Constantly Evolving Theology - Scott Hahn

[Peter J]

The question is, do any of the Catholics on this forum actually agree with that criticism? (Granted Papist said that he agreed with Hahn's assessment of Orthodoxy; but he specifically excluded the stagnancy charge.) If not, then I think you're beating a dead horse.

Well, it is certainly something which looms as important in your mind.

You have given us this Scott Hahn quote 3 times.

Message 96
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36486.msg583807.html#msg583807

Message 27
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37124.msg589626.html#msg589626

Yes, I have quoted the stagnancy charge, along with other claims that Dr. Hahn makes about Eastern Orthodoxy.

Have you never quoted something without actually agreeing with it?

And you even made it the OP for an entire thread
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37651.0.html

Ah yes, I remember that thread. I was trying to learn the reason for the double standard -- i.e. why it is alright for "ecumenical" neo-conservative Catholics like Hahn to make those kinds of statements, but not for traditional Catholics.

[Volnutt]

In theory, sure. But what is the practical difference between an "understanding" that changes like the wind, and a changing truth?

It isn't obviously to you that if tomorrow I decide that grass is purple, then the truth won't have changed but only my belief?

If you decided that it wouldn't change it. If everyone on earth decided it, then for all intents and purposes, the truth becomes irrelevant.

Not so.

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it."
- William Penn (I believe).

Is William Penn going to stand for traditional Catholic dogma when the "evolving theology" decides it is no longer accurate to believe Christ literally and physically Rose? Gotta keep on developing...

[Wyatt]

I never liked Scott Hahn or his brand of apologetics.  It seems as if he converted to Catholicism, yet still tries to act in the role of Protestant evangelist (Who preaches Catholicism).  Since he is neither a bishop or priest of the RCC and, as far as I know is not licensed to preach theology by the Vatican.  Why then should any person (Whether Catholic or Orthodox) Take him so seriously?

I think some of his books are good. I just got done reading The Lamb's Supper: the Mass as Heaven on Earth and it was really good.

[scamandrius]

Scott Hahn is a hack.  He is a frequent guest on EWTN talk shows and only think it is there where he is actually taken seriously. The sad thing is he takes himself  seriously as well.  I get a good laugh.

[xariskai]

Considering that *mutation* is intrinsic to what we understand as "evolution," "evolution of theology" is at best a double-edged metaphor.

Developments in the Latin West which are not attested at all in the either in first several centuries of Christian history or in any of the God-bearing Eastern fathers, like papal infallibility (proclaimed a Latin dogma in 1870), Augustinian inherited guilt (and its corollary, Immaculate Conception, proclaimed a Latin dogma in 1854), soteriology of merit, papal supremacy, nature/grace dualism, etc. etc., will likely always be viewed as theological mutations by many in the Christian East.

"Maturation" is perhaps a better metaphor than "evolution" because it does not entail the presence of mutation. In the case of maturation there is continuity as well as contrast without mutation -one can recognize an adult one knew as a child because there are both similarities as well as differences. One might also recognize the face of a friend in the creation of Dr. Frankenstein, but the continuity in such a case might be unsettling. So even on the premise of development there is a fundamental difference between maturity and development on the one hand and mutation on the other hand; that difference is continuity as opposed to sheer innovation, yet even continuity perceived for whatever reason as colored by monstrosity might be unsettling to the onlooker.

There is a legitimate scope to the question of development, which I'll just allude to rather than go into here. But honestly, any controversy claiming one side is "more evolved" (or, on the other hand, "more mutated," "more monstrous" etc.) *devolves* into little more than rhetorical flourish; at the end of the day, it seems to me, such caricatures tend to add more heat than light: "a curious breeze of garlic breath that sounds something like a snore."

[Volnutt]

I agree.

[GabrieltheCelt]

Of course, Father, just as St. Jude wrote:"contend earnestly for the faith which is delivered over and ove again in revisions to the saints"

  THAT is hilarious (and true!)!  Thanks for the laugh, Isa! Shukran, ya akhi!

[Papist]

And I would add, "clarifying implications there-off." Eg. iconodulia.

