Matt Fradd's Blog, page 10

Why the Heretics Will Not Win

YouTube is the new public square. Almost every opinion with a sizable following eventually finds a voice there — whether that be capitalism, communism, veganism or any other popular belief.

On the flip side, you won’t find much on YouTube about opinions no one believes in. If no one were vegan, you wouldn’t have vegan channels.

This gives me a lot of hope. Think of the issues that many leftist, heretical Catholics are trying to push, such as contraception, female priests, and gay marriage. I can’t think of any prominent “Catholic” YouTube channel focused on these topics.

You may find a few fringe channels, but they don’t stack up to the number and size of orthodox Catholic content on YouTube. There doesn’t seem to be a movement of heretical Catholic YouTube channels overtaking the world.

Think of the traditionalist Catholic YouTuber Taylor Marshall (whom I probably side with on about 97% of the issues). He has a HUGE following — nearly 800k subscribers at the beginning of 2024 — that gets excited every time he drops a new video.

Where’s this enthusiasm from the so-called Catholic left?

If the content available on YouTube reflects where society and the Church are, it indicates that despite the attempts by left-wing Catholics to force their erroneous opinions on the Church, orthodoxy is winning the online battle.

If I’m correct about this, let’s pray that it continues! Our enemies inside the Church are not going to stop trying to push their garbage down our throats.

Let’s continue spreading the truth of Christ across the virtual sphere to drown out their lies.

The post Why the Heretics Will Not Win appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Ukrainian Catholic Church REJECTS Fiducia Supplicans

Pope Francis’ recent document, “Fiducia Supplicans,” has generated heated debate within the Church and civil society because it approves blessing same-sex couples (not the relationship) under very strict conditions.

However, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk, released a document saying that the church rejects “Fiducia Supplicans.”

Here are some reasons given in the document.

“Fiducia Supplicans” is for the Latin Church, not the Eastern churches.
“It does not address questions of Catholic faith or morals, nor does it refer to any prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO), nor does it mention Eastern Christians. Thus, on the basis of Canon 1492 of the CCEO, this Declaration applies exclusively to the Latin Church and has no legal force for the faithful of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.”

The Eastern churches have their own spiritual heritage in addition to that shared with the Latin Church.
“The meaning of ‘blessing’ in the UGCC and the Latin Church is different. According to the liturgical practice of our Church, the blessing of a priest or bishop is a liturgical gesture that cannot be separated from the rest of the content of the liturgical rites and reduced to the circumstances and needs of private piety.”

The word “blessing” has a very specific meaning for Eastern Catholics.
“The concept of ‘blessing’ means approval, permission or even a spiritual directive for a certain type of action, prayer or ascetic practice.…the blessing of a priest always has an Evangelical and Catechetical dimension and therefore can in no way contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church about the family as a faithful, indissoluble and fruitful union of love between a man and a woman.”

You can read the remainder of the Major Archbishop’s letter here.

The post Ukrainian Catholic Church REJECTS Fiducia Supplicans appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

What Exactly Is Schism?

Christ calls us all to be united in one Church under one head — the pope, the Vicar of Christ.

Throughout history, various divisions have arisen in the Body of Christ. Some of these have led to schisms.

Here’s what schism is and what it is not.

Schism is a sin against the unity God willed His Church to possess.
The Church possesses a real unity of faith and governance. It is structured as a hierarchy, not a democracy. The pope represents Christ, the head of the Mystical Body.

The Church consists of relationships between the members and their relationship to their head. A schismatic refuses to be in communion with those subject to the Roman pontiff or to submit to the pontiff himself.

Here’s an important point: Schism is disobedience to the pope as head of the Church. The pope has authority over the discipline of the Church and guards the authentic faith passed down from Christ and the Apostles.

However, he doesn’t have control over all aspects of your life. If the pope ordered you to eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich every day for all three meals, you’d ignore him.

