What's Wrong With Scott Hahn?

[Crumpy]

I don’t usually pop in to a long thread like this, but I have some – maybe dumb – thoughts about Hahn.

One is, I’m just not on the same wavelength as theologians. I hear him say things in theology and I get a headache, because I don’t understand them.

Second, I sort of liked his books, but he’s really got a lot of them. Sure, a lot of people have written a lot of books, but I’m miffed that I cannot keep up with them, just for the money and – perhaps – for the value of them. you know? And, he’s advertising his books on EWTN, too. I don’t like that, can’t explain why.

His book about Mary seemed to skip over the explanation of the Assumption (was that it?)
Between you and me, I don’t like that he “skated” over that subject. The book seems incomplete on that point alone.

Third, in some of his books, there is a thin layer of humor, and some of his remarks sound like a punchline. I just don’t care for that style.

I have and read The Lamb’s Supper, but it doesn’t seem to cover the entire book of Revelation, does it?

Overall: I don’t know anything about RCIA. That may not be the best place to go so deeply into things, like books from Scott Hahn. There may be a better place to discuss Hahn’s books. But, RCIA may not be the best place, because it disadvantages people who have not read the book. I think the teacher, too, should not make disparaging comments for the same reason.

Anytime there is a discussion of RCIA around this website, it always seems to be that it is lacking in some aspect. I don’t know who teaches it, to begin with, and how they got the “job” of teaching RCIA. I don’t think RCIA is essentially a class in apologetics or is intended to be. Maybe I’m wrong.

 

[steve_b]

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?

If you’re still here, I’m with all the responders so far who think Scott Hahn is great. And I’m a cradle Catholic and Hahn is no newbie…

• As far as Rome being Babylon, yes Peter wrote his 1st letter from Rome which he metaphorically calls Babylon in that 1st letter. “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13) As far as the real Babylon, (present day Iraq) there is zero evidence Peter was ever in Iraq. And Babylon, was destroyed ~500 b.c. never to be rebuilt. Although Saddam Heusein before he died, wanted to rebuild the ancient city and it’s famous hanging gardens.
• Jerusalem is ALSO metaphorically called Babylon, which WAS destroyed during John’s time, and before he wrote Revelations.

Your teacher, seems a bit defensive. Maybe she’s intimidated. Maybe SHE’S the one who is NOT mainstream. Bottomline, Hahn has MORE then enough credentials to teach Catholic theology. So don’t YOU be intimidated. Hahn gives references to his views copiously, as you know, since you’ve read some of his books.

 

[James224]

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? **

Scott Hahn is definitely mainstream. The Book of Revelation is about the Mass and he wasn’t the first to say so. I remember off the top of my head that Pius Parch wrote about this. I’m sure there are others. You are on the right track.

 

[grannymh]

A Catholic leader with a fuzzy understanding of the truth is better than a protestant with a firm understanding of falsehood.

I am not on the side of a Protestant with a firm understanding of falsehood. They usually are not defending Catholic doctrines. I am thinking about the thousands of Catholics who have been exposed to the “fuzzy understandings” and thus have casually abandoned Catholicism’s main teachings and practices such as going to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Please rethink about what happens with a “fuzzy understanding” of Catholic truth.
There are examples on CAF. I am not referring to posters who sincerely ask questions; but rather to posters who are now defending their " fuzzy understandings" which by now have morphed into anti-Catholic teachings. I have said enough about this and don’t need to add anything else.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[jmcrae]

Anytime there is a discussion of RCIA around this website, it always seems to be that it is lacking in some aspect. I don’t know who teaches it, to begin with, and how they got the “job” of teaching RCIA.

RCIA is not a “course” and it is not “taught” by experts. Rather, it is a journey, and anyone who wants to, as long as they are fully initiated Catholics in good standing with the Church, can journey along with the candidates and catechumens. The Rites and the Periods of RCIA are there to keep everyone on the right track.

It is expected that people coming out of RCIA will know pretty much the same things that their fellow parishioners know about the Catholic faith.

