Catholic teachings and be thoroughly pleased to be Catholic. The Catholic church has the richest heritage of any church. Why not desire it as something to be sought for, as Jacob sought after the heritage and blessing of his father.

Sorry. Not sure where that all came from. But I think it comes from a resentment of this suspicion that so many Catholics have for protestant converts (even Blessed John Henry Newman would you believe). In fact, the converts are the life of the church, the ray of hope for the new age. The cradle Catholic grows up Catholic and many despise it and leave as soon as they can. Those that don’t leave don’t value what they have because they’ve always had it. “Familiarity breeds contempt”. Whereas the convert comes from a fresh perspective. His eyes are opened to magnificent treasures. He values it like a pearl of great price that a man finds for the first time in a field and goes away and sells all that he has to buy the field.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Well that’s not the case with me. I was 30 years a protestant, then over a period of several years I researched intensively all the protestant/catholic issues and the history of the reformation and the church. By the time I decided to convert I was thoroughly orthodox, but I knew nothing about Vatican 2. When I got to my local parish I was shocked. It was more like a protestant service than I expected. I felt like I was more Catholic than the Catholics. So I ended up at a traditional Latin mass.

Vatican II is a dangerous set of documents if it is not read and interpreted with a solid understanding of the traditions of the church, Trent, Vatican 1 etc. If read properly it is thoroughly orthodox, but if read from a shallow modern perspective then you can end up with, … , well you can end up with the modernist parishes we have today.

It’s not protestant converts that are the problem, it is cradle catholics who have had attrocious catechesis, who know nothing about the church, nothing about Vatican 2, nothing about Scott Hahn; and yet think they know everything about the spirit and intent of Vatican 2. These are the wreckovaters of the church who have basically destroyed the church in the name of Vatican 2.

When protestants convert it is because they want to become joined with the one holy apostolic catholic church. If I am anything to go by, then I would say that most converts feel cheated when what they get instead is a crude copy of a protestant church which sings English hymns badly, plays guitar and drums badly, plays hillsong badly, and has almost entirely lost its cultural identity.

What is so dreadful to see amongst Catholics is this cultural cringe. They feel almost embarrassed about their Catholic heritage. They try to downplay it by avoiding Catholic things like the rosary, headcoverings, litanies, novenas, altars, statues, processions, pilgrimages and the sign of the cross, and set Catholic prayers. They think hillsong is something to aspire to, to attract the youth. Trust me, the youth are not attracted. If they were attracted by hillsong they would go to hillsong.

Please Catholics, just be Catholic. You can’t sing, you can’t do happy-clappy properly, you can’t do coffee and cake after the service properly; but you can pray very well, you can worship very well, you can be sobre and reverent in a sacred place well. So be Catholic, do Catholic things, believe Catholic teachings and be thoroughly pleased to be Catholic. The Catholic church has the richest heritage of any church. Why not desire it as something to be sought for, as Jacob sought after the heritage and blessing of his father.

Sorry. Not sure where that all came from. But I think it comes from a resentment of this suspicion that so many Catholics have for protestant converts (even Blessed John Henry Newman would you believe). In fact, the converts are the life of the church, the ray of hope for the new age. The cradle Catholic grows up Catholic and many despise it and leave as soon as they can. Those that don’t leave don’t value what they have because they’ve always had it. “Familiarity breeds contempt”. Whereas the convert comes from a fresh perspective. His eyes are opened to magnificent treasures. He values it like a pearl of great price that a man finds for the first time in a field and goes away and sells all that he has to buy the field.

I see where you’re coming from as well, but I think that is actually a protestant stereotype, the very stereotype that I have previously argued annoys the cradle Catholics. The fact is, one can point as easily at all the atrociously catechized cradle Catholics as one can all the atrociously learned protestants. For the core cradle Catholics, however, they (I would say in some cases justifiably) see protestant converts as essentially using the authority of Catholicism to back up their protestantized version of the faith. They never really take their protestant goggles off. They seem to recognize that the Catholic Church is the oldest, and the original, join the Church, and carry their unique traditions with them into the Church. For examples I refer you to my earlier posts, because the poster you are responding to was quoting me.