I don't know about that. The EO are really hard-core about it. I've been affirmative of the veneration of icons as communicative of the divine life for years now, but I've never been able to understand the perspective that icons are fundamental to salvation history.

I think perhaps it is more that the denial of the icons perverts salvation history?

A distinction without a difference, some might say.

As simplistic as it may seem, I've never seen a real response to the criticism that we don't know what Jesus looked like and therefore the idea that we could actually portray Him even in His humanity is hubris. Rafa (who I often have found ridiculous, but not all the time) used this reasoning to indicate that the Mandylion must have been the only real icon, and I very much understood his position.

We don't know what He sounded like, nor have His exact words for the most part (they being recorded in Greek when He said them in Aramaic), but the Gospel text isn't hubris.

That's a good argument.

[elijahmaria]

Scott Hahn is a hack.  He is a frequent guest on EWTN talk shows and only think it is there where he is actually taken seriously. The sad thing is he takes himself  seriously as well.  I get a good laugh.

I am not a follower but I've listened to some of his tapes and I don't think he's a hack by any stretch.

I think he does not always express Catholic theology in a way that I find best but that hardly makes him a hack in terms of the content of his messages or even his delivery.

[Papist]

Scott Hahn is a hack.  He is a frequent guest on EWTN talk shows and only think it is there where he is actually taken seriously. The sad thing is he takes himself  seriously as well.  I get a good laugh.

I am not a follower but I've listened to some of his tapes and I don't think he's a hack by any stretch.

I think he does not always express Catholic theology in a way that I find best but that hardly makes him a hack in terms of the content of his messages or even his delivery.

I think he provides a great service to the faithful. He helps to make theology understandable to those with little background in theology. Dr. Peter Kreeft does the same thing with philosophy.

[Wyatt]

Scott Hahn is a hack.  He is a frequent guest on EWTN talk shows and only think it is there where he is actually taken seriously. The sad thing is he takes himself  seriously as well.  I get a good laugh.

I am not a follower but I've listened to some of his tapes and I don't think he's a hack by any stretch.

I think he does not always express Catholic theology in a way that I find best but that hardly makes him a hack in terms of the content of his messages or even his delivery.

I think he provides a great service to the faithful. He helps to make theology understandable to those with little background in theology. Dr. Peter Kreeft does the same thing with philosophy.

Exactly.

I don't understand all the Scott Hahn hate. It is understandable coming from Eastern Orthodox since he speaks out against Eastern Orthodoxy, but I am surprised at the Catholics that don't like him. I think he is fascinating, both to read his works and to listen to.

[Peter J]

Scott Hahn is a hack.  He is a frequent guest on EWTN talk shows and only think it is there where he is actually taken seriously. The sad thing is he takes himself  seriously as well.  I get a good laugh.

I am not a follower but I've listened to some of his tapes and I don't think he's a hack by any stretch.

I think he does not always express Catholic theology in a way that I find best but that hardly makes him a hack in terms of the content of his messages or even his delivery.

I think he provides a great service to the faithful. He helps to make theology understandable to those with little background in theology. Dr. Peter Kreeft does the same thing with philosophy.

Exactly.

I don't understand all the Scott Hahn hate. It is understandable coming from Eastern Orthodox since he speaks out against Eastern Orthodoxy, but I am surprised at the Catholics that don't like him. I think he is fascinating, both to read his works and to listen to.

I don't know what the thinking of those Catholics is, but speaking for myself I don't hate Dr. Hahn but I do hate the double standard. As I told Fr. Ambrose:

And you even made it the OP for an entire thread
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37651.0.html

Ah yes, I remember that thread. I was trying to learn the reason for the double standard -- i.e. why it is alright for "ecumenical" neo-conservative Catholics like Hahn to make those kinds of statements, but not for traditional Catholics.

[Irish Hermit]

Scott Hahn is a hack.  He is a frequent guest on EWTN talk shows and only think it is there where he is actually taken seriously. The sad thing is he takes himself  seriously as well.  I get a good laugh.

I am not a follower but I've listened to some of his tapes and I don't think he's a hack by any stretch.

