What's Wrong With Scott Hahn?

[RobbyS]

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.

Then there is the simple fact that until about 1950, many priests tended to discourage the reading of the Bible by the laity, this despite the contrary policy of recent popes.

 

[benedictus2]

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 defnitely mainstream.

The sad thing about some cradle Catholics is that they get piqued when the Protestant converts steal their thunder.

I am very, very thankful for all the erudite Protestant converts who have shed light on the scriptures because of the struggle they had to go through.

I love them for their fire for the Church and for the wonderful way in which they have brought back an interest on the Fathers of the Church.

Your RCIA teacher is obviously jealous.

Scott Hahn and the like have helped me to appreciate my faith even more.

Yes, indeed, it sometimes takes a foreigner to make a native appreciate her country.

And by the way, I love Scott’s books especially the Lamb’s Supper.

Don’t be daunted. There are RCIA educators and there are RCIA educators. Judging by some of the conversion stories I have read, if it had been left to some RCIA staff they would not have converted.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

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.

I can’t attack what I am. I am merely pointing out tendencies, my friend. I place a high importance on Scripture as well, and as I have pointed out in other posts, this was a Catholic tendency long before protestantism was around. However, there is a distinct difference in how Catholics read the Bible. They do no feel the need to see the Bible as the sole source. Dr. Hahn likes to find everything in Scripture, and I enjoy the parallels as well. It is positively illuminating. But I will try to put this a bit differently.

The one thing a protestant does, is use the Bible as the sole basis for everything he believes. Catholics traditionally did not do this, and so are often unaware of the fact that there is a Scriptural basis for much of what we believe. Dr. Hahn and theologians in his camp have tried to rectify the problem by showing the Scriptural basis of Catholic theology. The problem is, in trying to rectify a Catholic issue, sometimes converts join Catholicism, see that all the latest theologians are continually trying to find everything in the Bible first, and never really move out of this mindset. I have seen this result in problems with Mary, as I have cited in other posts, because sometimes even when a protestant becomes Catholic, because he sees many theologians trying to go to the Bible to prove everything, the convert is still sometimes a bit leery about a dogma if it isn’t explicitly in the Bible, even though he is now Catholic. Essentially, Dr Hahn is trying to correct a Catholic problem, that seems to have a side effect of making it a bit more difficult for protestant converts to lose their idea of sola scriptura. Impossible? Of course not. Just more difficult. I am merely commenting on the phenomena, and pointing out that this is the problem some Traditionalists point out. I feel that they have a legitimate point in some respects, although I am largely playing Devil’s advocate for the sake of a stimulating discussion. Please don’t take my remarks as disparagement. God Bless.

 

[benedictus2]

Well, she is basically wrong.

Dr. Hahn is not a “new comer” as he entered the Church in 1986. I believe 25 years as a Catholic qualifies someone to no longer be a new convert.

Besides who cares if they’re new.

At the point of Edith Stein’s convertion she probably knew much more about the Church than a million cradle Catholics.

These people convert after reading a lot about the Church. They can certainly teach a lot of “cradle” Catholics more than a thing or two.

 

[atmmgraves]

Great discussion had here. I am a fairly new convert - 4 years now. I can tell you this, I know more about the Catholic faith than most Catholics I know - and I know quite a few - and I don’t know as much as I should.

Almost every one of the cradle Catholics that I speak of have said to me, at one point or another, that they should attend RCIA to learn more about their faith.

I find Scott Hahn much better to listen to than to read. his books seem too fluffy for me, but my brother-in-law, a Catholic revert, loves him. This same brother-in-law is on fire with his faith and could be an professional Cathiolic apologist.

I say all this because I completely agree that cradle Catholics, who are in control of most of our churches and our bible studies and out RCIA programs and yiou name it, seem stagnant. They do seem to be caught in a sort of muddled middle. They want Catholicism, indeed they love Catholicism, yet they embrace all of the fringey protestanty frills which they are convinced - for some strange reason - brings in new members.

This is not the case. I came into the Church because when I went in to a Catholic Church I felt something that I felt nowhere else. This was not the door greeter, the guitarist, the coffee and donuts, the palm-pressing fluff - it was an undeniable presence. That of Jesus Christ.