The precise problem is that converts see themselves as the ray of hope for Catholicism, to the point of disparaging the Church, which is made up of mostly cradle Catholics. Now for all capitals in annoying fashion: THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE GENTILES THAT PAUL CONDEMNED FOR BOASTING OVER THE JEWS.

It seems you make reference to the “folk Catholicism” I made mention of earlier in the thread, but you seem to be implying the opposite, that Cradle Catholics are moving away from it. I disagree. They move away from it as Americans move away from their ethnic ties, but as long as their are various ethnic Catholic immigrants, the scapulars, rosaries and incense are alive and well. The problem is the extreme pressure from protestant culture, in a country that has been essentially protestant from the very beginning.

cont…

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Part 2

Knowledgeable cradle Catholics, however, tend to watch bemusedly as converts “discover” various aspects of the faith that they have grown up with, and look down on Catholics with blanket disdain. The fact is, protestants are just as poorly aware of their faith, the only difference is that Catholics have a differing world-view. They focus on good works, being a good person, and have a more communal awareness (this is a generalized statement). Their ties with parishioners tend to be along ethnic and cultural lines because the Catholic faith is not a bunch of “knowledge,” but is simply interwoven in the daily fabric of their lives. Everybody they know is Catholic, so they commune with those they have ties with on cultural grounds. Conversely, protestants commune with others that “think” like they do, in a world where every denomination is different, and family ties don’t even matter as much the *beliefs *of the family members

This is because to Protestants, not everybody believes the same thing, even the people they have ties with, So protestants like knowledge. The “Gnosis” is the foundation of their religion, it’s how they view the world, and they carry it with them to Catholicism. They tend to look at the Catholic faith as something “learned” and “known” rather than lived. The difference is subtle, but real. By lived, I mean that a cradle Catholic will not bat an eye when a candle is lit for a loved one, the family prays the rosary on the weekend, incense is let on a prayer altar in the corner of the room, or a scapular is tucked under the shirt on the way to school. Converts feel the need to point it out and say “hey, look how cool it is that you are doing that, are you aware?” The cradle Catholic finds this odd. No, he hadn’t noticed it, because he’s always done it, it is part of how he lives and views the world. Just like he doesn’t notice that he tends to hold his wife’s hand as he walks through the mall, because he lives it out as part of his reality. The cradle Catholic does not always have the “knowledge” of every act of Christ in the gospel, and yet he knows enough to give a homeless man twenty dollars because he should act like Christ. The protestant convert will feel the need to see how and why the Church teaches this, essentially turning it into head knowledge, whereas the cradle Catholic will not have thought on the matter.

This again, is not a bad way of viewing things, and it is wrong to act as if it is. Cradle Catholics have always had their faith, they just need to dig deeper into the “why.” This is where yes, I agree, converts can be helpful. What is unhelpful is going too far in the other direction and placing so much emphasis on head knowledge that you essentially attack and demean the cradle Catholic’s worldview. Rather, just as the cradle Catholic should take lessons from the convert on the knowledge of his faith, converts need to get off the high horse and learn how to live it like the cradle Catholic. In the middle lies a well-rounded warrior for the faith.

 

[excubitor]

I see where you’re coming from as well, but I think that is actually a protestant stereotype, the very stereotype that I have previously argued annoys the cradle Catholics. The fact is, one can point as easily at all the atrociously catechized cradle Catholics as one can all the atrociously learned protestants.