I think he does not always express Catholic theology in a way that I find best but that hardly makes him a hack in terms of the content of his messages or even his delivery.

I think he provides a great service to the faithful. He helps to make theology understandable to those with little background in theology. Dr. Peter Kreeft does the same thing with philosophy.

Exactly.

I don't understand all the Scott Hahn hate. It is understandable coming from Eastern Orthodox since he speaks out against Eastern Orthodoxy, but I am surprised at the Catholics that don't like him. I think he is fascinating, both to read his works and to listen to.

I have never met any Orthodox, on the net or out in the world, who hate Scott Hahn.  That is a silly and excessive thing to say.   

[Volnutt]

I hate Scott Baio, does that count?

[elijahmaria]

I hate Scott Baio, does that count?

 

Now now...hate ain't conducive to holiness...

 

[Volnutt]

What if I said I was 99% sure he's the AntiChrist  ?

[Jetavan]

H8 the game, not the playa.

[Volnutt]

You guys know I'm kidding, right? Sometimes my humor gets lost.

[scamandrius]

[
I don't understand all the Scott Hahn hate. It is understandable coming from Eastern Orthodox since he speaks out against Eastern Orthodoxy, but I am surprised at the Catholics that don't like him. I think he is fascinating, both to read his works and to listen to.

What hate?  I don't like the guy's "theology" or scholarship.  And it's not about the fact he is Catholic.  There are several EO writers whom I cannot stand or defend (e.g. Frederica Matthewes-Green for starters).  I take issue with their scholarship, nothing else.  In fact, I have been quite praiseworthy of many of your pope's writings and theological insights so don't pull the Catholic Victim card--it really does you a great disservice.

[Peter J]

[
I don't understand all the Scott Hahn hate. It is understandable coming from Eastern Orthodox since he speaks out against Eastern Orthodoxy, but I am surprised at the Catholics that don't like him. I think he is fascinating, both to read his works and to listen to.

What hate? 

Well, maybe not hate ... but calling someone a "hack" is pretty insulting, wouldn't you say?

[scamandrius]

^Insulting does not equal hate. 

[ialmisry]

Scott Hahn is a hack.  He is a frequent guest on EWTN talk shows and only think it is there where he is actually taken seriously. The sad thing is he takes himself  seriously as well.  I get a good laugh.

I am not a follower but I've listened to some of his tapes and I don't think he's a hack by any stretch.

I think he does not always express Catholic theology in a way that I find best but that hardly makes him a hack in terms of the content of his messages or even his delivery.

I think he provides a great service to the faithful. He helps to make theology understandable to those with little background in theology. Dr. Peter Kreeft does the same thing with philosophy.

Exactly.

I don't understand all the Scott Hahn hate. It is understandable coming from Eastern Orthodox since he speaks out against Eastern Orthodoxy, but I am surprised at the Catholics that don't like him. I think he is fascinating, both to read his works and to listen to.

I have never met any Orthodox, on the net or out in the world, who hate Scott Hahn.  That is a silly and excessive thing to say.   

Most Orthodox don't take Hahn serious enough to hate.

[elijahmaria]

You guys know I'm kidding, right? Sometimes my humor gets lost.

I think you've been found....out...

[Jetavan]

You guys know I'm kidding, right?

Of course.

[Robb]

Scott Hahn is a hack.  He is a frequent guest on EWTN talk shows and only think it is there where he is actually taken seriously. The sad thing is he takes himself seriously as well.  I get a good laugh.

I am not a follower but I've listened to some of his tapes and I don't think he's a hack by any stretch.

I think he does not always express Catholic theology in a way that I find best but that hardly makes him a hack in terms of the content of his messages or even his delivery.

I think he provides a great service to the faithful. He helps to make theology understandable to those with little background in theology. Dr. Peter Kreeft does the same thing with philosophy.

Exactly.

I don't understand all the Scott Hahn hate. It is understandable coming from Eastern Orthodox since he speaks out against Eastern Orthodoxy, but I am surprised at the Catholics that don't like him. I think he is fascinating, both to read his works and to listen to.