You’re also not required to submit to every off-the-cuff remark a pope makes, although you should give his opinions respectful consideration. If they’re ambiguous, give him the benefit of the doubt and avoid rushing to judgment.

How is schism different from heresy? When you reject the pope’s headship intellectually, that’s heresy. When you reject it with your behavior, that’s schism. A schismatic may theoretically accept that the pope is head of the Church, but their behavior may not be in line with this belief.

The best way to avoid schismatic behavior is by nurturing charity in your heart. Charity orders all of our relationships as God intended. It inspires us to pray for the pope when he does something confusing.

Ultimately, charity will keep you united with the Church, so that you can safely navigate the wild seas of this life and reach the safe harbor of heaven.

The post What Exactly Is Schism? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Does the Novus Ordo Comply with Vatican II?

The Second Vatican Council (1962-65) called for liturgical reform. Though the Novus Ordo Mass didn’t directly emerge from the council, it was an attempt to implement many of Vatican II’s directives.

However, many Novus Ordo Masses in parishes worldwide began incorporating things “in the spirit of Vatican II,” which seemed to contradict what the council actually taught. They also didn’t follow what Pope St. Paul VI laid out when he officially implemented the Novus Ordo.

Let’s review some things Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy said about liturgical reform and see how the Novus Ordo matches up.

Vatican II said that Gregorian chant should be given pride of place in the liturgy.
Let’s be honest. We hardly ever hear Gregorian chant in the typical Novus Ordo parish. Most music is composed of hymns from the past 60 or so years.

Vatican II wasn’t opposed to reverent contemporary music in the liturgy, but it still considered Gregorian chant to be the music most suitable to divine worship in the Latin Rite.

The council also taught that the organ was the most fitting instrument for Mass. While many parishes still use organs, others have opted for pianos and guitars.

Vatican II envisioned some Latin in the liturgy.
Some Catholics claim that Vatican II did away with Latin. That’s not true. It gave bishops the authority to implement the vernacular into some parts of the Mass, but said that priests should teach their congregation to say certain prayers in Latin.

A Novus Ordo Mass most in line with Vatican II would have a mix of Latin and the vernacular, although the council didn’t specify what language should be used for which parts.

Priests and laypeople can’t change the liturgy.
The introduction of the Novus Ordo was followed by years of wild liturgical experimentation, even to the point of cringe-worthy clown Masses. Some of these were justified on the basis of a vague “spirit of Vatican II.”

Vatican II (and the official text of the Novus Ordo) never called for these outlandish liturgical experiments. The council explicitly stated that — other than the pope and, to a limited extent, the bishops — “no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.”

Thankfully, experimentation has decreased. But if we look at the liturgical landscape, it seems that many Novus Ordo parishes still have some work to do to realize the liturgical vision of Vatican II.

We encourage all Catholics to click here to read more of what the council truly said.

The post Does the Novus Ordo Comply with Vatican II? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Is the Book of Mormon Actually Ancient?

The Book of Mormon was published in 1830. Its contents were purportedly translated by Joseph Smith from ancient records that told the stories of God’s deeds in the Americas.

But is the book actually ancient, or is it a product of the 19th century? These reasons point to the latter.

The Book of Mormon is full of anachronisms.
Many methods help determine the age of a book. One is paying attention to the text.

Let’s say you pick up a book purporting to contain ancient Egyptian recipes and one dish calls for potatoes. Since potatoes are a New World crop, you’d know that this recipe was created at a much later date and perhaps in a different place.

Anachronisms abound in the Book of Mormon. One example: saying certain animals existed in the Americas that we know were never here, such as elephants.

The book is also — conveniently enough — filled with 19th-century Protestant theology. It seems a little suspicious that it addresses many hot-button issues Protestants faced at that time.

The book’s account of American history doesn’t mesh with what actually happened.
Many people now think that a huge proportion of Native Americans perished from diseases they contracted from Europeans. Many of their societies collapsed — including fairly advanced societies that contradicted the popular 19th-century Mormon image of the primitive Native American.