This might be true for a protestant convert who is converting merely because he wants to marry a Catholic, but why would a protestant convert if it were not for his pursuit of knowledge and truth driving him to see that the Catholic faith is the one true apostolic catholic church that our Lord started? (Important disclaimer: I understand that we are both talking in gross stereotype and that these are very broad generalities so I hope that no particular cradle Catholic is offended. Indeed the people I admire most in my life are particular cradle Catholics who are standouts head and shoulder over the generalised cradle Catholics of which I speak)

Protestants by their very nature are more dedicated to Bible Study almost as an article of faith and worship. It’s interesting to not that most converts to Catholicism are mature with many years of Bible Study and church attendance behind them. Often (as was the case with Scott Hahn) they are the cream of their protestant fellowships. The Christians that were known as diligent hard working Bible students. Therefore the possibility of a protestant convert being atrociously learned is far less than that of a cradle Catholic. If protestants are atrociously learned it may well be because they were corrupted in their RCIA class which in the vast majority of cases are conducted by atrociously learned cradle Catholics.

For the core cradle Catholics, however, they (I would say in some cases justifiably) see protestant converts as essentially using the authority of Catholicism to back up their protestantized version of the faith. They never really take their protestant goggles off. They seem to recognize that the Catholic Church is the oldest, and the original, join the Church, and carry their unique traditions with them into the Church.

I certainly concede this point. We only have to look at Gerry Matatics as proof of that. He came out of the same bedrock as Scott Hahn, in fact they were in the Presbyterian Seminary and converted to Catholicism together. Gerry however never got out of the mould of analysing the head knowledge. He was proud in his intellectual ability to nut out truth. He never really got to the point of faith, where we submit our intellect to God’s rule through the magisterium. I have also seen alarming clashes of culture where protestants converting try to bring their heritage into the Catholic circles. If you recheck my previous post this is the very thing that I am stridently resisting. But I blame this all on the cradle Catholics shocking cultural cringe and identity crisis. The cradle Catholic of today does not really know what it is to be Catholic anymore, so he/she is easy prey to every cultural influence that washes over him.

For examples I refer you to my earlier posts, because the poster you are responding to was quoting me.

The precise problem is that converts see themselves as the ray of hope for Catholicism, to the point of disparaging the Church, which is made up of mostly cradle Catholics. Now for all capitals in annoying fashion: THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE GENTILES THAT PAUL CONDEMNED FOR BOASTING OVER THE JEWS.

I certainly did not intend my comment about converts being rays of hope to be a general disparagement of the church. I certainly am not disparaging the church, however I am not the only one who is appalled at the standard of liturgy and worship and general catholic practice in the parishes in the US and across Europe. Our schools are an utter mess. They barely even deserve to be called Catholic because their standard of catechism of students in the Catholic faith is so woeful. Today our schools are basically overrun with pagans with probably not 1 in 30 children regularly attending mass. I love Holy Mother Church, but I am not going to whitewash the horrendous problems which she faces. And sorry. You cannot blame the state of the church on newcomers and converts. The blame lies squarely on the cradle Catholics who have horribly neglected their faith.

 

[excubitor]

Part 2

Knowledgeable cradle Catholics,

What’s that? There is probably one knowledgable cradle Catholic in a thousand. And most of them are on Catholic Answers. The standard of knowledge among Catholics is woeful. I have observed this first hand and have heard and read numerous anecdotal examples of this.

however, tend to watch bemusedly as converts “discover” various aspects of the faith that they have grown up with, and look down on Catholics with blanket disdain. The fact is, protestants are just as poorly aware of their faith,

True, but protestant converts to Catholicism are a very select group and are on the whole very informed of their old faith, and of the new catholic faith.

the only difference is that Catholics have a differing world-view. They focus on good works, being a good person, and have a more communal awareness (this is a generalized statement). Their ties with parishioners tend to be along ethnic and cultural lines because the Catholic faith is not a bunch of “knowledge,” but is simply interwoven in the daily fabric of their lives. Everybody they know is Catholic, so they commune with those they have ties with on cultural grounds. Conversely, protestants commune with others that “think” like they do, in a world where every denomination is different, and family ties don’t even matter as much the *beliefs *of the family members The cradle Catholic does not always have the “knowledge” of every act of Christ in the gospel, and yet he knows enough to give a homeless man twenty dollars because he should act like Christ. The protestant convert will feel the need to see how and why the Church teaches this, essentially turning it into head knowledge, whereas the cradle Catholic will not have thought on the matter.