I don’t think RCIA is essentially a class in apologetics or is intended to be. Maybe I’m wrong.

You’re right - it isn’t. It is an introduction to the practice of the Catholic faith. The “why do we do that” questions don’t go very deep, and often involve the sharing of experiences (I*'m glad I go to Mass every Sunday because one time when I didn’t feel like going, I experienced something amazing* - which translates to the candidate/catechumen as, Catholics are supposed to go to Mass every Sunday, and it’s cool to do that because sometimes, amazing things happen) rather than any kind of deep theological explanation.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I am not on the side of a Protestant with a firm understanding of falsehood. They usually are not defending Catholic doctrines. I am thinking about the thousands of Catholics who have been exposed to the “fuzzy understandings” and thus have casually abandoned Catholicism’s main teachings and practices such as going to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Please rethink about what happens with a “fuzzy understanding” of Catholic truth.
There are examples on CAF. I am not referring to posters who sincerely ask questions; but rather to posters who are now defending their " fuzzy understandings" which by now have morphed into anti-Catholic teachings. I have said enough about this and don’t need to add anything else.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

I wasn’t responding to you, but point duly noted. Blessings.

 

[Javl]

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? **

Please inform your RCIA instructor to stop being biased and predjudiced. Although Dr. Scot Hahn was once a vehemently anti-Catholic Presbyterian minister, today he is a devout Catholic theologian and is a Church accredited professor at the Jesuit University at Steubenville, Ohio. He, and Marcus Grodi ( another convert ) are responsible for many Protestants converting to Catholicism.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[mcrow]

Please inform your RCIA instructor to stop being biased and predjudiced. Although Dr. Scot Hahn was once a vehemently anti-Catholic Presbyterian minister, today he is a devout Catholic theologian and is a Church accredited professor at the Jesuit University at Steubenville, Ohio. He, and Marcus Grodi ( another convert ) are responsible for many Protestants converting to Catholicism.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Yes, as a former Lutheran turned unreligious, Scott Hahn is primarily responsible (after the Lord of course) for my conversion. I picked up a couple of his books and by time I finished them, I was convinced that I should be Catholic.

The people in my RCIA class, the leaders(specifically a Sister and multiple practicing Catholics), very much approve of the RCIA stundents reading Scott Hahn’s books.

 

[COPLAND_3]

part 2:

That’s really the main thing. He presents his ideas as traditional to lay-people, and they aren’t. Nothing wrong with that, but at times he seems a bit slick about the presentation. Some would argue he is being disengenuous, I won’t go that far. I can understand wanting popular acceptance of an idea that you really believe has merit. However, I don’t think the way he does it is necessarily correct.

The reason people bash him, aside from reasons cited, is that many protestant converts tend to fall in love with what they think the Church is rather than the reality, and never quite take off their protestant goggles. This can be seen in the fact that converts love the early fathers and the Bible, but the other 1300 years not so much. St John of the Cross? What about folk Catholicism? How many converts still try to justify Marian beliefs with Scripture rather than accepting tradition as enough? Ever wonder why converts always try to look to the Bible as the *source *for every dogma rather than as a *testament *to what the Church believes? These are legitimate concerns that are often pointed out by traditionalists. Dr. Hahn even coined this term: “prima scriptura.” Yes the novus ordo is very scriptural. But does it have to be? Would these people have converted if it was the old lectionary with the old readings? Would they accept dogmas solely on the authority of the Church? Look how many have problems even as Catholics because they can’t find it in Scipture…and yet God is the source of our beliefs, not necessarily Scripture. Scripture and Tradition are the delivery system, so to speak…

These are my thoughts on the matter. I love Dr. Hahn (although I prefer Dr. Pitre). I am reading one of his works right now. But always be intelligently and respectfully critical. Dr. Hahn is not the Church. God Bless

Nathan, excellent response! Very well said!

 

[po18guy]

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.