Early European colonizers thought the complex structure of Native American societies was beyond the scope of the people themselves. In Joseph Smith’s time, the theory was that these cultures were actually communities of ancient Hebrews who inhabited the Americas — a theory no serious scholar accepts.

We love our Mormon brothers and sisters, many of whom are good, charitable people. But their book has problems, so we invite them to return to the fullness of truth in the bosom of the Catholic Church.

The post Is the Book of Mormon Actually Ancient? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

You Don’t Have to Face Your Weaknesses Alone

I’ve been a Christian since I was 17. I first heard about Exodus 90 when I was 33 and then did it with a group of friends. At that time, it was just this thing on the periphery.

And then I noticed it gaining traction; It kept popping up in more places. I began to hear the amazing results people were experiencing from it. It suddenly became more appealing. I remember Jason Evert telling me that it was like “cleaning out your garage,” in the spiritual sense.

I thought that was pretty cool. I interviewed James on my show, and I remember him saying something very interesting: He wanted to move away from this culture of exceptions where people say things like, “Well, we fast on Fridays. You don’t have to do that or this.” I thought that was pretty manly.

When I first heard about Exodus 90, I wasn’t necessarily interested in doing it. Not because I didn’t like the idea, but it seemed to be merely one great idea among many. When I was living in Atlanta, I had a men’s group who would get together. We’d pray, play board games and enjoy each other’s company.

I’m not sure what sparked the initial idea, but one morning I told the fellas, “What if we did Exodus 90 together?” They asked, “What is that?” I said, “We can look it up.” They responded, “Oh yeah, I’ve heard of that. Let’s do it. When should we start?” I said, “Let’s start now!”

We started in the middle of the year. I think I knew that if we waited until the next time to start came around, we may not have had the enthusiasm to commit to it.

I struggle with committing to things with tremendous enthusiasm, only to peter out within a few weeks.

In a way, the obstacles didn’t emerge until a couple of weeks in. I was still very excited to do the program. I liked the idea of praying, not having alcohol and avoiding snacks between meals. When the obstacles came, it was just frustrating.

I found myself frustrated that I couldn’t enjoy a whiskey with my wife at night. I know I could’ve – there’s some freedom in Exodus 90. I’m a grown man: I can do what I want, but I want to be true to it.

I agreed to do Exodus 90 because men in this country live very cushy lives. What does that produce? If you live a cushy life and you never deny yourself things that you want, or if you only deny them when the mood strikes you, you’re not practicing true submission.

It’s kind of like obedience. Obedience is a difficult virtue. If you’re only obedient when you want to be obedient, that’s not actually obedience. The same goes for fasting and other tough practices. I knew I had to learn to submit better even when not in the mood.

I was surprised to find how weak I was and how ready I was to find any loophole or exception. I suppose everybody finds that within themselves. You’d like to think you were made of heftier stuff.

The most enjoyable part of the Exodus experience was meeting with men intentionally every week. I remember hosting a party at my house one day. My Exodus fellas came over, and it was like we were part of this cool club that other men — as cool as they were — weren’t part of. We had this kind of inner language. We were undergoing something together. I liked that.

I think the reason men are on the fence about taking Exodus 90 is because they’re afraid they’re going to fail. And I think as men, we shy away from whatever exposes us, whether that be taking a look under the hood of the car to see if you can figure out what’s wrong with it, paying your taxes, looking at your bank account or having that conversation with your teenage daughter. We shy away from things that we fear will expose us.

Ultimately, we want to rely on the strength that God gives us, not our own power. If our poverty is exposed in taking on these disciplines, praise the Lord for that. Recognize that He is good and gentle with us, and we can be gentle with ourselves. If you never try, you can’t fail. If you don’t try to do anything, then you can never fail, and that sounds great, but wouldn’t it be cooler to try and be better than you were, even if you failed?

Give it a shot! Head over to https://exodus90.com/matt-home/ to get started.

The post You Don’t Have to Face Your Weaknesses Alone appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Was Vatican II Infallible?