Look we get all this in the protestant circles as well. We are told that head knowledge is not important and that what counts is our relationship with Jesus. This is utterly false. Knowledge is vital to faith. I can quote you all the scriptures if you like. I agree that prfotestants can get stuck on the head knowledge and not move deeper into the spiritual life of worship and service, that is certainly a great danger which I recognise in my own spiritual life: but conceding this does not in any way diminish the ongoing importance of Bible study and catechesis. In fact the appalling state of Catholic catechesis as compared to protestant knowledge of their doctrines and scriptures was noted in Vatican 2. The RCIA program was designed to correct this problem but if anything it has made it worse. Surely bad education is worse than no education. The problem is so bad that cradle Catholics are attending protestant scripture classes and study groups in order to receive some decent instruction in the christian faith. This is done of course to the ruin of souls. Catholic teachers whine. Well we put on classes but nobody comes. Of course they don’t, because they know they will receive sub-standard and often dangerous instruction. I know it must seem like I am ranting on, but really its just not possible to understate the enormity and the peril of the situation.

By lived, I mean that a cradle Catholic will not bat an eye when a candle is lit for a loved one, the family prays the rosary on the weekend, incense is let on a prayer altar in the corner of the room, or a scapular is tucked under the shirt on the way to school.

Err. Come on now. Are you serious? How many Catholics who are not traditionalists or are not over 60 wear a scapular. How many school students wear a scapular in most of US and Europe UK and Aus.? The hinge on the door of the confessional is rusting stiff let alone And how many Catholic families even pray together let alone have a little altar in the corner? How many families pray the rosary. Surely even the cradle catholics are chuckling at this suggestion. In fact as I said before in my previous post, it is the cradle Catholics which have this crashing cultural cringe, who feel that then need to kowtow to their protestant neighbours by taking communion in the hand, ripping out altars and putting in tables, facing the people instead of the altar; shall I go on?

 

[Elizabeth502]

My own view, as someone who was raised with an outstanding Catholic education, is that I fail to see all the fuss about Hahn (positive or negative). With the exception of the occasional “novel idea” (already mentioned) or “unique” theory, I do not find him an unusually creative or insightful scriptural thinker, which is not to say that it’s a requirement to be creative or insightful to be a solid scripture scholar! Perhaps those who react to him are reacting to style more than substance. I do agree with the appearance of his being delighted with a “new idea” he claims (or it seems that) he has discovered, even though almost always these concepts are anything but new. A well-read scripture scholar can tell you that many others have written about Hahn’s more recent “discoveries” and “theories.” What I think this reflects is (as has been alluded to) perhaps some remnant enthusiasm over a faith, which 20+ years or not, is still probably only half his lifetime. For most people, it is “different” coming into an ancient church from a less ancient tradition. The understandings, for someone eager to teach on the University level, are not overnight. Again, this is not to say that he is not qualified to write and teach, or, as others have said, he would not have the positions he has. But he strikes me as more “the kid in the candy store” – so excited about everything he sees and discovers, when most of what he exclaims about those discoveries are quite long-standing biblical theology, at least in the Roman Church.

I listen to him patiently without prejudice – in the EWTN programs from Steubenville on Sunday, for example. I’ve been doing this for years, so my impressions of him are not hastily arrived at, but I just do not see him as spectacularly brilliant. He’s enjoying what he’s doing; that’s for sure. Good to be taught by someone who really enjoys the text and enjoys talking about it, writing about it, but I do not see him providing exceptionally rich biblical scholarship to Catholic audiences.

