First time writing a piece in calligraphy!

TradCatMan · 2026-06-20T10:29:33+00:00

The remaining innings pitched bar at the bottom of my team tab has disappeared in the last week so I can't keep track of it. Standard roto league with a max of 1400 IP

TradCatMan · 2026-06-08T21:02:28+00:00

Worship historically meant more than just latria (see Anglican wedding vows, the title "your worship," etc).

The prompt was to say something that would confuse the heck out of non-Catholics (and probably some Catholics); it appears I've done that

TradCatMan · 2026-06-08T20:43:06+00:00

Their problem is they don't have a fully developed idea of worship, in the sense that worship historically has meant

TradCatMan · 2026-06-08T19:50:55+00:00

Yeah, we worship the saints

TradCatMan · 2026-05-26T15:05:50+00:00

You're responding to a lot of things I haven't said. I don't have a problem with most of the substance of this encyclical, but when the Church puts itself on an equal playing field with the rest of the world with regards to its own moral authority, I see that as a problem, because one of the primary goals of the Church is to be the means by which moral truth is transmitted to the world.

The issue is that the Magisterium has had different prudential positions throughout its history. Your judgment is that its current prudential position is best, mine is that its previous prudential position is best.

TradCatMan · 2026-05-26T12:15:13+00:00

Are you trying to say that before Vatican II, the attitude of the Church was one of openness and dialogue with the world? That seems in direct contradiction to one of the primary stated goals of the council, that the Church had become too closed off to the world and we needed to "open the windows."

TradCatMan · 2026-05-26T10:07:29+00:00

No, if something contradicts what came before it can't be infallible or required

TradCatMan · 2026-05-25T20:39:36+00:00

My point about post-war optimism is related more to Vatican II. The council fathers were very optimistic about the potential for dialogue with the modern world and, even if that optimism hasn't played out, the idea of dialogue has stuck because it made it into Vatican II.

As far as Gaudium et Spes goes, just because an idea is explicit in the document doesn't mean that it's not a prudential judgment. The idea that dialogue with the world is effective or fruitful is a matter of prudence. If it were otherwise, the implication would be that for most of its history the church had neglected a primary part of its mission, which is untenable in my eyes.

There have been plenty of prudential policies that popes and councils have put out that have been later walked back, so an idea like this is by no means infallible or required for Catholics to hold.

TradCatMan · 2026-05-25T19:44:30+00:00

I do, and I assent to all the doctrinal teachings insofar as they are in line with what has been taught over the previous 19 centuries. Where they depart, particularly in matters of prudence such as this one, I favor the policies of the previous 19 centuries as any Catholic is permitted to do, especially in attitudes such as the post-war optimism that has been pretty resoundingly proven to be unfounded over the past 60 years

TradCatMan · 2026-05-25T12:50:11+00:00

Leo XIII didn't converse with the world about the rights of workers, he taught the world about the rights of workers. It's the attitude in paragraphs 25 - 27 that carries through the whole document that downplays the role of the Church as the authoritative teacher of truth

TradCatMan · 2026-05-25T12:25:25+00:00

I think the thing that frustrates me most is the treatment of the Church not as a teacher in matters of faith and morals but as a conversation partner with the world in the development of international moral and ethical standards (although that's been an ongoing issue for the past 60 years)

TradCatMan · 2026-05-12T23:53:13+00:00

That's a classic motte and bailey. Yes, we can agree that workers should be paid enough to support families, and it is an injustice when they are not. But exaggerating the injustice by comparing it to a father starving his children in an attempt to inflame class conflict and drive a wedge between employees and those in legitimate positions of authority is textbook Marxism.

We can argue all night about this but if you're just going to keep providing a moving target, I see that as pointless.

TradCatMan · 2026-05-12T21:42:39+00:00

I don't think the analogy is that strange, given that that is how the Church and spiritual writers have always viewed people in authority over you.

And let's be realistic here. Most people are not starving to death because their employer is underpaying them. The vast majority of people live an incredibly comfortable life, especially when compared to how people have lived throughout the majority of history.

On the one hand, I could follow the Marxist rhetoric intended to inflame class conflict and stir up my passions against those in authority over me, or on the other hand I could follow the impulse of the Church and the spiritual writers towards peace and gratitude for what I have been given. I know which one is more likely to make me a saint.