Just consider RCIA as your penance. You will learn one hundred times as much right here, and from a few good books. Grit your teeth and bear with it until you can put RCIA in your mirror.

 

[Elizabeth502]

he is a devout Catholic theologian and is a Church accredited professor at the Jesuit University at Steubenville, Ohio.

I think you mean FUS (Franciscan University of Steubenville).

There are a couple of Jesuit institutions in Ohio: John Carroll and Xavier. But he teaches at FUS.

 

[JackQ]

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? **

What is mainstream? From the little I’ve read, I think you can put him on the so-called “conservative” side of things, but I have seen conservative criticism of him as well. I’ve taught both RCIA and and confirmation preparation, both for a number of years, and it is my view that instructors ought to keep their views on such things to themselves. The Catechism tells us what we’re supposed to be teaching. As for you, if Scott Hahn helps you understand the teachings of the Church, that’s good. If he’s leading you to heresy, that’s bad. Which is he doing? Check him out against the Catechism.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I don’t think this is derailing the thread. I believe it is this tension between cradle catholics and converting protestants which is behind this RCIA instructors lashing of Scott Hahn.

Protestants are on the whole far more educated in their faith than are Catholic’s in theirs. Protestants are also pretty well versed in how to argue against the teachings of the Catholic church. But the vast majority of Catholics, if they encountered an argument against their faith directed at them by a protestant, would not know how to respond, and might even start to doubt their faith. That is not good enough. Every literate Catholic should be an apologist, and a defender of the faith.

OK, I think I understand better what Nathan is trying to say, based on your reply. You have definitely got a skewed way of thinking about Catholics and Protestants which I don’t believe reflects the reality.

In my world, like what Nathan was saying, the vast majority of people are driven by culture and community, not doctrines and logic. The reason I lost 7 brothers and sisters to the “born again” culture was because my mother went ahead of them. I have never yet heard a “born again” whether here on CAF or in my daily journey, with a firm grasp of doctrine or logic. These people are a type of Protestant which is VERY cultural and VERY right wing American.

Therefore the argument that most Catholics have no idea how to defend their Faith has little bearing on why they leave the Church. They don’t leave because they find better arguments, they leave because they find better community. That is not to say that catechesis isn’t very important. If Catholics understood their faith better, intellectually, they would realize they share in a rich community too.

So although I still agree with some of your disparaging remarks about Catholics, I think you are putting too much stress on them as Nathan is saying.

 

[Abba]

As for me and my house, we will not get up in the morning with a:

Hail, Holy, Hahn!!!

“So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. 27“For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. 28“Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather."

I don’t care how many documents a person has in his brief case. The glory belongs to God.

 

[steve_b]

part 2:

That’s really the main thing. He presents his ideas as traditional to lay-people, and they aren’t. Nothing wrong with that, but at times he seems a bit slick about the presentation. Some would argue he is being disengenuous, I won’t go that far. I can understand wanting popular acceptance of an idea that you really believe has merit. However, I don’t think the way he does it is necessarily correct.

Like what?
NW:

The reason people bash him, aside from reasons cited, is that many protestant converts tend to fall in love with what they think the Church is rather than the reality, and never quite take off their protestant goggles. This can be seen in the fact that converts love the early fathers and the Bible, but the other 1300 years not so much. St John of the Cross? What about folk Catholicism? How many converts still try to justify Marian beliefs with Scripture rather than accepting tradition as enough?

I disagree. Hahn isn’t stuck in any age. He covers scripture, Tradition, and Church teaching (all 3) when examining a subject. I have many of his books and 100’s of hours of tapes (prior to CD’s) and many of his CD’s, on many subjects, and he names his sources (using the 3 mentioned) copiously.
NW:

Ever wonder why converts always try to look to the Bible as the *source *for every dogma rather than as a *testament *to what the Church believes?