 

[Tietjen]

I spoke up and said that Hahn’s work helped me shed light on the book of Revelation with regard to the Mass. Before I could finish my train of thought she really slammed me for it. This turned into a 10 minute sidebar by her. She basically said that Scott Hahn is the hottest new thing that he wasn’t “born Catholic” and as a relatively new converted protestant minister he is still learning about the Church. She went on about how his books are essentially evolving as he matures. That it was “Hahn’s interpretation of Revelation. It is not the mainstream.” In short, she’s not a fan.

The page attached is good enough for me.

Scott Hahn - 1
This RCIA instructor - 0

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Excubitor, I think you ripped some of my statements about folk Catholicism out of context of the ethnic/cultural background. I’m Irish. I know exactly what I’m talking about here, and there are many under 60 that live in this manner. All my cousins wear scapulars and light candles and are borderline superstitious about Mary. I can wipe the floor with them in the Bible, and that’s okay. My wife is mexican, and you can’t go two feet without tripping over some odd vestige of mexican folk Catholicism. Her family has, yes, a prayer altar, and candles. She wears a scapular and always has. They have rosaries everywhere. I lost a rosary before mass and they literally reached into a random drawer and pulled one out.

I also think you are neglecting the fact that *American *Catholicism is being torn apart by giving into protestant tenants, because America has always been protestant.

I enjoy Catholic Answers, but assuming that the knowledgeable ones are almost all on board with Catholic Answers is a gross mistatement. Here’s a question you may want to chew on: If there is such an epidemic of uncatechized Catholics as opposed to the wise protestant converts, then why did the protestants convert at all? Did they wade through the layers of uneducated yokels to find “the Church” in a glass Pandora’s box, pristine and waiting to be released by said converts? Or is it a bit more realistic to assume that they met knowledgeable Catholics that challenged their views, forced them to study, and then convert? Statistics don’t lie, and protestants really don’t know the Bible any better than many Catholics. Yes. I said it, and I stand by it. Quoting chapter and verse means nothing when it comes to knowing the Bible. And in fact, that’s exactly my point. Catholics know the Bible through everyday life, Protestants tend to know it in their head.

And your comments about the Church are reaching to my grand, over-arching point: Converts often see the Church as what they want it to be. Not as it is. Catholics are abysmally catechized? News Flash. They always were. The Church has been in crisis since A.D 30. The difference is, converts read the writings of the ones that the Church saw fit to make doctors and saints. The abysmally catechized made do with learning from stained glass windows. They didn’t write stuff, and converts didn’t read it. So it’s true that the Church is a vast treasure chest of riches, but it’s also a condensation; not the whole picture. It’s sort of like ordering the “Faith Database” and saying “this is the Church.” The true Catholic Church is a warts and all family, and while converts do well to re-energize the Church, they also need to see their place in the grand scheme of things, and make sure they are not trying to “restore” the Church to something she never was. The fact is, we get the smart protestants. Smart people in any group are the minority. Converts need get comfortable with the fact that they moved from one minority to another, and stop looking down on the cradle Catholics. If protestants were doing so hot, then there wouldn’t be as many uneducated in their own circle prior to their converting. The fact that they want to ignore their own uneducated, move to the Church based on the Church’s educated, then hypocritically talk down about the Church’s uneducated as if the educated are the model citizens and the cradle Catholics are somehow lesser and “bringing the Church down”, smacks of arrogance, and rightly annoys the cradle Catholics.

 

[larsenl1]

I want to respond to the OP and the comment about being discouraged in RCIA.

I converted from Lutheran to Catholic at Easter Vigil 2007. In 2009 I joined the RCIA team and this will be my third year witnessing other adults join the church. It is mystical and awesome.

One problem with RCIA is that there is sooooo much to teach and the instructor will touch on a large subject and then perhaps 3 weeks later is dissecting the sacraments one by one and going to a lot of detail.