If you came into Catholicism from  a protestant backround, then I can understand your interest in Hahn and the way he present Catholic teachings.  However those of us who are cradle Catholics are not used to his style of presentation.  He just doesn't speak to us in the same way that he does to people of your backround. 

Catholicism survived for centuries without such styles of lay preaching and non clerical evangelizing.  It is very awkward to have Catholics instructed in their faith by a layman, and a convert layman at that (Who uses Protestant styles of preaching).  Yes, in the past we had many great convert theologians and evangelist, but almost all of them took holy orders and became a part of the ordained priesthood, while Hahn and those like him are just layman who have taken their own type of Protestant evangelizing ministry and switched to Catholicism.  Not something were used to seeing in the RCC (Or Orthodoxy as well).  Plus he's starting to come up with all kinds of bizarre theologies (Such as the Holy Spirit as a woman, new interpretations of the Rosary, etc...). 

[Peter J]

Scott Hahn is a hack.  He is a frequent guest on EWTN talk shows and only think it is there where he is actually taken seriously. The sad thing is he takes himself seriously as well.  I get a good laugh.

I am not a follower but I've listened to some of his tapes and I don't think he's a hack by any stretch.

I think he does not always express Catholic theology in a way that I find best but that hardly makes him a hack in terms of the content of his messages or even his delivery.

I think he provides a great service to the faithful. He helps to make theology understandable to those with little background in theology. Dr. Peter Kreeft does the same thing with philosophy.

Exactly.

I don't understand all the Scott Hahn hate. It is understandable coming from Eastern Orthodox since he speaks out against Eastern Orthodoxy, but I am surprised at the Catholics that don't like him. I think he is fascinating, both to read his works and to listen to.

If you came into Catholicism from  a protestant backround, then I can understand your interest in Hahn and the way he present Catholic teachings.  However those of us who are cradle Catholics are not used to his style of presentation.  He just doesn't speak to us in the same way that he does to people of your backround. 

Catholicism survived for centuries without such styles of lay preaching and non clerical evangelizing.  It is very awkward to have Catholics instructed in their faith by a layman, and a convert layman at that (Who uses Protestant styles of preaching).  Yes, in the past we had many great convert theologians and evangelist, but almost all of them took holy orders and became a part of the ordained priesthood, while Hahn and those like him are just layman who have taken their own type of Protestant evangelizing ministry and switched to Catholicism.

I don't know if it has to do with the fact that I'm American or what, but I was never bothered by the fact that he's a layman. (And I'm a cradle Catholic btw.) In fact, in college the majority of my theology professors were laymen.

[Jetavan]

Plus he's starting to come up with all kinds of bizarre theologies (Such as the Holy Spirit as a woman...).

That's a serious charge.

[Volnutt]

You guys know I'm kidding, right? Sometimes my humor gets lost.

I think you've been found....out...

[Jetavan]

Plus he's starting to come up with all kinds of bizarre theologies (Such as the Holy Spirit as a woman...).

Scott Hahn has written on the maternal imagery connected to the H.S., while still referring to the H.S. as "He", which is very different from saying the H.S. is a woman:

"The Catholic biblical scholar André Feuillet concludes
from the evidence in the Scriptures: “Indeed the Holy
Spirit himself appears as endowed with a function that is
in some sense maternal. A mother is primarily entrusted
with the task of giving life by bringing forth children
into the world. She is likewise entrusted, as we have remarked,
with the task of raising her children and making
mature human beings out of them . . . [W]e read in the
Fourth Gospel: ‘It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh
profits nothing’ (6:63). At baptism are not God’s children
born of water and the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:5)?”

Father Feuillet proceeds to apply these findings to the
Blessed Virgin as well: “There is a certain connection between,
on the one hand, the virginal maternity of Mary
and the conception of the Son of God in her womb under
the action of the Holy Spirit, and on the other hand
the supernatural birth of Christians through the power of
the same Holy Spirit.”

We know Who the Spirit is by what He does, and what
the Spirit does is bridal and maternal, qualities we associate
with Mary and with the Church.We must emphasize,
however, that Mary and the Church derive these qualities
from the Holy Spirit, and not vice versa."

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Constantly Evolving Theology - Scott Hahn