What's Wrong With Scott Hahn?

[Nathan_Wagar]

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.

Excubitor. You started out charitable but it seem to have taken very little for you to make somewhat…“self-righteous” comments about the spiritual journey of another person’s family. In essence, your point of view is exactly what my original posts were all about. You see yourself and other converts as the shining white knight, restorer of the Church’s original pristine state. This is highly obnoxious to people, and rightly so. Your disdain for the very people that you have become one of is positively palpable. Does one member of the body look down on another or say “I do not need you?” Blessed Saint Paul warned about this very problem when the Gentile converts tried to boast over the Jews.

I’m a convert as well. I love Scott Hahn. I also have to dutifully stay meek and learn from my cradle Catholic wife what it means to be Catholic.

 

[jmcrae]

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

In theory, they aren’t even supposed to be “teaching.” They are supposed to be journeying alongside. RCIA isn’t supposed to be a “course” like at school.

In practice, because nobody really knows what it looks like to “journey alongside,” a lot of people end up “playing school” and acting as if they were teachers - and then everyone complains about their lack of qualifications to teach.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Like what?

I actually gave several examples in the thread, perhaps you can read them.

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.

This is not my personal viewpoint, this is the reason many people bash him. Then I proceed to talk about the underlying vitriole behind many cradle Catholics’ viewpoint. I find Dr. Hahn to have been quite helpful in my own studies, although I prefer his dissertation and his “Letter and Spirit” entries more than his popular works.

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.

This portion of my statement was directed toward how cradle Catholics and more traditional members view converts, not directed at Dr. Hahn specifically. As for my own opinions, I think it is important initially to meet a protestant with the Bible, but it is equally important to move them past that mindset. Otherwise they tend to display the convert syndrome where they unconsciously try to prove everything from Scripture even though they are Catholic.

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

Indeed. They are Catholic. Many were not converts. I would also point out that some of the Church’s finest theologians of the past were by our definition “traditionalists,” so although I see your point, I think there is a slight sense of stereotyping going on. I am not “pro-traditionalist, anti-convert.” I have never been to a Latin Mass (none available), I don’t have a problem with the letter of Vatican II (interpretation is a different story), etc. I don’t even necessarily have a problem with all the traditions converts bring with them, because usually the Church had it first anyway. I do have an issue with lack of balance, which I think we both agree on. I see an unfortunate tendecy among converts that were previously unbalanced (all Scripture) join the Church, and instead of seeking balance, expect the cradle Catholics (who are unbalanced in their own way) become unbalanced like them. There is almost an element of disdain. Rather, the converts should help inspire the cradle Catholics to love the faith they already have, and the converts need to stay humble, and learn from the cradle Catholics what it actually means to be Catholic, rather than try to tell them what it means.

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…

You seem to be missing the point. The point is that some people, including Dr. Hahn, have a tendency to feel the *need *to defend everything from Scripture. There are far more cradle Catholics than there are converts, so who do you think Dr. Hahn’s real audience is? My point is, it doesn’t all have to be in the Bible. Dr Hahn and his ilk have this somewhat unique viewpoint, that is not really debateable. Dr Michael Barber works at John Paul the Great University, and their whole purpose is to teach theology from a Scriptural basis. Everything will be shown to have its basis in Scripture. My point, however, is that although Scripture is absolutely necessary, it is not the source of all our beliefs. I don’t have a problem with trying to find allusions to things we do in Scripture, but for the theologians associated with Dr. Hahn, it seems to be a driving necessity. It is entirely possible this is mainly a movement to counteract a particular deficiency in the Church at this time, and I applaud the effort.

But here is the main point: While it has the amazing effect of getting Cradle Catholics more focused on an area they may have been neglecting to a certain extent, it has the negative side effect of confirming converts in a certain belief system, which I don’t think Dr. Hahn has intended. Converts, as I have stated many times throughout this thread, tend never to lose their convert way of justifying things (Dr. Hahn coined the phrase Prima Scriptura). I suggest reading all of my posts for more context on my arguments, I don’t desire to repeat them. Too much work

cont…

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Part 2

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.