An ecumenical council has the authority to issue infallible statements, although not every council does.

But what about the Second Vatican Council (1962-65)? Many Catholics debate whether the council issued any infallible statements. Sadly, some want an answer to this question to have an excuse to dismiss the council.

Before we investigate this issue, let’s clarify some points of confusion.

 

1. Documents are not infallible, but statements in those documents may be.
People sometimes erroneously speak of “infallible” documents. But even if a document has one or more infallible statements, that doesn’t make the entire document infallible. The infallible part of a document could just be a single sentence.

2. There is a difference between dogmatic and infallible statements.
All dogmatic declarations are infallible, but not all infallible declarations are dogmatic. A statement is dogmatic when, in addition to being infallible, its subject matter is declared to be divinely revealed and believed with a divine and Catholic faith. Other statements may be infallible without being directly divinely revealed or requiring the same level of assent.

What about the Vatican II documents?
It’s generally agreed that Vatican II didn’t define any new dogmas. Many theologians also say it didn’t issue any new infallible statements. It did reiterate many infallible teachings (including dogmas) that were defined earlier. Nevertheless, Vatican II is full of authoritative teaching, even if those statements don’t meet the criteria for infallibility.

A dogmatic constitution doesn’t necessarily define new dogma.
The 16 documents of Vatican II are put in different classes. Two are known as “dogmatic constitutions.” Some people are confused by this term and think it means the documents define new dogmas. They do not. They refer to dogmas that were already established.

Even if Vatican II didn’t issue new infallible teachings, it still has authority. Pope St. Paul VI taught that Vatican II “has invested its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary magisterium is so obviously authentic that it must be accepted with docility and sincerity by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council as expressed in the nature and aims of the individual documents.”

The post Was Vatican II Infallible? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

5 Common Questions About Prayer

Prayer is important, but even the devout are confused by different aspects of it. Here are some answers to five common questions about prayer.

Does God need our praise and adoration?
No. In fact, God doesn’t need anything from us. He is the fullness of existence and therefore sufficient unto Himself. Our praise and adoration don’t add any glory to Him that He doesn’t already possess.

Praising God does do something to us: It puts us in a right relationship with our Creator and Father.

Is God unaware of our needs?
God knows everything we need (and want) before we even ask. Yet, we still need to pray. Our heavenly Father has foreordained that certain graces be given through prayer.

Yes, He could have given all graces to us without anyone asking, but He wants us to be active participants in His plan, not passive observers.

Can prayer change God’s mind?
As a perfect being, God cannot change. Change implies imperfection because when something changes, it either loses something it possessed or gains something it formerly lacked.

Any “change” we experience as the result of prayer is not a change in God’s mind, but a change in us that God — in His eternal plan — willed to grant through our prayer.

Why does God take so long to answer my prayer?
He doesn’t do it to tease you or drive you to despair, although it can feel that way at times. It’s not always good for you to get what you need right away, as you may not appreciate the gift as deeply as you would have otherwise. God knows the right time and place for His response to benefit you the most.

Is praying to the saints going behind God’s back?
No. We don’t pray to the saints because we think they’ll be more likely to hear us than God. God created us to be in communion with each other and help each other meet our material and spiritual needs. Those in heaven are still in communion with us and more powerful than those on earth since they’re in God’s presence.

Ultimately, prayer is a relationship. Like any human relationship, both parties have their roles. Have you talked to your heavenly Father today?

The post 5 Common Questions About Prayer appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

5 Common Questions About Prayer

Prayer is important, but even the devout are confused by different aspects of it. Here are some answers to five common questions about prayer.

Does God need our praise and adoration?
No. In fact, God doesn’t need anything from us. He is the fullness of existence and therefore sufficient unto Himself. Our praise and adoration don’t add any glory to Him that He doesn’t already possess.

Praising God does do something to us: It puts us in a right relationship with our Creator and Father.