It is disappointing that the instructor burst the bubble of excitement that you have for Scott Hahn. I would probably keep this excitement to yourself from now on, but be patient with your instructor and pray for her. One thing I have learned from my instructor is that all Catholics are still human and subject to the frailty of mistakes. That does not mean that your instructor is a bad person through and through, and even if liberal, you still will receive the catechism, a bible, a rosary, and most important, your sacraments will be valid as long as the form and matter are appropriate.

I will pray for you.

 

[DavidKays]

I want to respond to the OP and the comment about being discouraged in RCIA.

I converted from Lutheran to Catholic at Easter Vigil 2007. In 2009 I joined the RCIA team and this will be my third year witnessing other adults join the church. It is mystical and awesome.

One problem with RCIA is that there is sooooo much to teach and the instructor will touch on a large subject and then perhaps 3 weeks later is dissecting the sacraments one by one and going to a lot of detail.

It is disappointing that the instructor burst the bubble of excitement that you have for Scott Hahn. I would probably keep this excitement to yourself from now on, but be patient with your instructor and pray for her. One thing I have learned from my instructor is that all Catholics are still human and subject to the frailty of mistakes. That does not mean that your instructor is a bad person through and through, and even if liberal, you still will receive the catechism, a bible, a rosary, and most important, your sacraments will be valid as long as the form and matter are appropriate.

I will pray for you.

Are you referring to me as the OP. If you are I was just thinking that the gentleman continue his studies reading Scott Hahn since he enjoys it and learning from it. I am glad that you find the Catholic way a very moving mystical experience. It can be as such depending who your teachers are. My word of mystical is somewhat different than what Catholics are use to. When I write about the mystical way the Orthodox will mean it in a different way then what Catholics are used to. To know what I am talking about can be very difficult for those who do not us. For us Orthodox the mystical way or as it can rightly called the contemplative way is the way for instance of one of our Church fathers, St.John Chrysostom. Many Orthodox Saints do imitate this great Saint. We just love him. Catholics are just now beginning to read about him. Some Catholic Saints who have imitated this Saint and have gone through the route of the Mystical way or the Contemplative way are St.John Vianney ( the Cure of Ars ), St.Teresa of Avila. St.Therese of Lisieux, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, His Holiness John Paul II and many, many others. While learning the Catholic Faith can be a " mystical " experience and rightfully it is, I was using the word in explaining more deeply the Contemplative Way which we Orthodox tend to excel better at. Our whole Tradition is based on the Contemplative Way and the writings of our Saints are on the same par as the great Saints of the Catholic Church who have also gone in the direction of the Contemplative Way. Keep up the good work you are progressing in. You will find it rich and rewarding. And I hope you will also discover the Contemplative Way to your liking and read the Saints who have excelled in this area. I wish you well.

 

[beafedor]

I mentioned at RCIA tonight that I had just completed The Lamb’s Supper, by Scott Hahn. It came up because my RCIA director was speaking about Revelation and how it is was “code” for the early Church about Rome being Babylon and how John and his followers would have surely been killed if they were caught with the work. I spoke up and said that Hahn’s work helped me shed light on the book of Revelation with regard to the Mass. Before I could finish my train of thought she really slammed me for it. This turned into a 10 minute sidebar by her. She basically said that Scott Hahn is the hottest new thing that he wasn’t “born Catholic” and as a relatively new converted protestant minister he is still learning about the Church. She went on about how his books are essentially evolving as he matures. That it was “Hahn’s interpretation of Revelation. It is not the mainstream.” In short, she’s not a fan.

Hello, I wouldn’t worry about it. Our former RCIA director also was not a fan of Scott Hahn and would make similar comments. If Dr Hahn was unorthodox, he wouldn’t have been appointed as the Pope Benedict XVI Chair of Biblical Theology and Liturgical Proclamation at St Vincent Seminary in PA.

 

[simspt]

I mentioned at RCIA tonight that I had just completed The Lamb’s Supper, by Scott Hahn. It came up because my RCIA director was speaking about Revelation and how it is was “code” for the early Church about Rome being Babylon and how John and his followers would have surely been killed if they were caught with the work.

