scott hahn refutations

[Tetzel]

You're a Catholic Charismatic, or just charismatic?

I have a major problem with Catholic Charismatics. I'll tell you why another time.

I look forward to this thread's appearance

 

[Tetzel]

I believe Matatics is no longer in communion with Rome and has become a full-blown sedevacantist and Feeneyite. (Sedevacantist = the Chair of Peter is empty because the popes since Vatican II have been heretics)(Feeneyite = followers of Father Feeney, a priest who was excommunicated for his hardcore interpretation of "no salvation outside the Church").

Would I be classified as semi-sedevacantist because I believe that the chair of Peter has been vacant since Peter died?

 

[Timothy]

Would I be classified as semi-sedevacantist because I believe that the chair of Peter has been vacant since Peter died?

Me too!

 

[Simon_Templar]

Contra,

I'm charismatic, I was raised in the non denominational charismatic church. I rejected alot of the doctrinal innovation and abuses which were prevalent in that portion of the church which has lead me to where I am now.
However, I can understand where Hahn is coming from because, right or wrong, I tend to use 'protestantism' to represent that portion of the protestant church with which I was familiar. I was aware of the calvinist churches for example, but had no real experience with them (except debating a few people from them now and then when we met at religious camps/conferences).

In fact, for a while before coming over to the 'traditional' view point I flirted with calvinism, but in the end I simply couldn't buy its theology/philosophy.

 

[gtsecc]

On some level of theological nit picking - anyone with an opion is going to have trouble with just about everyone else -especially a protestant on a Roman Catholic. I don't completely agree with Scott Hahn on everythign either - but, I like him. I liek his books, and I think he does a very good job of Catholic apologetics in a way that makes it easy for folks to understand. I love CM, but I totallt disagree with him and his assesment. Scott is sincere - I don't believe for a min that he converted and wrote these books because he couldn't make it a a Presby minister.

 

[No Swansong]

I have yet to read Mr. Hahn but I respect everything I've heard about him. My priest listened to him speak a couple months ago and was very impressed.

As for the primacy of Peter. Its based on the fact that in the first account Jesus says "you are peter (petros) and on this rock (petra) I will build my church)". Petra and Petros in koine (sp) greek mean the same thing "rock". In classical greek they had different meanings (petra meant bedrock and petros meant a small pebble).. however, by the time of Christ (when these words were spoken) everyone spoke Koine greek.

Thus the word play suggests that Jesus is building the church upon Peter (although even among the fathers it was also recognized that this statement referred to Peter's confession of Jesus' true identity).

BUT,
In addition to that, in this passage Jesus, speaking to Peter, says " I give to you the keys of the kingdom".

Neither the statement about the rock, nor the statement about the keys are repeated in Matt. 18, when the power of binding and loosing is clearly given to all the apostles.
Thus the Catholics argue that the Keys were given to Peter alone.

But there has been a great deal of argument lately that although Jesus probably understood Greek his primary everyday spoken language was probably Aramaic. So were these words actually used by Christ or is it a Greek translation of the Aramaic which (not a language scholar) has been pointed out to me would hold a different meaning?

 

[IowaLutheran]

But there has been a great deal of argument lately that although Jesus probably understood Greek his primary everyday spoken language was probably Aramaic. So were these words actually used by Christ or is it a Greek translation of the Aramaic which (not a language scholar) has been pointed out to me would hold a different meaning?

I'm no language expert, but my understanding is that the aramaic is "Cephas", which has no masculine/feminine issues like petra/petros.

 

[seanmc]

That's only if you buy into the idea that Matthew was translated from Aramaic, but IRL it relys on G.Mark and the Greek phraseology is identical in a lot of places.

 

[IowaLutheran]

Regardless of what language Matthew was originally written in, Jesus was almost certainly speaking aramaic and not greek.

 

[Simon_Templar]

But there has been a great deal of argument lately that although Jesus probably understood Greek his primary everyday spoken language was probably Aramaic. So were these words actually used by Christ or is it a Greek translation of the Aramaic which (not a language scholar) has been pointed out to me would hold a different meaning?

This is actually a very interesting issue, and one that it would take a better scholar than I to pronounce on right now. I may figure it out one day, but its still a mystery to me right now.

Anyway the issue is.. Peter has three names in scripture.. Simon, Peter, and Cephas... now the interesting point is that Peter should only have two names.. because Peter and Cephas should be the same name.

Let me try to explain a little better.. In aramaic the word for rock is Kepha. When Jesus spoke Aramaic he called Peter "Kepha". Assuming that Jesus spoke in Aramaic the famous Peter=rock verse would read "you are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church".

Cephas is not actually Aramaic, it is the aramaic word Kepha, tranliterated into greek. Which is the normal practice with names. Names are almost always transliterated, rather than translated. Like Y'shua is transliterated into English as (via greek and latin) as Jesus (or perhaps more accurately as Joshua) while if it were translated it would be "salvation".
So Cephas is Kepha transliterated. Petros is Kepha translated into greek... the question is why would Peter's name be both transliterated and translated??

There are only two reasons I can think of off hand. #1 Peter was widely known as both Cephas and Petros and in order to explain this and avoid confusion as to who was being talked about, both were used. (in a sense though this only raises the question why was he widely known as both names?)

#2 The meaning of the name was important, and some sort of message was meant to be conveyed through the meaning of the name. Which seems very likely considering I think it unlikely Jesus gave out names frivolously and without point.

 

[gtsecc]

A better way of figuring this out would be reading a book called the Primacy of Peter.

 

[Wigglesworth]

I like Scott Hahn. I've found him informative and persuasive. I especially like his testimony about his conversion that is available on a free CD from the Mary Foundation. In that, he explains how Protestantism failed for him when he realized the falsity of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

In response to the original post, my advice would be to keep in mind that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the catholicity of the Polish National Catholic Church and the Orthodox, allowing them to receive communion in RC churches. If these other two branches of the church are catholic enough for Rome to share the table with, then it's obviously possible to be catholic without believing everything that Rome now pronounces as mandatory dogma. You do not have to eat the cherries to enjoy the rest of the banana split, if you know the cherries are fake.

There are persuasive arguments that Benedict XVI should be the supreme dictator of the global church, but there are persuasive arguments that he should not be. Maintain a balance in your scholarship, because you would probably become a Jehovah's Witness if you only read the Watchtower and nothing else. I love to listen to the Seventh Day Adventists, just to hear their anti-Catholic arguments. When I can see the flaws in an opponent's argument, it gives me a peace that I have not swallowed a lie. You can only see the flaws if you study both sides.

Anyone considering moving to Rome should spend equal time studying the Orthodox answers to RC doctrines that Orthodoxy rejects. Some of their scholars are persuasive too.