I’m not saying he hasn’t. However, he has tended to promote his own viewpoints as fact to lay people. Have you ever actually thought out the implications of his viewpoint on the Original Sin of Adam vs the traditional view taught by the Church? His works always give me food for thought, and I have no problem whatsoever with him presenting alternate viewpoints. But if you can seriously say that absolutely everything he teaches is traditional, then my guess is you got all your theology from Dr. Hahn. Because here’s the funny thing: He even admits that some of his Scriptural interpretations aren’t traditional. Is that bad? No. That’s what theologians have the prerogative to do. However, I have to smile when new converts, or even some cradle Catholics (particularly on this forum) state a known peculiar “Hahn-ism” as if it is the Gospel always taught.

The tone of your response seems to say a few things. First, that you are taking my statements on Dr. Hahn perhaps a bit too personally. Apparently everybody loves Dr Hahn. That’s great. So do I. Let’s not make our love for a man so blind that we can’t make constructive criticism, or it becomes foolish. Exercise critical thinking always, in faith to the Magisterium. Second, if you want to see the examples of constructive criticism that I initially gave, please read all of my posts instead of responding to one; chances are I have already answered it. I also tend to gradually elaborate on views that I may have been ambiguous on or written hastily without clarifying my thoughts, this is occasionally a foible of mine, and I appreciate your patience. God Bless.

 

[mark_a]

Three cheers for Scott Hahn!!

 

[RichP]

This is a fascinating discussion! I think there has been on-going contention between many “cradle” Catholics and many converts for a number of reasons. As someone mentioned earlier, cradle Catholics are brought up to believe, have a lot of faith, pray, and obey. It is very simple and works for many people. Problems occur when these people are challenged in some manner and they end up deserting the Church. Converts often bring their passion, their enthusiasm, their excitement, and their quest to learn more with them to the Church. Their faith formation and faith journey does not stop with their Baptism.

Some cradle Catholics find this fresh enthusiasm dangerous and unnecessary. They feel that “faith formation” is no longer needed after high school or CCD. They have learned everything needed to be good Catholics. If faith, prayer, and obedience are good enough for them, why isn’t it sufficient for converts? No one really needs to read the Bible let alone try to understand it…

Converts look at some of the cradle Catholics and wonder what happened to their enthusiasm and their excitement… After all, isn’t being a Catholic and being able to receive the Eucharist the closest one can get to heaven here on earth?

Fortunately, the Catholic Church is big enough to accommodate cradle Catholics, converts, and everyone in-between. Actually, it is pretty amazing that the Church does accommodate so many diverse people and traditions so well and yet remains “one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic”!

 

[excubitor]

Excubitor. You started out charitable but it seem to have taken very little for you to make somewhat…“self-righteous” comments about the spiritual journey of another person’s family. In essence, your point of view is exactly what my original posts were all about. You see yourself and other converts as the shining white knight, restorer of the Church’s original pristine state.

I don’t think that at all. You are putting words into my mouth. That is the furthest thing from my thoughts. I am not righteous or self righteous. There are a great many things that I need to learn. You are basically rude and aggressive towards me and are exhibiting the very same prejudices that the RCIA instructor levels at Scott Hahn.

The fact is that a new convert does have a zeal for the faith which cradle Catholics lack. This is a readily observed phenomenon that is even mentioned in scripture as the “first love”. You are just so self righteous that you don’t think that you can learn anything from converts. Since when is an example of an entire family leaving the church called a “spiritual journey” that we cannot even evaluate. I will tell you what it is. It is faithlessness and apostasy. It is spiritual wickedness and iniquity. This is the other grave fault of cradle catholics. Their loved ones leave the church and nobody even cares, “Oh well, we are all on a different spiritual journey. We will all get there in the end”. This indifferentism is a condemned heresy by Gregory XVI’s Mirari Vos.