 

[benedictus2]

I say all this because I completely agree that cradle Catholics, who are in control of most of our churches and our bible studies and out RCIA programs and yiou name it, seem stagnant. They do seem to be caught in a sort of muddled middle. They want Catholicism, indeed they love Catholicism, yet they embrace all of the fringey protestanty frills which they are convinced - for some strange reason - brings in new members.

Not only that. They even blend in some New Age thought into their teachings.

Give me a Protestant convert anytime who is solid on Scripture.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

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.

I agree. However, Scott Hahn has moved past apologetics awhile ago; his focus is theology and his audience is mainly Catholics. I am merely pointing out that a protestant converts to the faith because he sees how Biblical it is. He may convert other protestants in the same way. However, at some point, you have to move past this method of using Scripture to prove everything, and accept a more holistic, Catholic viewpoint. Dr. Hahn has done this, I believe, although you can still see tendencies that identify him as a convert. I have the same tendencies. There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as one struggles to maintain balance. Some converts, however, read Dr. Hahn’s works, and never do what Dr. Hahn himself has done, and achieve that balance. As I stated earlier in the thread, they never lose that driving need to find everything solely in the Bible and just trust the Church, and it leads to leeriness with certain dogmas. It’s a danger that I feel is rightly pointed out. Traditionalists sometimes bash Dr. Hahn, not so much because of him personally, but because of this effect on converts that I have pointed out. While their points are often vitriolic, one can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater; they do have some truth in their observations.

 

[Whiggamore]

I can’t attack what I am. I am merely pointing out tendencies, my friend. I place a high importance on Scripture as well, and as I have pointed out in other posts, this was a Catholic tendency long before protestantism was around. However, there is a distinct difference in how Catholics read the Bible. They do no feel the need to see the Bible as the sole source. Dr. Hahn likes to find everything in Scripture, and I enjoy the parallels as well. It is positively illuminating. But I will try to put this a bit differently.

The one thing a protestant does, is use the Bible as the sole basis for everything he believes. Catholics traditionally did not do this, and so are often unaware of the fact that there is a Scriptural basis for much of what we believe. Dr. Hahn and theologians in his camp have tried to rectify the problem by showing the Scriptural basis of Catholic theology. The problem is, in trying to rectify a Catholic issue, sometimes converts join Catholicism, see that all the latest theologians are continually trying to find everything in the Bible first, and never really move out of this mindset. I have seen this result in problems with Mary, as I have cited in other posts, because sometimes even when a protestant becomes Catholic, because he sees many theologians trying to go to the Bible to prove everything, the convert is still sometimes a bit leery about a dogma if it isn’t explicitly in the Bible, even though he is now Catholic. Essentially, Dr Hahn is trying to correct a Catholic problem, that seems to have a side effect of making it a bit more difficult for protestant converts to lose their idea of sola scriptura. Impossible? Of course not. Just more difficult. I am merely commenting on the phenomena, and pointing out that this is the problem some Traditionalists point out. I feel that they have a legitimate point in some respects, although I am largely playing Devil’s advocate for the sake of a stimulating discussion. Please don’t take my remarks as disparagement. God Bless.

Fair enough, and sorry I got your name wrong.

I also don’t understand your mentioning 1300 years. I’ve always felt converts favoured Scripture, Tradition, the Fathers AND the scholastics. I certainly consider myself a Thomist. For goodness’ sake, how many converts don’t have such a love for St. Thomas Aquinas that we fall in danger of reading the Summa as if it was Sacred Scripture. But perhaps converts are of different kinds.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Fair enough, and sorry I got your name wrong.

I also don’t understand your mentioning 1300 years. I’ve always felt converts favoured Scripture, Tradition, the Fathers AND the scholastics. I certainly consider myself a Thomist. For goodness’ sake, how many converts don’t have such a love for St. Thomas Aquinas that we fall in danger of reading the Summa as if it was Sacred Scripture. But perhaps converts are of different kinds.