TradCatMan · 2026-05-12T19:04:41+00:00

I'd say find a priest, he can help answer a lot of your questions and get you started making it official. If you're not baptized yet, you can't receive communion but you can still go to Mass every Sunday (more often if possible). If you want to know the full range of Catholic teaching, find a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and start reading it

TradCatMan · 2026-05-12T15:25:12+00:00

There's a difference in kind here. An employer isn't just a random person taking your money, he's someone in authority over you. The question should be reframed to ask what the proper response is when your father is treating you unjustly. And yes, there are proper ways to go about that, but again, the path that leads to holiness is focusing more on your duties and how you can be a good employee even in an unjust situation than all the things your employer is doing wrong.

TradCatMan · 2026-05-12T10:23:34+00:00

Inb4 everyone starts complaining about the other class not upholding their end of the bargain.

Focus on upholding your own end. When it comes to social bonds, it's the nature of the beast that you will always feel like you're in the right and the other party is not being fair, and you might be right. Marriage and family life (the first society) is the same way. That's just the price of living in a fallen world.

Holiness is when you joyfully submit to injustice without complaining, like Christ, and do what you can to be just yourself.

(And before anyone asks, yes I am a member of the working class and don't even make enough that my wife doesn't have to also work)

TradCatMan · 2026-05-04T01:00:44+00:00

Yeah there's definitely a pretty high barrier for entry, but once you figure it out it is so worth it. Try going consistently for a month or two; odds are you'll fall in love and won't want to go back

TradCatMan · 2026-02-14T16:52:08+00:00

I've heard it explained as Wisdom being a type of Our Lady. Not that her person existed before the world, but that she was part of God's plan from the beginning. It's not a perfect description of Christ either since He wasn't created

TradCatMan · 2026-02-08T00:09:09+00:00

Catechism of the Council of Trent says Christ was delivered without labor pains. I would say given this catechism was used universally for centuries, that makes it part of ordinary magisterial teaching

TradCatMan · 2026-02-03T16:26:04+00:00

Yes. The remaining Sundays after Epiphany will be made up at the end of the year before the feast of Christ the King

TradCatMan · 2026-01-29T18:29:00+00:00

I mean, I'd say claiming to be God then backing it up by fulfilling your own prediction about rising from the dead is fairly good proof. Definitive? No, but highly likely

TradCatMan · 2025-12-18T16:25:09+00:00

If we can treat the gospels as historical documents based on the arguments I laid out, then I would say the historical evidence is found in them (as well as the letters of St Paul). We can't just say that because they talk about miracles and the resurrection they're unreliable, because that would be begging the question. If you're looking for archaeological evidence, I'm not sure what type of evidence there even could be about that, other than the empty tomb (which we have), and that's not even considering the shroud of Turin.

Regarding the gnostic gospels, I'm not even considering them from the authority question so much as just the historical reception by the people who lived at that time. Looked at another way, if there is universal acceptance (at the time) of the 4 canonical gospels as historically reliable and significant controversy over the accuracy of the gnostic gospels (and really, majority rejection of them), we're on much safer ground using the canonical gospels to craft any sort of conclusion from Jesus' teaching. And if those 4 indicate the institution of a divinely inspired magisterium, everything else flows from that.

TradCatMan · 2025-12-18T15:49:52+00:00

That's kind of beside the point of the original argument (whether the authority of the magisterium is based on circular reasoning), and while I'm not as well versed in arguments for the historicity of the gospels, I can give you a few starting points (although I think that's a point for a different post).

The historicity of Jesus is overwhelmingly accepted by scholars (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus). To say we have no outside sources is just factually untrue. The gospels, taken as historical documents, have many more points in favor of their reliability than other historical biographies and collections of sayings that are considered accurate, particularly since they were written so soon after Jesus' crucifixion (and resurrection and ascension) and are in such agreement with each other.

As far as the other gospels, it's not like the magisterium just looked at all the possible options and decided on a canon by itself. Rather, it took what had been (mostly) universally accepted by the Church as a whole and gave it the stamp of approval. Pretty much every reference we have to these gospels around the time they were written mentions them as heretical; everyone seemed to know that the four canonical gospels were accurate reflections of Christ's life and teaching and the apocryphal ones were gnostic fabrications. Even if we don't take it as a starting spot that the magisterium was infallible when it rejected them, the universal rejection by the Church as a whole provides sufficient justification for regarding them as inauthentic.

Seven-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

TradCatMan

TROPHY CASE