Rating: 
Summary: A New/Old Look at Eucharist
Review: Any Christian can get value from this book, not just Catholics. Hahn, a former Presbyterian minister now teaching at Catholic Stubbenville University, looks on Revelations as a key to understanding the Mass. He also takes the opposite view, that any exegesis of Revelations without an understanding of the first-century Mass is inadequate, even misleading.Hahn's writing style is not well adapted to longer forms such as this; he writes in thirty to sixty minute lessons, like his famous teachings and lectures. Still, his insights are valuable and bring an important viewpoint from the Fathers of the Church. Hahn's method of treatment is new, but his insights are as old as the Church herself.
Rating:
Summary: Great book, bad puns
Review: As always, Hahn is thought-provoking and instructive. There is so much rubbish out there by way of pop eschatology; Scott Hahn gives an interpretation of the book of Revelation that is consistent and loyal to the Magisterium of the Church, showing the deep liturgical meaning that is inherent in the symbolism of this much-misunderstood book of the Bible. Hahn's style is colorful and breezy, making this a very readable book. Its one flaw, and it is a glaring one, is the pointless and distracting bad puns. Fortunately, they are largely confined to the titles of the various subsections of the book, and so are not in the text itself. Hahn's purpose is no doubt to make very serious theology readable and non-threatening to the average reader, but really, Dr. Hahn: your point would be made more clearly if you would skip the puns!
Rating: 
Summary: I look forward to mass now!
Review: A wonderful little book that made mass come alive for me. Mr. Hahn writing is clear and concise and his sense of humor shines through.
Rating:
Summary: Revelation is not what you may think - this book explains!
Review: I've always felt that the book of Revelation was not a story of things to come, but of a history of things that had already occurred. This incredible book affirms my gut instincts, but it also explains in detail some of the most wonderful mysteries of the Eucharist. Did you know that "apololypse" translated from Greek means "unveiling"? That simple fact is crucial in understanding this enigmatic letter to the churches. A MUST read for all who are interested in the Truth!
Rating:
Summary: Didn't expect it.
Review: Like one of those things one knows (probably for ages), but can't seem to realize fully, Scott Hahn brought out of the darkest corners of my closet the truth about Mass and what is really going on at the Altar. Needless to say, I not only was not able to put down the book, but I have started to attend Mass frequently, more devoutly, and with clearer intentions and understanding. I am a cradle Catholic, raised in a very Catholic family, studied in Catholic School, and devoted to Our Blessed Mother. But, I had been missing the "epiphany" of "My God and My Lord" in the consecration. It took Scott Hahn to help me see, which he did from the first two paragraphs.
Rating:
Summary: What a Revelation!
Review: This is a fantastic book for anyone wanting to know more about the liturgy - something that is easily overlooked by most Catholics. Indeed I hadn't heard of a priest mention the link before reading this book. A must-buy!
Rating:
Summary: Great Book!
Review: This was a great book, and an easy read, even for a Teen trying to understand the faith better, I recommened this book to everyone. Also, to RandyK, you maybe should read the book over, and with open eyes. Ever looked at the Church Fathers writings? Great book, Scott Hahn, a Fransican Univeristy Professor is a great Author, and speaker.
Rating:
Summary: Mass will never be the same again
Review: The Lamb's Supper showed me how the book of Revelation and the Mass were meant for each other. It feels so different when I go to Mass now, because this book has given me a greater sense of joy and reverence. We really enter heaven and worship with the saints and the angels. Now I see how I took the Scriptures and the Mass so much for granted before. I really hope a lot of catholics read this and non-catholics too.