This is highly obnoxious to people, and rightly so. Your disdain for the very people that you have become one of is positively palpable. Does one member of the body look down on another or say “I do not need you?” Blessed Saint Paul warned about this very problem when the Gentile converts tried to boast over the Jews.

I’m a convert as well. I love Scott Hahn. I also have to dutifully stay meek and learn from my cradle Catholic wife what it means to be Catholic.

I do not disdain Catholic’s. What a wicked accusation. I disdain apostates who leave Holy Mother Church, that is true. I have sacrificed family, friends, and my culture and background to become Catholic. I have been inspired and overwhelmed by the treasures of the heritage of the Catholic church. How do you think I should feel when I see Catholic’s spurn and neglect great treasures of the faith, and regard them as being of little value? I warn with tears to see the way so many Catholics are headed, just like Paul did when he foresaw the future of the church.

This will be my last post to you Nathan Wagar.

 

[steve_b]

In theory, they aren’t even supposed to be “teaching.” They are supposed to be journeying alongside. RCIA isn’t supposed to be a “course” like at school.

you’re kidding right?
j:

In practice, because nobody really knows what it looks like to “journey alongside,” a lot of people end up “playing school” and acting as if they were teachers - and then everyone complains about their lack of qualifications to teach.

IOW they are wasting peoples time, because they aren’t qualified to be in that position.

 

[Javl]

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.

My error. Thank you for correcting me. There’s a Jesuit University in WVa ( across the river from me ) in which Dr. Hahn once spoke and I keep confusing it with the FUS. Mea Culpa, old age you know!

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[steve_b]

The point is that some people, including Dr. Hahn, have a tendency to feel the *need *to defend everything from Scripture.

As I said before, Scott quotes from scripture, Tradition, and the Church teachings copiously when handling a subject. To say otherwise is unfair to him and mischaracterizes him.

As I said previously I have 100’s of hours of instruction from him. And I have many books written by him. I know of what I speak. He is one of the most well rounded instructors I’ve learned from
NW:

There are far more cradle Catholics than there are converts, so who do you think Dr. Hahn’s real audience is?

I’m a cradle Catholic and I learned pleanty from him.
NW:

My point is, it doesn’t all have to be in the Bible. Dr Hahn and his ilk have this somewhat unique viewpoint, that is not really debateable.

that’s an inaccurate characterization
NW:

Dr Michael Barber works at John Paul the Great University, and their whole purpose is to teach theology from a Scriptural basis.

Good!!! The bible is a Catholic book. The Church wrote it, put it together, and canonized it. We SHOULD use it copiously.
NW:

Everything will be shown to have its basis in Scripture. My point, however, is that although Scripture is absolutely necessary, it is not the source of all our beliefs.

I’m sure you meant to say

It is not the sole source of our beliefs
NW:

I don’t have a problem with trying to find allusions to things we do in Scripture, but for the theologians associated with Dr. Hahn, it seems to be a driving necessity. It is entirely possible this is mainly a movement to counteract a particular deficiency in the Church at this time, and I applaud the effort.

I learned to read the ECF’s because of Scott. I learned which encyclicals and papal bulls to reference for certain subjects because of Scott. And yes, scripture was also a big part in tieing it all together. I was raised on the Baltimore Catechism. Scott got me to buy the CCC AND the compendium.
NW:

But here is the main point: While it has the amazing effect of getting Cradle Catholics more focused on an area they may have been neglecting to a certain extent, it has the negative side effect of confirming converts in a certain belief system, which I don’t think Dr. Hahn has intended.

Re: the first point. If one is lacking in one area of knowledge, they should strengthen that area for a full and balanced understanding…true? That’s NOT a negative no matter how one looks at it.

 

[Javl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcrae

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.