I spoke up and said that Hahn’s work helped me shed light on the book of Revelation with regard to the Mass. Before I could finish my train of thought she really slammed me for it. This turned into a 10 minute sidebar by her. She basically said that Scott Hahn is the hottest new thing that he wasn’t “born Catholic” and as a relatively new converted protestant minister he is still learning about the Church. She went on about how his books are essentially evolving as he matures. That it was “Hahn’s interpretation of Revelation. It is not the mainstream.” In short, she’s not a fan.

I pressed her for details about what she meant by all this because all she ever does is speak vaguely or in generalities about everything. “I am under the impression that Hahn is a respected Church historian/theologian” I said. “He thinks he is” she says and stated that it was his interpretation of the Mass. So I then asked, “Hahn states in his book that his view is the Church’s view but acknowledges that it hasn’t been, for whatever reason, at the forefront of Catholic education about the Mass. I am under the impression that we’re not really to express individual interpretations about such matters?”

From that point she pretty much shut down the conversation by babbling on about ex cathedra. Another member then asked how Job fit into the greater context of scripture: “It is a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful book” and then it was class dismissed.

I’m not really liking my RCIA class at all. I’ve been around the block a few times and I’m starting to wonder whether this parish is on the liberal side of things but that is another post.
**
What I want to know is if Scott Hahn is a mainstream Catholic or is he some kind of controversial teacher who espouses wild ideas as she infers? I really enjoyed The Lamb’s Supper so I bought a few more books by the man. Are they trash? **

My wife and I are in RCIA as well. Its our second round because of moving and quite honestly not fully being ready the first time. I can appreciate where you are at because I was not at all happy with my first experience in RCIA for multiple reasons that I won’t go into. Currently we feel fortunate to be in the RCIA class we are in but I would only encourage you to be patient with your instructor and not let it deter you.

 

[larsenl1]

Are you referring to me as the OP.

Sorry No, I was trying to respond back to Medic Mark, the first post

My word of mystical is somewhat different than what Catholics are use to. When I write about the mystical way the Orthodox will mean it in a different way then what Catholics are used to. To know what I am talking about can be very difficult for those who do not us.

I have read a lot about Greek Orthodox Church. I love the Theotokos. My children were baptised and confirmed Russian Orthodox, I have a friend in the Serbian Church, and another friend in the Greek Orthodox Church. I understand mysticism. Our RCIA director actually teaches mystagogy after Easter. This is akin to what you call mysticism.

Some Catholic Saints who have imitated this Saint and have gone through the route of the Mystical way or the Contemplative way are St.John Vianney ( the Cure of Ars ), St.Teresa of Avila. St.Therese of Lisieux, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, His Holiness John Paul II and many, many others.

My confirmation saint is St. Terese of Lisieux and I read her writings. She is a wonderful saint.

Keep up the good work you are progressing in. You will find it rich and rewarding. And I hope you will also discover the Contemplative Way to your liking and read the Saints who have excelled in this area. I wish you well.

Thank you for your kind words. I just wanted to let you know my understanding. God Bless

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Nathan Wagar:

Excubitor, I think you ripped some of my statements about folk Catholicism out of context of the ethnic/cultural background.

Wow, you two are debating such an interesting point, and both of you have valid arguments that you present clearly and convincingly!

Maybe you could start a thread up with that in mind, so others (like myself) could join in without fearing we were derailing a thread.

The point is, Converts vs. Cradle Catholics, whose Church?

I have to admit I find Excubitor’s difficulties with Cradle Catholics very much my own feeling, and I’M a cradle Catholic! However, I understand and sympathize with Nathan’s points, especially as an Irish Catholic with a Mexican Spouse!

However I will also say that I know of many ignorant Protestants, who question nothing that is laid before them, if it comes from a fellow Protestant. Protestants who never scratch the surface of the most implausible, and most UN-Biblical teachings.