Hahn isn’t an either/or guy. He uses ALL materials and refers to his many sources copiously. But face it, when you try and convince one who IS sola source, the intuitive one in the debate, knows it’s necessary to 1st meet the other one where they are, until the other one sees that it is NOT a sola source subject. Hahn is exceptional at doing this IMO.
NW:

These are legitimate concerns that are often pointed out by traditionalists.

And as you know, traditionalists have their OWN either/or dynamics.
NW:

Dr. Hahn even coined this term: “prima scriptura.” Yes the novus ordo is very scriptural. But does it have to be? Would these people have converted if it was the old lectionary with the old readings? Would they accept dogmas solely on the authority of the Church? Look how many have problems even as Catholics because they can’t find it in Scipture…and yet God is the source of our beliefs, not necessarily Scripture. Scripture and Tradition are the delivery system, so to speak…

There isn’t a single belief or teaching of the Catholic Church that is contrary to scripture. Maybe THAT’s one of Hahn’s primary motives for focusing on scripture… Your criticism of him so far seems to be opposed to finding our beliefs and defending them from scripture, something that IS important to do. AND given he talks a great deal with people who DO come from SS persuasion, he takes a scriptural position. Might I add though, defending the faith using scripture, is somethiing many Catholics should be better at doing, if not for purposes of defending the faith to others, then for their own information and peace of mind that everything we believe is NOT contrary to scripture…
NW:

These are my thoughts on the matter. I love Dr. Hahn (although I prefer Dr. Pitre). I am reading one of his works right now. But always be intelligently and respectfully critical. Dr. Hahn is not the Church. God Bless

My thoughts are, He does a great and thorough job faithfully representing the Catholic Church. I haven’t been disturbed so far by anything I’ve heard him say or books I’ve read of his.

Karl Keating interviewed Scott Hahn back in 1996
catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9609fea1.asp

 

[steve_b]

As for me and my house, we will not get up in the morning with a:

Hail, Holy, Hahn!!!

“So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. 27“For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. 28“Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather."

I don’t care how many documents a person has in his brief case. The glory belongs to God.

where is all this vitriol coming from?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think steve_b makes an excellent point about Hahn being a helpful bridge for Christians coming out of a Sola Scriptura background and converting to Catholicism.

 

[steve_b]

RCIA is not a “course” and it is not “taught” by experts. Rather, it is a journey, and anyone who wants to, as long as they are fully initiated Catholics in good standing with the Church, can journey along with the candidates and catechumens. The Rites and the Periods of RCIA are there to keep everyone on the right track.

If one presumes to teach, they better be qualified to teach the subject. That doesn’t mean anyone who can fog a mirror qualifies…

There should be a proficiency exam supervised by the diocese for every teacher, under the watch of the bishop, to make sure one is even qualified to teach RCIA.

 

[gtrenewed]

And this is wrong why?

Never said it was wrong, just commenting on Scott’s style.

Pecking order is a disparaging phrase.

Yeah, but that is what I saw in the protestant churches maybe because of the loss of apostolic succession.

But the scripture says that the Holy Ghost appoints teachers.
Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
So pastor and elder is a different office to teacher.

Giving is different from appointing. The church has been given that authority from the apostle’s.

While the offices differ they were historically filled with the clergy such as monks who could be a priest as well.

And yet it is these very priests and bishops who have appointed Scott Hahn to have authority as a teacher and given his books imprimatur. Are you suggesting that these well formed priests and bishops have erred in appointing Scott Hahn to a position of authority?

Never said that either. Read my last paragraph.

Why are you shocked because protestants by their diligence of the scriptures have been found to be wise, whereas your own children have been found wanting.

Not shocked but I observed many who relied on the pastor for their understanding and could not adequately defend their faith.
We would say that the lack of the sacraments leave the protestant wanting.

The apostles grew in knowledge far beyond their capacity and background. This is what astonished those who heard them preach
Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

This is what Catholics have been called to do since Vatican 2 and their failure has been almost completely total. Any wonder then that protestant converts are stepping into the breach and filling the vaccuum.