In order to teach RCIA, CCD, etc. it is required that one be well grounded in the faith. An exam is usually given and must be passed before authorization to conduct any religious class is given. Many diocese require proof ( a teaching certificate ) before permission is given. This is supposedly the norm within the Church.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

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.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I am a cradle Catholic who was poorly catechized and left the Church. It took a Protestant to wake me up. I find that reverts and converts are more emphatic and know more about Catholicism than those cradle Catholics who claim they do. Praise the Lord and the Holy Spirit for Protestant converts.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[steve_b]

Part 2

I’m not saying he hasn’t. However, he has tended to promote his own viewpoints as fact to lay people. Have you ever actually thought out the implications of his viewpoint on the Original Sin of Adam vs the traditional view taught by the Church? His works always give me food for thought, and I have no problem whatsoever with him presenting alternate viewpoints. But if you can seriously say that absolutely everything he teaches is traditional, then my guess is you got all your theology from Dr. Hahn.

If he goes off the reservation, he says he’s going off the reservation with a particular view… I appreciate that honesty.

If there is one thing I wish he would dial back on, is in the interest of being thorough, he gives soooooo many views that are out there. My personal tastes, I could do fine without all the views outside of truth.
NW:

Because here’s the funny thing: He even admits that some of his Scriptural interpretations aren’t traditional. Is that bad? No.

IOW, he doesn’t force his interpretation, and he identifies such interpretations for what they are. This is MY point also.
NW:

The tone of your response seems to say a few things. First, that you are taking my statements on Dr. Hahn perhaps a bit too personally. Apparently everybody loves Dr Hahn. That’s great. So do I. Let’s not make our love for a man so blind that we can’t make constructive criticism, or it becomes foolish. Exercise critical thinking always, in faith to the Magisterium. Second, if you want to see the examples of constructive criticism that I initially gave, please read all of my posts instead of responding to one; chances are I have already answered it. I also tend to gradually elaborate on views that I may have been ambiguous on or written hastily without clarifying my thoughts, this is occasionally a foible of mine, and I appreciate your patience. God Bless.

I don’t take it personally.

 

[excubitor]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I am a cradle Catholic who was poorly catechized and left the Church. It took a Protestant to wake me up. I find that reverts and converts are more emphatic and know more about Catholicism than those cradle Catholics who claim they do. Praise the Lord and the Holy Spirit for Protestant converts.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

What a relief to find someone who understands what I am saying. Thanks for the support.

 

[Whiggamore]

Scott Hahn was used by the Holy Spirit to save my soul.

Excubitor, I too understand. I can’t respond charitably to some of the things said here, especially those comments that disparage our fervor for Scripture, dismissing it as some kind of Protestant vice.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I don’t think that at all. You are putting words into my mouth. That is the furthest thing from my thoughts. I am not righteous or self righteous. There are a great many things that I need to learn. You are basically rude and aggressive towards me and are exhibiting the very same prejudices that the RCIA instructor levels at Scott Hahn.

I made a statement about your comments and your viewpoint, not you as a person. If you can’t tell the difference then you probably should rethink discussion forums. I’m not entirely sure what you conside rude and aggressive, but I invite you or anyone reading to go back over the flow of the thread to get a feel for the tenor of our posts.

The fact is that a new convert does have a zeal for the faith which cradle Catholics lack. This is a readily observed phenomenon that is even mentioned in scripture as the “first love”. You are just so self righteous that you don’t think that you can learn anything from converts. Since when is an example of an entire family leaving the church called a “spiritual journey” that we cannot even evaluate. I will tell you what it is. It is faithlessness and apostasy. It is spiritual wickedness and iniquity. This is the other grave fault of cradle catholics. Their loved ones leave the church and nobody even cares, “Oh well, we are all on a different spiritual journey. We will all get there in the end”. This indifferentism is a condemned heresy by Gregory XVI’s Mirari Vos.