Rating: 
Summary: The Mass: an ongoing funeral
Review: "The Lamb's Supper" is nothing more than a contemporary attempt to fabricate a defense for an unbiblical and blasphemous practice. Revelation is undisputedly the most allegorical (symbolic) book in the entire Bible. The orthodox and traditional interpretations of verses found in the Book of Revelation can be found by simply reading a good Bible Commentary written by any orthodox theologian. Many sites feature up to 10 online Bible Commentaries written by different theologians living in several different centuries. I have indeed read dozens of them and none share any of the interpretations that Scott Hahn or the religion of Rome does. Unfortunately Hahn's and Rome's reasoning are awash with dangerous and diabolical confusion. To liken the scene around the "golden altar" in Heaven (Revelation chapters 6,8,9) to the Roman Mass is to totally misrepresent the truth of God's Word. The scene in Heaven is a picture of "life" and "praise". The Catholic Mass is a place of "death" and "propitiation". Paul tells us that "Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him" (Romans 6:9) and Christ Himself spoke to John "I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore" (Revelation 1:18) The Mass it is claimed, is a sacrifice TO OBTAIN REDEMPTION "in the divine sacrifice of the eucharist the work of our redemption IS accomplished" ( Vat.II: vol 1: page 1) Contrast that with the praise for Christ and Calvary "Worthy is the Lamb that WAS slain, for thou WAS slain and HAS REDEEMED us to God by thy blood" (Revelation 5:12&9). In Heaven Christ is the focus of attention whereas at the Mass the robed priests are the focus as the '94 Catechism describes in paragraph 1566: "acting in the place of Christ in the sacrifice of the Mass THEY make present again and apply...the unique sacrifice of the New Testament." Christ's sacrifice all through the NT is viewed as a one time offering (esp. Hebrews chps. 7, 9, 10), that accomplishes that in which it was intended to accomplish. It is a finished work, and Jesus Christ after He offered Himself in the sacrifice sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. There He remains until the end of time. He is not brought down thousands of times upon an altar for His work to be continued. The intercessory work of Jesus Christ refutes the concept of the Mass. Christ intercedes on the basis of His completed work, not on the basis of work that is applied little by little.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: Review of Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper. As one who began his journey across the Tiber river by first reading the Book of Revelation, I read with interest Scott Hahn's book on the Mass and the book of Revelation. I have also been asked by several people my opinion of this work and so I present my critique. I need to say up front that I was crossing the Tiber in the opposite direction of Dr. Hahn-he towards Rome, I away from it. From the first it is obvious that Dr. Hahn is writing a popular book and not a scholastic or academic work. The tone of his writing shows this. Unfortunately so does his use of sources and his exegetical efforts. This book was not meant to bear close scrutiny, more in the order of a devotional with little regard for accuracy in history or exegesis. This is surprising though. Dr. Carroll, the founder and past president of Christendom College in Virginia has called Dr. Hahn the premier Catholic biblical scholar in the world, and, reading others who have written about Dr. Hahn, this seems to be a universal acclaim. So the number and scope of his errors seem out of place in light of the praise he has garnered. And they seem very troubling in light of the praise this book itself has won. A quick note on something that pervaded much of his work, though not related to his main subject, bears a comment. He early on mentions his coming to Catholicism from an "anti-Catholic" background. We have to take him at his word on this for, as far as I know, there is no extant writings of his that are "anti-Catholic." Yet, in this work, he takes a couple of swipes that I find rather "anti-Evangelical." I say that for if the same arguments were made against Catholic doctrine they would quickly be labeled "anti-Catholic." He particularly jabs at sola scriptura (47-48, 54). As to his accuracy, a couple of examples ought to suffice. What has to asked in his making of these errors are two questions: "are they out of ignorance" or "were they purposeful?" Either option bodes ill for the whole work. On page 89, he describes the woman of Revelation 12. The Bible (New Jerusalem) describes her as being "robed with the sun, standing on the moon, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." Dr. Hahn adds, following Catholic artistic depictions, that she "crushes the head of the serpent." This last part is not in Revelation, though he seems to be implying that. In fact, the only place you find it in Scripture is the early Vulgate of Genesis 3.15 where the Latin feminine pronoun was substituted for the Hebrew (and Greek-LXX) masculine