I say that mainly because that is the acknowledged rough time frame of the fathers, first 7 centuries or so. Converts tend to look for a Scriptural basis first, naturally. Then usually we open up to the Church Fathers prior to Constantine, because this is often an integral process of having it proven to us that Constantine did not corrupt the Church. Then we tend to look into councils, etc. Later fathers are given more credence as we get progressively more comfortable with the idea of tradition. We accept the Church fully, so then we tend to look closer into Vatican II, and previous councils, and begins reading some of the medieval saints and mystics. At this point, we really accept the Church in her entirety as our own. This is a common logical progression of acceptance mainly because this is how protestant converts had their assumptions taken away. First we had it proved to us from the Bible, then the early Church fathers. Then we looked into the later fathers. Okay, cool, we become Catholic. Then we start actually looking at the faith as a whole. It’s a process, and this is why I stated that converts tend to look at the early and recent aspects of the Church, and slowly learn more about the middle. Note that this is also denomination dependent. An anglican, for instance, will probably have a firm grasp of the scholastics far before an evangelical convert, as I was. This is because for an evangelical convert, the primary overriding concern is, did the Church mess it up in the first three centuries. Naturally, the early fathers will be the initial focus. I hope this helps explain what I mean a bit better. God Bless.

 

[atmmgraves]

Not only that. They even blend in some New Age thought into their teachings.

Give me a Protestant convert anytime who is solid on Scripture.

Agreed. They came from something that did not give them what they needed. I take a back seat to no one in questioning protestantism, but I won’t waste space doing so here. Suffice to say, they leave protestantism for a reason, and they are drawn to Catholicism for a reason. Could be what drew me - the presence of Christ in the Church; it could be that they reasearched the Fathers; could be any number of things. Point being, they came - and come - in droves (I have read where the Church averages over 150k converts - converts! - a year in the U.S. alone). So, for the life of me, I cannot grasp why our cradle Catholic leaders want to re-create in the Catholic Church a sort of quasi-protestant-Catholic hybrid. Greet the new Church; same as the old church sort of thing. The reality is, this line of thinking is only diluting and dulling the greatness, the traditions (small and capital T) of the Catholic Church for lifelong members, disapointing the many who are converting in droves from protestantism, and threatening to leave an incense-scented singy-hand-holdy-revivaly-sort-of -kind-of-Catholicism for our children. I don’t like thinking of such a thing.

Seems to me we’d be better off strengthening our understanding, appreciation, love, and reverence for our ancient, great, and holy Catholic faith rather than diluting it. Hard to accept and disappointing as it may be, this is the status quo at this time, and it is unquestionably our cradle-Catholic leaders taking us down this road.

 

[benedictus2]

Agreed. They came from something that did not give them what they needed. I take a back seat to no one in questioning protestantism, but I won’t waste space doing so here. Suffice to say, they leave protestantism for a reason, and they are drawn to Catholicism for a reason. Could be what drew me - the presence of Christ in the Church; it could be that they reasearched the Fathers; could be any number of things. Point being, they came - and come - in droves (I have read where the Church averages over 150k converts - converts! - a year in the U.S. alone). So, for the life of me, I cannot grasp why our cradle Catholic leaders want to re-create in the Catholic Church a sort of quasi-protestant-Catholic hybrid. Greet the new Church; same as the old church sort of thing. The reality is, this line of thinking is only diluting and dulling the greatness, the traditions (small and capital T) of the Catholic Church for lifelong members, disapointing the many who are converting in droves from protestantism, and threatening to leave an incense-scented singy-hand-holdy-revivaly-sort-of -kind-of-Catholicism for our children. I don’t like thinking of such a thing.

Seems to me we’d be better off strengthening our understanding, appreciation, love, and reverence for our ancient, great, and holy Catholic faith rather than diluting it. Hard to accept and disappointing as it may be, this is the status quo at this time, and it is unquestionably our cradle-Catholic leaders taking us down this road.

I am a cradle Catholic who has benefited much from the writings and testimonies of these converts.

I have been here at CAF for a a few years and in my little attempt at apologetics, it is the writing of these converts who I have fallen back on.

My sister,(after listening to Peter Kreeft) said to me that she realizes now why God has allowed this break from the Church, for it is by the very same children who have left the house that God will ignite the fire on those who remained. I am so very thankful to God for them.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I apologize, Excubitor, if I came off as aggressive. I don’t feel that I did, but we are often unaware of our own foibles, so it is quite possible that I am mistaken. Forgive me for any lack of charity I may have displayed. God Bless.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

In my humble opinion, as a Catholic and ex-Protestant, the Bible and the Church go together. The church cannot define dogma which does not have its origin in the original deposit of faith.