That wasn’t my point, please don’t ignore the context of my statements. Also, I want you to notice that I stated that your comments and your viewpoints are self-righteous, whereas you have stated that I, personally, am self-righteous. Chew on that a bit before you continue dialoguing with other people. I don’t think you are aware of how you are presenting yourself. What you may want to say is not what you are actually successfully saying.

I do not disdain Catholic’s. What a wicked accusation. I disdain apostates who leave Holy Mother Church, that is true. I have sacrificed family, friends, and my culture and background to become Catholic. I have been inspired and overwhelmed by the treasures of the heritage of the Catholic church. How do you think I should feel when I see Catholic’s spurn and neglect great treasures of the faith, and regard them as being of little value? I warn with tears to see the way so many Catholics are headed, just like Paul did when he foresaw the future of the church.

I encourage you to re-read some of your previous posts regarding cradle Catholics, and try and see if the tone of your posts doesn’t say otherwise. Then perhaps, just perhaps, try to read my posts, in context, with fresh eyes to see the greater point I am making.

This will be my last post to you Nathan Wagar.

I found our conversation illuminating. Take care.

 

[JackQ]

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.

I’ve taught RCIA for years, and I agree with this. I would happily be tested as to my knowledge, if for no other reason then I don’t want to tell people the wrong thing.

It’s not accurate to say that no teaching goes on. In fact, the catechumens would probably object if there was no teaching at all, and rightfully so. But what must be taught is what the Church teaches. It’s narcissistic to subject the inquirers, catechumens, and candidates to one’s own opinions. They didn’t come to RCIA to hear that.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

As I said before, Scott quotes from scripture, Tradition, and the Church teachings copiously when handling a subject. To say otherwise is unfair to him and mischaracterizes him.

I invite you to show me where I have said otherwise.

As I said previously I have 100’s of hours of instruction from him. And I have many books written by him. I know of what I speak. He is one of the most well rounded instructors I’ve learned from

I agree. He is a formidable theologian.

I’m a cradle Catholic and I learned pleanty from him.

That was my point. His main audience is not converts, it is cradle Catholics.

that’s an inaccurate characterization

Yes, I agree. However, I am playing Devil’s Advocate quite frequently throughout this thread.

I’m sure you meant to say

It is not the sole source of our beliefs

That should go without saying, are we not both Catholic?

I learned to read the ECF’s because of Scott. I learned which encyclicals and papal bulls to reference for certain subjects because of Scott. And yes, scripture was also a big part in tieing it all together. I was raised on the Baltimore Catechism. Scott got me to buy the CCC AND the compendium.

Not sure what your point is, nobody is denying that.

Re: the first point. If one is lacking in one area of knowledge, they should strengthen that area for a full and balanced understanding…true? That’s NOT a negative no matter how one looks at it.

That is not a negative for the cradle Catholics, but you seem to be ignoring the other part of my statement. It merely has an unfortunate effect on converts that legitimizes their already unconscious tendency to feel the need to find the source of everything in the Bible. An example of how this goes bad is that some converts still have issues with Mary, because the Bible, and not the Church and Tradition, is still their main criteria. If they can’t find strong enough parallels in Scripture, if Revelation 12 just doesn’t quite cut it for them, they are leery. This is a holdover from a differing protestant viewpoint. That is all I’m saying. As a convert, something we struggle with is seeing the Church as a Catholic. It takes time.

If he goes off the reservation, he says he’s going off the reservation with a particular view… I appreciate that honesty.

Partially true. He does in his more scholarly works and some of his Bible studies, but his views on Adam and Eve and Noah are interesting, to the say the least, in his book “A Father Always Keeps His promises.” While I appreciate the added insight of his view, he does not say that there is literally no early father support and barely even any theologians that have ever held his view (I think he named one). This is fine for people that are digging deeper, but for people that don’t know better (which is the target audience of his more popular books) he should probably at least mention the traditional view, and perhaps spend a bit more time one how to reconcile the two views. From what I have seen he often affirms the traditional view without always stating what it is, then says that it is compatible with his view, but without showing how it is compatible. His viewpoints on the millenium in Rev. 20 are an example of this, and I covered this in an earlier post.