While Jesus is the Word He is also the bread of life. St. Francis of Assissi put it this way, “preach the gospel and if necessary use words”.
A convert is a catholic. We all must be converted whether a cradle or otherwise.

Your premise that there is a total failure or a vacuum is false. The catholic church is not being rescued by protestant converts because they know scripture but the church
has rescued them by adding tradition and the sacraments. Now they can use their talents and gifts more fully than before.

So are you agreeing that cradle catholics are spiritually indifferent and largely ignorant of their faith?

No not at all. I used to think that but as I said I have come to see otherwise. There are wheat and tares in every church and we are warned not to judge before the time.

You are right that it is a journey, but this is my complaint. Catholics are NOT progressing on that journey.

Who are you to judge? You claim to be catholic so are you speaking about yourself?

So Paul makes it clear that maturing in the faith means growing in the skillful use of the Word of God to be able to discern good and evil teachings.

My bible appropriately heads this passage with the heading “The Danger of Slothfulness and Apostasy” . And this is utterly correct. This failure to progress in knowledge to the point of being mature teachers is nothing less than laziness. It is the seed of apostasy. When we see the great falling away, the great apostasy in the last days, you can be utterly sure that those falling away are believing a lie which they should have easily detected if they had not been so lazy at mastering the principles of the oracles of God.

To our advantage we have the church to help us understand false teaching. It seems you are either still a protestant or a poorly catechized convert. Every protestant denomination has differing views on baptism and communion, all claiming to be scriptural. It seems the lies are already at work.

 

[excubitor]

OK, I think I understand better what Nathan is trying to say, based on your reply. You have definitely got a skewed way of thinking about Catholics and Protestants which I don’t believe reflects the reality.

In my world, like what Nathan was saying, the vast majority of people are driven by culture and community, not doctrines and logic. The reason I lost 7 brothers and sisters to the “born again” culture was because my mother went ahead of them. I have never yet heard a “born again” whether here on CAF or in my daily journey, with a firm grasp of doctrine or logic. These people are a type of Protestant which is VERY cultural and VERY right wing American.

Therefore the argument that most Catholics have no idea how to defend their Faith has little bearing on why they leave the Church. They don’t leave because they find better arguments, they leave because they find better community. That is not to say that catechesis isn’t very important. If Catholics understood their faith better, intellectually, they would realize they share in a rich community too.

So although I still agree with some of your disparaging remarks about Catholics, I think you are putting too much stress on them as Nathan is saying.

Surely your post is simply supporting my contention all along that poor formation of Catholics in doctrines and the scriptures is the cause of the demise of so many in the Church. If they were properly catechised they would have recognised errors of the “born again” set and rejected them early on.

The fact that you lost seven brothers and sisters to the “born again” lot is a disgrace. It’s a tragedy of the church. Then you say I am putting too much stress on my criticisms of cradle catholics. Well how much more stress is necessary than to point out that you have lost seven brothers and sister and your mother. If your post is not a perfect case study for the crisis in faith in the Catholic church then I don’t know what is. And then when converting protestants come in pleading with you to wake up and deal with this shocking crisis, suddenly its the converting protestants fault.

It reminds me of the prophets of old who came warning Israel of their sins and their abandonment of the laws of God. Those people of Israel blamed the prophets and not themselves for their troubles. I’m not a prophet, but I am coming into the church with fresh eyes and a fresh perspective. You have a terrible crisis confronting you. Wake up. Do something.

They left for better culture? That too bears out what I have been saying. You cradle catholics have ditched your culture and fawned to protestant ways. You have a cultural cringe. You live in a cultural wasteland. Please go back and read my posts. I really don’t think you have grasped what I have been saying.

So you need both. Stop doting on protestants, recapture and sieze your Catholic traditions, love them, make them your own, reintroduce them back into your homes. Secondly, devote yourselves to the scriptures and to the catechism, make yourself solid in the faith so that when these slick born againers come knocking you will know how to send them packing. If you fail then you will all follow Ambrose’s family into oblivion and apostasy.