Some may say, "Well, what about the early Church which didn’t have the Bible?’ My response to that would be that they had the apostolic tradition and the church fathers, who in their writings, showed they were well aware of the New Testament letters, as they quoted from them.

I’d be very leery of Church tradition without Scripture to back it up. I wouldn’t trust it, with all due respect.

As an ex-Protestant. And I might add I think that Mary is the Man of the Hour these days. Some might say that is purely tradition. But without the Scriptural references to the Woman in Genesis, Christ’s reference to her as Woman at Cana; John’s proxy on behalf of all believers to take her as our mother and for her to take us all as sons; and the portent in Revelation 12, on what grounds would we claim Marian tradition?

If a tradition doesn’t stand on Scripture, it has no value. Full stop.

 

[DavidKays]

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

Thank you too for correcting me. I see that you have been around alot. Your past experiences will give the Church of Rome a great advantage of your own witness to the Faith. Another Scott Hahn!

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

In my humble opinion, as a Catholic and ex-Protestant, the Bible and the Church go together. The church cannot define dogma which does not have its origin in the original deposit of faith.

Nowhere does it say that the entire deposit of faith is in the Bible. In fact the Catechism in paragraph 84 explicitly separates the two. Paragraph 184 states :‘We believe all “that which is contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church proposes for belief as divinely revealed” (Paul VI, CPG, § 20).’

Notice that the word of God is not just Scripture. Your viewpoint is a distortion of Catholic thought.

Some may say, "Well, what about the early Church which didn’t have the Bible?’ My response to that would be that they had the apostolic tradition and the church fathers, who in their writings, showed they were well aware of the New Testament letters, as they quoted from them.

Yes, and not all of them had the same letters, or the same canon, until the end of the fourth century, yet their beliefs were the same. This only makes sense in light of a Tradition in union with, but also separate from, the Bible. Also, the fathers didn’t write everything that the Church believed down either, so let’s not apply a unique “sola scriptura”-type mentality to the writings of the fathers either.

I’d be very leery of Church tradition without Scripture to back it up. I wouldn’t trust it, with all due respect.

This is a convert tendency, yes. Not a good one, either. Your focus should be not on whether it is in Scripture, but whether it contradicts Scripture. Which it won’t.

As an ex-Protestant. And I might add I think that Mary is the Man of the Hour these days. Some might say that is purely tradition. But without the Scriptural references to the Woman in Genesis, Christ’s reference to her as Woman at Cana; John’s proxy on behalf of all believers to take her as our mother and for her to take us all as sons; and the portent in Revelation 12, on what grounds would we claim Marian tradition?

Because the Church has the keys and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Your position is sounding dangerous. If the Church was not able, to your mind, to “back up” her pronouncement with Scripture to your level of satisfaction, I am willing to bet you wouldn’t believe it. And yet what if Mary and the Assumption were entirely Tradition? Would not it fall under the “Word of God” per the Catechism paragraph 184? The Church has the power to define a dogma and then find a passage of Scripture in support of a new belief, and this usage of Scripture becomes the Sensus Plenior, are you aware of that? Does that make you uncomfortable? Acts 15 essentially does the same thing. St. Peter makes a pronouncement in light of neither Scriptural support nor tradition, then James uses Amos to back up the pronouncement, thus filling it with new meaning. Here’s the thing, though. Peter just did it. The support for it came after. Would that have made you uncomfortable?

If a tradition doesn’t stand on Scripture, it has no value. Full stop.

Exactly the point of this entire thread.

If it doesn’t stand on the word of God, it has no value. Full stop. And the *word of God *as defined by the Church is not only the Bible. I hope everybody reading this understands how beautifully you, as a convert, have illustrated my point about not quite taking off the goggles. I sincerely pray that you do one day.

 

[Javl]

I say again. As a revert I thank the Protestants and their dependence upon the Bible for my return to the One True Church.

Keep in mind that the Bible as we know it is the child of Mother Church. Therefore why should it not be at the forefront in our search for the truth or giving proof of and for the truth? Yes, Holy Tradition is important and is on a par with the Scriptures, but not everyone, including many Catholics, do not know of, nor anything about, Holy Tradition. And then again, too many Catholics depend upon this Tradition more than scripture, or even alone.

