Matt Fradd's Blog, page 14

Compelling Evidence That the Exodus REALLY Happened

Many scholars challenge the authenticity of the Exodus story. They treat it as a legend made up by Israelite leaders to inspire their people.

There is no direct evidence for the Exodus because the Egyptians were masters of propaganda. They avoided recording their defeats.

But there is some startling indirect evidence. Here are two discoveries that give strong credence to the historical truth of the Exodus story.

The tabernacle and the Egyptian war tent
The Book of Exodus recounts the building of the tabernacle — the holy tent in which God dwelt. Interestingly, the tabernacle plans closely resemble the Egyptian war tent of pharaohs such as Ramses II.

When campaigning, the pharaoh would reside in a courtyard surrounded by curtains. There was a tent in the middle with an outer and inner court. The pharaoh would sit enthroned in the inner court, with representations of cherubim on either side.

The Israelites’ tabernacle looked like this, minus the pharaoh sitting between the cherubim. If the Book of Exodus was really composed a thousand years or more after the purported event, how is it that the writers got such accurate depictions of ancient Egyptian culture?

This resemblance makes sense if the Exodus really happened. The Israelites had only known Egypt and its culture. God gave them building plans that were already familiar to them.

Egyptian treaties and the Book of Deuteronomy
Scholars possess many treaty documents from the Egyptian New Kingdom period, including some between Egypt and the Hittites.

The structure of these treaties strongly resembles the Book of Deuteronomy. All have an introduction, a historical prologue about past covenants, major constitutional principles, specific laws, tips on how to store the documents, how often the treaties should be read in public, and lists of blessings and curses.

The fact that the Book of Deuteronomy follows the format of the treaties of this period attests to the accuracy of the Exodus story.

Once again, attempts to discredit Scripture have fallen short. Though we believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible through faith, God continues to give us evidence of the trustworthiness of His Word.

The post Compelling Evidence That the Exodus REALLY Happened appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Do Catholics REALLY Worship Mary?

Protestants often accuse Catholics of worshiping Mary. This is because we pray to her and sometimes use strong language to express our love for her.

As Catholics, we know that the devotion we show Our Lady is not the same as the adoration we give to God. But how do you help your non-Catholic friends understand this distinction?

Here are some tips.

Explain the meaning of worship.
Worship is honor or respect given to another person. There are two principal expressions of worship: “adoration” or “sacrifice” and “veneration” or “intercession.” In ancient Greek, these are called latria and dulia, respectively.

We give latria only to God. In English, we often use the word “worship” in this restricted sense. Catholics do NOT give latria to Mary because she is not God. We do not attribute divinity to her.

We do give dulia (“veneration”) to Mary. You could also call it “worship” if you mean veneration rather than adoration. Even Old English sometimes uses the word in this way. In an older form of the Anglican wedding ceremony, the couple says that they “worship” each other with their bodies. No one who hears this thinks that the couple is committing idolatry.

Point to the Catholic liturgy.
Part of the origin of the Protestant’s understanding of worship goes back to the liturgy. Many Protestants removed the Eucharistic sacrifice, which is our highest form of worship and offered only to God. For Protestants, worship of God became a form of veneration that was hard to distinguish from the veneration of the saints. Once you restore the Eucharistic sacrifice, the vast chasm between the worship of God and the veneration of the saints, such as Mary, becomes clear.

Remind Protestants that they venerate others and ask for intercessory prayer.
Most Protestants have no problem asking their families and friends to pray for them. That’s no different than asking Mary to pray for you, except that she’s in heaven and thus even closer to God than your loved ones.

Similarly, many Protestants venerate exemplary Christians, sports icons, and other admirable figures. They know that this veneration doesn’t amount to worship. Why shouldn’t we give this same love to Mary and the other saints?

Back to our initial question, do Catholics worship Mary? The answer is “yes” and “no,” depending on what form of worship we’re talking about.

Still, since most people don’t consider this distinction, it’s usually better to reserve the word “worship” for God and use “veneration” when referring to the Blessed Mother.

The post Do Catholics REALLY Worship Mary? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

The 3 Types of Woke Folk

Wokeism sure grinds our gears. Maybe yours too. It’s easy to sympathize with conservative commentators who lambast woke individuals and their tiresome virtue signaling.