Is God unaware of our needs?
God knows everything we need (and want) before we even ask. Yet, we still need to pray. Our heavenly Father has foreordained that certain graces be given through prayer.

Yes, He could have given all graces to us without anyone asking, but He wants us to be active participants in His plan, not passive observers.

Can prayer change God’s mind?
As a perfect being, God cannot change. Change implies imperfection because when something changes, it either loses something it possessed or gains something it formerly lacked.

Any “change” we experience as the result of prayer is not a change in God’s mind, but a change in us that God — in His eternal plan — willed to grant through our prayer.

Why does God take so long to answer my prayer?
He doesn’t do it to tease you or drive you to despair, although it can feel that way at times. It’s not always good for you to get what you need right away, as you may not appreciate the gift as deeply as you would have otherwise. God knows the right time and place for His response to benefit you the most.

Is praying to the saints going behind God’s back?
No. We don’t pray to the saints because we think they’ll be more likely to hear us than God. God created us to be in communion with each other and help each other meet our material and spiritual needs. Those in heaven are still in communion with us and more powerful than those on earth since they’re in God’s presence.

Ultimately, prayer is a relationship. Like any human relationship, both parties have their roles. Have you talked to your heavenly Father today?

The post 5 Common Questions About Prayer appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

What is Faith?

From the vantage point of a believer, the truth of the faith may seem obvious. But to a non-believer, faith claims seem like little more than blind assertions that can’t be proven or disproven.

So what exactly is faith? Let’s investigate.

Faith is like both doubt and knowledge.
Faith is a weird mental act. It shares some things in common with doubt and suspicion, namely, mental unrest. The object of faith isn’t as apparent as, say, the pain you feel in your little toe after stubbing it on a boulder.

However, faith is also like understanding, knowledge, and wisdom in that there’s a certain stability to it. It’s not something that changes with your mood.

It’s an assent of not just the intellect but also the will. This ensures that you hold firmly to your beliefs even in moments of doubt. It’s not just a matter of “seeing,” but also the choice to see.

As C.S. Lewis said, “Faith is the art of holding on to things in spite of your changing moods and circumstances.”

Faith is not completely blind.
Normally, faith begins with a vague perception of something that presents itself as possibly true. You may investigate it for a while to test its credibility. There are what we call “signs of credibility” that bolster the claims of faith, such as miracles.

These signs of credibility only take you so far. Eventually, you’ll have to make a choice: take a leap of faith or pull back.

God gives the grace of faith.
While there is such a thing as human faith, the theological virtue of faith comes from God. It’s not something we can manufacture in ourselves, although we can dispose of ourselves to more openly receive it.

The certainty of faith is based on God.
Through reason, we can know the existence of God and some of His attributes — one being that He is truth itself. He can neither deceive nor be deceived.

This certainty, along with the grace given to us by God, gives us assurance that anything God reveals can be trusted, even if the revelation itself doesn’t seem to make sense.

Even though some beliefs are above reason, they can still be shown to be reasonable.
For example, our minds can never fully comprehend or prove the doctrine of the Trinity. But philosophy can help us understand it better through categories such as “person” and “nature.”

You can also bolster faith’s credibility by showing that it does a better job of illuminating our experience than alternative beliefs. To quote C.S. Lewis again, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

Ultimately, faith has much in common with human relationships. A relationship where two people need constant proof that each other is genuine is a partnership doomed to failure. The choice to have faith in the other is a condition for taking the relationship to the next level.

The same is true with our relationship with God. As Pope John Paul II wrote:

“In believing, we entrust ourselves to the knowledge acquired by other people. This suggests an important tension. On the one hand, the knowledge acquired through belief can seem an imperfect form of knowledge, to be perfected gradually through personal accumulation of evidence; on the other hand, belief is often humanly richer than mere evidence, because it involves an interpersonal relationship and brings into play not only a person’s capacity to know but also the deeper capacity to entrust oneself to others, to enter into a relationship with them which is intimate and enduring.”

The post What is Faith? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.