So, until we all can learn to use both and balance between the two, let us not disparage or criticize anyone who does not follow or do what is supposed to be the norm to be done.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Elizabeth502]

The prejudice and stereotypes of “all” cradle Catholics on this thread is appalling, completely inaccurate, and extremely uncharitable – far exceeding whatever has been said (not by me) of anyone converting from another Christian tradition. Those engaging in such contemptuous remarks should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

The prejudice and stereotypes of “all” cradle Catholics on this thread is appalling, completely inaccurate, and extremely uncharitable – far exceeding whatever has been said (not by me) of anyone converting from another Christian tradition. Those engaging in such contemptuous remarks should be ashamed of themselves.

My guess is that you have been skimming the thread. Try actually reading it.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

The prejudice and stereotypes of “all” cradle Catholics on this thread is appalling, completely inaccurate, and extremely uncharitable – far exceeding whatever has been said (not by me) of anyone converting from another Christian tradition. Those engaging in such contemptuous remarks should be ashamed of themselves.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to. I think the discussion here has been quite charitable, on all sides. Perhaps we have differing views on appalling?

Abortion = appalling

Hearty debate = not appalling

Murder = appalling

Contrasting points of view = not appalling

Just throwing this out there, but try reading every post, carefully. I don’t think you have, or you wouldn’t be making surprisingly dramatic accusations.

 

[atmmgraves]

The prejudice and stereotypes of “all” cradle Catholics on this thread is appalling, completely inaccurate, and extremely uncharitable – far exceeding whatever has been said (not by me) of anyone converting from another Christian tradition. Those engaging in such contemptuous remarks should be ashamed of themselves.

Elizabeth:

I sincerely apologize if my comments referring to cradle Catholics offended you. That was certainly not my intent. However, this forum is here for people to explain themselves plainly in criticisms, questions, and positions. This is what I was attempting to do. I did not say “all cradle Catholics bad, all converts/reverts good.” What I did say was 2 things, which are simply a condensed typed summary/statement of what I see every Sunday:

1. That cradle Catholics are in leadership positions at our churches, and they are instituting things that are going on in protestant churches - singing and guitars and coffee and donuts and socials, etc. There is nothing wrong with these activities whatsoever; however, they are unquestionably moving a Catholic mass to a more protestanty-type service with more of a protestanty-type feel/vibe about it. As explained earlier by another post, this is probably a result of a liberal interpretation of Vatican II.
2. My opinion on this is that our lay-leaders (mostly cradle Catholics) who have great influence are pressuring for this change (and have been for years) and feel that this type of metamorphosis will lead to increased numbers - and in the process, are making the Catholic Church more like a protestant church. This is occurring for two reasons: They believe this change will attract more converts, and they fear losing people to protestant churches if they do not make these changes. Here’s a direct quote from our Deacon: “If we don’t have our door greeters making people feel welcome, we’ll lose more people to the (name) Baptist church.” Really? Seriously? I think it’s great to have door greeters, but having someone shake my hand before I enter the Church is not the reason I attend a Catholic Church, nor is it the reason for people converting. They get all of that where they were attending. And if we are dependent on door greeters or donuts to keep people in our Church, then I would say these people for whom such things mean more than the Eucharist or the Sacraments or the Liturgy - well, these people are on very loose footing as Catholics and will eventually leave anyway. I could not disagree more with this change and the line of thinking behind it. I firmly believe - as I have seen it with my own eyes and listened to it with my own ears - that this is what is taking place.

To increase numbers of converts and to keep the current crop of Catholics in the pews, the lay-leaders need only delve deeper into the rich and ancient and holy history of traditional Catholicism. People want this to begin with, or they would not be Catholic; people convert because they want a Catholic-Catholic Church - not some kind of hybrid with protestantism. People want strength and conviction and moral clarity and clear direction from our leaders in all areas of our lives: politicians, executives, actors, action heroes, parents, teachers, friends - and most certainly with our Catholic Church.

To bring this to a close and to the original post, this outlook - the promotion of a traditional, strong, and evangelizing Catholic Church - is what is driving folks like Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin, etc. This is what they are bringing to our faith, and what will bring others into it, as well. And, they know more about our faith than I would posit 80-90% of our cradle-Catholic populace. Sad, but true.

God bless.