pronoun giving "she shall crush your (Serpant's) head." This was carried over in the earlier editions of the Douay-Rheims English translation of the Vulgate. Modern editions of both now follow the Hebrew and Greek and have "he shall crush your head." His reversion to the Latin that has been rejected by even the Catholic church is troubling. In the guise of giving an accurate portrayal of Revelation (on the previous page he berated his evangelical brethern for their portrayal) he violates the text of both Revelation and Genesis. On page 96 while writing about the battle of Armageddon he rightly points out that Megiddo is where Judah's King Josiah was shot. However, he says that he was "cut down in his prime for disobeying the instruction of God's prophet (see 2 Kgs 23.28-30)." First, that is not what the text says. It is odd that he would say a passage says something that it does not and then cite the reference. Did he not expect anyone to check it? The one who told Josiah to turn back was the Pharaoh of Egypt, Neco, not a prophet. And Neco is not called a prophet in either Kings or Chronicles. Perhaps Dr. Hahn sees him as a prophet because the Chronicles says that the words of Neco came to Josiah from the mouth of God. If that is the case then it is a seriously strained exegetical effort. Additionally, no reason is given for Josiah's death as Dr. Hahn says. On page 97, in his section on describing and identifying the 144,000 witnesses he writes that during the final destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. at the hands of Titus, "not a single Christian perished." This is an astonishing statement to say the least! Where did he find such information?! He has been making a point of using the writings of the ancient church fathers but he misses completely Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. In that work, Eusebius, the ancient church historian, following Josephus (whom Hahn cites), notes in his Book 2, chapter 23 that "James, the brother of the Lord" was cast down from a wing of the temple and stoned. As he was not dead he was beaten to death with a fuller's club (cf. Also Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1). Eusebius goes on to say that "the wiser part of the Jews were of the opinion that [James' death] was the cause of the immediate siege of Jerusalem." So, contrary to what Dr. Hahn writes, Eusebius says that not only did at least one Christian die in the final war of the Jews but that his death was the cause of it. How did Dr. Hahn miss this bit of information and come up with a completely opposite "fact"? One last point. In the Greek New Testament there is a word that is used frequently and that Dr. Hahn points out frequently. That word is prebuteros. It translates to "elder." It transliterates to "prebyter." The English word "priest" originates from the Old English and Late Latin "preost", presbyter, elder. Because of this there persists much confusion. However, it should not be confusing to Dr. Hahn and he should not have made the mistakes that he did in regards to this word. It seems obvious that he is making a case for Catholic Priesthood despite NT evidence to the contrary. The Greek word for priest in the OT sense is "iereus" and it is never used of a NT office. It is different and distinct from "presbyter" but Dr. Hahn frequently mixes and confuses these words, implying that they mean the same thing. On page 68 he talks about the 24 "elders" which he correctly notes comes from presbyter but then sets them in context of the twenty-four priestly divisions who served the Temple. He is mixing words. The "presbyters" are not "iereuss" and it should not be implied that they are, especially by a scholar of Dr. Hahn's reputation. The point is most obviously seen on page 76. There he talks about the "elders (presbyteroi, priests)" and then in the next paragraph talks of the Lamb who is "robed as a high priest ([Rev] 1:13)." Dr. Hahn must know that Rev 1.13 is not talking about a "high-presbyteros" but a "high-iereus." He is mixing words and he is doing so illegitimately. Presbyteros does not mean priest in the sense that iereus does and he should know this. The distinction is upheld in both the Old and New Testaments. He is either ignorant of the distinction or so intent on presenting the Catholic idea of a "priest" against his former Presbyterian idea of "elders" that he intentionally violates semantics in that quest. Though this work has been widely received, embraced, and praised by the Catholic community, its whole presentation is full of such errors and misdirections. As I said earlier, he apparently intended it to be a devotional work and did not intend it to stand close scrutiny. I would be very disappointed if these errors of his have not been pointed out to him by his fellow professors at Stubenville or at least by Mitch Pacwa, who, if he has read this work, should have recognized these errors. This was a very disapointing work. It turns out to be more of a Catholic apologetic and anti-Evangelical polemic than a serious and accurate treatment of both the Mass and the book of Revelation.
| 