However, Christ calls us to charity, even when sharing the truth with our ideological opponents. This is especially true since many woke people have been brainwashed and don’t know any better.

Here’s an overview of three types of woke people to help you tailor your responses in the most charitable way.

1. The brainwashed victim
There are people in the woke movement who have taken the “poison” of wokery because they are victims. They’ve often suffered from broken hearts and woke evangelists manipulate their wounds to make them susceptible to false ideas.

Here’s an example. A child suffers from same-sex attraction. Rather than lovingly helping him handle this disorder in a compassionate, Catholic way, his father treats him contemptuously and cuts him out of his life.

The child’s pain makes him vulnerable to a seemingly friendly LGBTQ activist, who convinces him that all Catholics despise him.

Many Catholics make the mistake of treating the victim as the enemy. This deepens the victim’s wounds and reinforces negative perceptions of Catholicism in their minds.

2. The unwitting participant
These people truly see wokeism as a movement of goodwill. They often have a generous heart and simply want to see everyone loved and accepted.

Sadly, they are also victims. They’ve been convinced that the only loving way to approach people is to affirm their lifestyle — even if it goes against the Natural Law.

Don’t hurl insults at these people. Help them understand how charity compels you to speak the truth, so that all people may be saved.

3. The enemy
There are true enemies of the Church, which many people in the hierarchy seem reluctant to admit.

They talk about “accompanying” these people. But while victims need accompanying, enemies simply need to be stopped, either by ignoring them, excommunicating them, or publically refuting their arguments. We do this to protect the innocent and also — hopefully — move our enemies to repentance.

Before confronting a woke activist, check yourself. Say a quick prayer and try to understand the person first. Then tailor your response to them, affirm their humanity, and leave the rest to God.

The post The 3 Types of Woke Folk appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Is It Better to Be an Optimist or a Pessimist?

Are you more of a pessimist or an optimist? Many people lean one way or the other.

The optimist sees a world and Church full of sunshine, good people, and progress. The pessimist sees darkness, selfish people, and decaying societies.

There are reasons to be both, but either one can distort your perception of reality.

Let’s look at the merits and downsides of each and consider a third path.

Reasons to be an optimist.
The 20th century boasts more canonized saints than the previous 19 centuries of Church history combined. We’ve enjoyed a long line of holy popes, including St. Pius X, St. John XXIII, and St. John Paul II. In the American church, the lay apostolate thrives. Many lay evangelists defend the faith and make it more relatable for your average Joe and Jo.

“Heavenly facts” give us the foundation for optimism. Christ has already won the victory over evil. He has opened the gates of heaven to us. Through the sacraments, He gives us the grace we need to share in His victory.

Where optimism goes wrong is when it blinds us to our need for reform. Evil and death are real. They just don’t have the last word.

Reasons to be a pessimist.
Sources of pessimism abound. In the Church, we’ve suffered from the clerical abuse crisis. Vocations are still down. The marriage rate is declining. Many Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence.

But pessimists close themselves off to the many surprising delights that life offers. The result is despair.

When we give in to despair, we forget Christ’s presence in the Church and focus too much on its human dimension. But the Church is both human and divine and human flaws can never destroy its divine foundation.

G.K. Chesterton’s solution.
English writer and philosopher G.K. Chesterton proposed a third way that takes the good and rejects the bad of optimism and pessimism. He called it “patriotism,” although he used this word differently than we do today.

By patriotism, he meant a commitment to our reality, which contains joys and sorrows. The optimist thinks everything is better than it is. The pessimist thinks that everything is worse than it is. The patriot simply says, “It is.” And he or she commits to that reality because it’s his or her own.

We shouldn’t love reality because it’s better or best. We should love it because it’s ours — including all the joys and sorrows.

An example: Say you encounter a flower in a field. Instead of thinking about how it may be improved in a lab or wither and die, you choose to delight in the flower as it is.

This embracing your life each day because the Lord makes it available to you. It’s your reality. You can improve it, but there’s no use pining for someone else’s reality. God gave you your life as your path to heaven.

The post Is It Better to Be an Optimist or a Pessimist? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Do We Really Need the Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary?

For centuries, Catholics have prayed three sets of five mysteries when saying the Rosary: the Joyful, the Sorrowful, and the Glorious.

In 2002, Pope St. John Paul II recommended adding the Luminous Mysteries: The Baptism in the Jordan, Wedding Feast at Cana, Proclamation of the Kingdom of God, Transfiguration, and Institution of the Eucharist.