If there is one thing I wish he would dial back on, is in the interest of being thorough, he gives soooooo many views that are out there. My personal tastes, I could do fine without all the views outside of truth.

I rather enjoy it…it is useful for apologetics work… although I can also appreciate that we really only have one life, and only so much time to learn to spend on learning every theory…My complaint, as I stated at the beginning of the thread, is that he does give extra theories, but he spends more time on his own. This is fine, except that his main audience is lay-people. The Ignatius study Bible’s coverage of “works of the Law” is an example of this. Ceremonial Law only is not the traditional understanding by the majority of fathers or the terminology used by Trent, yet he only cites one father (Augustine) to oppose his viewpoint. This is not equal play, particularly for what is the traditional view. Lay-people need to know the traditional view first, and then can learn Dr. Hahn’s theories second. I cover this a bit more indepth near the beginning of the thread.

I will, however, offer a personal observation of my own, and I am free to be wrong on this. However, it seems that Dr Hahn likes to find fathers that support some of his more pet viewpoints more often than he does letting the fathers determine his viewpoint, if this makes sense. To re-use the “works of the Law” example, Dr. Hahn learned of the New Perspective from protestant scholarship. This is necessary, because that’s where it came from. He likes this viewpoint, so he goes back and sees if other fathers hold to. A select few seem to, so he uses this as vindication for his view. Dr. Robert Sungenis, to use an example, seems to take a different tack. He looks at what it seems the Church has always taught, which is that works of the Law refers to any Law, and goes with that viewpoint. This is looking through the Church at the new, with the eyes of the past; rather than trying to find new ideas in the past of the Church. It’s a subtle difference but it is distinct. I would argue that this is possibly a tendency of converts. The Robert Sungenis method seems to be a viewpoint held more by Traditionalists. I have noticed this perceived tendency of Dr. Hahn in myself, and I am not the first to notice this tendency in Dr. Hahn’s method.

 

[Whiggamore]

Nathan Wagner, when you say, “Converts, as I have stated many times throughout this thread, tend never to lose their convert way of justifying things (Dr. Hahn coined the phrase Prima Scriptura),” it is offensive. You disparage our fervor for Scripture, and dismiss it as some kind of Protestant excess, when it is the wish of the Church for ALL Catholics. Some others have even complained about our love of the Church Fathers. You all act like we don’t know there has been a living Church since 1870. Of course there has been. But there was also a Church before 1870. It was in these eras that God gave us much of the matter for the Sacred Science, and much of the Sacred Science itself. And that science is important to us. As Protestants we had a burning desire to know, and we still do. It is a major part of our faith. And it is for many Catholics, and rightly so. But not for cradle Catholics. You must understand, when we speak about cradle Catholics we mean those not just baptized as infants but specifically those who have squandered that inheritance. They are like the Protestants that caused many of us to begin our look elsewhere. But, I will stop myself from going down this path. It is a path that you have rightly told us to avoid. We can be proud. We should not be. But you should be proud of us, because we are good and faithful servants. You should come to our defense, instead of attacking us because we can’t cross ourselves out of habit and without meaning.

Edit: And I should say, I do not dislike you Nathan Wagner. I mean you no disrespect, only to voice my frustration in what I hope is a kind enough way.

 

[RobbyS]

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

From the Protestant view, no Catholics doctrines seem so “unbiblical” than Marian doctrines, especially since they go along with forms of piety that seem odd to Protestant eyes. Which is why converts to Catholicism bring them up so often. They are trying to show to their former compadres that these doctrines ARE anchored in Scripture. The Holy Scriptures are primary, after all, and tradition is anchored in them by the magisterial of the Church.