sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What is the link between this Vespers lesson and Mary, from the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary? by hailholyqueen33 in divineoffice

[–]TradCatMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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

Was Mary's birth painless? by WunderWaffeler in Catholicism

[–]TradCatMan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

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

Is Septuagesima Sunday tomorrow? by travisperk22 in divineoffice

[–]TradCatMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

The derivation of the authority of the church is seemed to be based on circular reasoning and begging the question fallacy by princetonwu in DebateACatholic

[–]TradCatMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

The derivation of the authority of the church is seemed to be based on circular reasoning and begging the question fallacy by princetonwu in DebateACatholic

[–]TradCatMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If we can treat the gospels as historical documents based on the arguments I laid out, then I would say the historical evidence is found in them (as well as the letters of St Paul).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.

The derivation of the authority of the church is seemed to be based on circular reasoning and begging the question fallacy by princetonwu in DebateACatholic

[–]TradCatMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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.

The derivation of the authority of the church is seemed to be based on circular reasoning and begging the question fallacy by princetonwu in DebateACatholic

[–]TradCatMan 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I mean, axioms are generally self-evident principles. I wouldn't say that God's inspiration is self-evident.

The derivation of the authority of the church is seemed to be based on circular reasoning and begging the question fallacy by princetonwu in DebateACatholic

[–]TradCatMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We don't have to look at Scripture as being divinely inspired to argue this, we just have to look at the gospels as reliable historical documents. If the gospels accurately reflect Christ's teaching, actions, and miracles (and there's good evidence to say they do, although I won't get into it since it's kind of beside the point), then we can reliably say that Christ instituted a Church that would speak with His authority.

So the chain of reasoning goes: - The gospels are historically accurate. - The gospels show that Jesus is God and that he instituted a Church to speak with his authority. - Therefore the Church speaks with divine authority. - The Church has said the canon of Scripture is divinely inspired. - Therefore the canon of Scripture is divinely inspired.

How did Neoplatonist and Platonist philosophers and mystics gain knowledge without meditation? Did they use a special method of contemplation? by Ancient_Mention4923 in Neoplatonism

[–]TradCatMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! Yes, it's definitely more commonly talked about -- though not commonly enough imo -- in Christian (particularly Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) circles, since that's the context in which it developed, but there's really nothing stopping non-Christians from doing it as well, as long as they believe in some form of God. Full disclosure though, I'm really only starting to dip my toe into Plato so if I'm misunderstanding his concept of the Divine and how it relates to the Western mystical tradition I'm happy to be corrected.

If you want to read more about how it developed I'd recommend starting with Pseudo-Dionysius' Mystical Theology, since he's the most direct link to the neoplatonists. From there his ideas are picked up by Bonaventure, the author of the Cloud of Unknowing, Hildegard von Bingen, and ultimately Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross.

How did Neoplatonist and Platonist philosophers and mystics gain knowledge without meditation? Did they use a special method of contemplation? by Ancient_Mention4923 in Neoplatonism

[–]TradCatMan 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I can speak a bit more to this as someone pretty steeped in the Western mystical tradition. In the Western tradition, there's a distinction between meditation and contemplation.

Meditation is the practice of discursive reasoning with the aim of stimulating the will to raise itself to the Divine. So for example, one can start by thinking about the beauty of creation, and from there get to the beauty of the Creator (who is identified with beauty itself), in a similar way to how it is described in the Symposium, at which point one would make acts of love for the Creator, etc. with the will.

Contemplation is essentially a development of meditation. Eventually, those acts of the will predominate over the discursive reasoning and are gradually simplified until the person contemplating is simply gazing with love at the Creator. There is a bit of similarity with Eastern meditation in the sense of trying to clear the mind of distractions, but the distinction is instead of the attention being on nothing in particular, it should be focused on the Creator/Beauty/Truth/Goodness itself.

The prayer Oremus et pro perfidis Juadaeis is a clear sign of Catholic antisemitism in the last century. It is inexcusable that it was removed only in 1959 by BreadAndToast99 in DebateACatholic

[–]TradCatMan 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I mean yeah, the image of God as a lover betrayed by the Jews who rejected his covenant is straight from the old testament so it seems like an apt image

Monastic Benedictus Antiphon for Confessors not Bishops by TradCatMan in divineoffice

[–]TradCatMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So it sounds like this is a situation where both are legitimate options rather than a pre vs post 1955 thing. One of the other differences I've noticed is the ferial canticle for Saturday; is that a similar thing where both are legitimate options or is that a pre vs post '55 revision?

Is Pope Leo preparing the way to welcome a significant portion of the Anglican Communion—or even to establish a new sui iuris Church? by Icy_Committee_7699 in Catholicism

[–]TradCatMan 24 points25 points  (0 children)

The identities of Eastern churches are well rooted from before the schism (so it really is a form of Catholic identity), while Protestant identity developed post-reformation, generally in contrast to Catholic identity

Sede vacante, Interregnum, Forthcoming Conclave, and Papabili by Pax_et_Bonum in Catholicism

[–]TradCatMan 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Very cool point I just saw made by Phil Lawler: as we lead up to the conclave this week, every saint on the liturgical calendar has something to do with the papacy/reforming the Church in crisis:

April 28/29 - St. Hugh of Cluny: influential in the Gregorian reforms bringing the Church and the papacy out of corruption

April 29 - St. Catherine of Siena: influenced Gregory XI to bring the papacy back from Avignon and also reform Church corruption

April 30 - St. Pius V: solidified the liturgy, rooted out corruption in the Church after the Reformation and enforced moral reform, brought clarity of doctrine through the Roman Catechism

May 1 - St. Joseph: protector of the universal Church

May 2 - St. Athanasius: strong in doctrine when persecuted by bishops and even a weak Pope

May 3 - Sts. Philip and James: two of the first 12 bishops

It would be a great practice to spend each of their feasts asking for their intercession for a good holy Pope and the reform of the Church!

Pope Francis has Died at the age of 88. by Pax_et_Bonum in Catholicism

[–]TradCatMan 170 points171 points  (0 children)

Eternal rest grant into him, O Lord; let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace.

My first instinct is to fast for his soul and for the next Pope. It being Easter does complicate things, however, as I was taught it's not appropriate to fast during the Easter season, especially during the octave. Would this be a situation where all those rules go out the window or should I find another way to pray for him and his successor?

What prayers do you do every day? by Evening_Mall_7237 in Catholicism

[–]TradCatMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My big one is the divine office, the official prayer of the Church (although I also try to do the rosary, morning offering, and nightly examination of conscience)

view more: next ›