Some Catholics immediately embraced these additional meditations on the life of Jesus. Others continued to stick with the original three sets. Since the pope merely recommended the Luminous Mysteries, it’s fine to leave them out.

That being said, here are some reasons why it’s beneficial to include the Luminous Mysteries in your Rosary.

The Luminous Mysteries give you more to meditate on.
The Joyful Mysteries end when Jesus is 12 years old and found in the Temple. From there, we skip a couple of decades of His life and begin again at His Agony in the Garden.

The Bible doesn’t give us much information about Jesus during the intervening years, but we have plenty of accounts of His ministry before His passion.

The Luminous Mysteries give us meditations from the time of His baptism in the River Jordan to His Last Supper.

All of Christ’s deeds contribute to our salvation.
Sure, the most important deeds of Christ are His passion, death, and resurrection. But He is God and His every action sanctifies His creation.

Let’s take Jesus’ baptism as an example. We receive this sacrament to cleanse us of original sin. Christ didn’t have sin, so why was He baptized? To sanctify water for use in our baptism.

It’s easy to forget these “smaller” acts of salvation, but in all the Luminous Mysteries you’ll see God’s power displayed.

The Luminous Mysteries may be optional, but they greatly enrich our prayer life and are worth including in your Rosary.

After all, more meditation on Christ’s life is never a bad thing.

The post Do We Really Need the Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Are Mormon Baptisms Valid?

Catholics baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So do Protestants. That’s why the Catholic Church accepts the validity of Protestant baptisms despite our different understanding of the nature of baptism.

What about Mormons? They also baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but the Catholic Church has decreed their baptisms invalid.

Here’s why. (A full statement from the Vatican on this topic can be found here).

Every Sacrament must have the right form, matter, intent of the minister, and disposition of the recipient.
In baptism, the form is the formula you say when baptizing: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” The matter is the water. For a baptism to be valid, the minister must pour water on the baptized — or immerse him or her in water — and say the correct words.

Most Protestants use the correct form and matter, which is why the Catholic Church accepts their baptisms.

Mormons use the water and seem to say the right words. So far, so good. However, their understanding of the Trinity is so vastly different than that of Catholics and most Protestants that it affects the form.

The Mormon understanding of God.
For Mormons, the Father is an exalted man with a physical body who lived on a planet somewhere in the cosmos. He also has a divine wife. The Son is not the Second Person of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is not the spirit of the Father or the Son.

This led to the Vatican ruling that Mormon baptism doesn’t use the correct form: “There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity.”

You must baptize with the same intent as the Church.
This doesn’t mean the baptizer needs a full understanding of the Church’s teaching on baptism. But he or she must at least have a willingness to share the Church’s intent. A Muslim, Jew, or Hindu can carry out a valid baptism in this way. However, these individuals in these rare cases must be administering baptism with the intent to do what both the Church and Christ want. The Council of Trent confirms this, stating that “Baptism administered by heretics in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does is true Baptism.”

What we said above about the Trinity also applies here: The Mormon understanding of God means that Mormons don’t have the correct intent when they baptize.

The recipient of baptism must have the right disposition.
This means you must receive baptism in the way the Church intends, as a salvific act that cleanses you from sin. Most recipients of Mormon baptism are Mormons themselves. They likely believe the false doctrines of their religious leaders.

Therefore, anyone who was baptized as a Mormon should check with their priest about getting baptized in the Catholic Church.

The post Are Mormon Baptisms Valid? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Why Longer Prayers Are Not Always Better

Let’s talk about piety sprawls. That’s when someone takes a long prayer, such as the Rosary, and adds his or her own prayers to it. Suddenly, a 12-minute devotion takes 30 minutes to finish.

If you complain about the extra time, someone may retort, “You’re saying you have trouble with more prayers?” You’re left feeling like an impious bum when really you may just want to contemplate the Rosary without falling asleep.

Here are a few reasons why adding to already-established prayers is not always a good idea.

God gives us grace in a way our human nature can receive it.
While God’s grace is above our human nature, it still interacts with us in a way that is compatible with that nature. We have many requirements, such as food and sleep.

Prayers usually impact us the most when they have a human shape. For example, if someone asks you to recite a 19-hour prayer, you’d rightfully decline. That prayer doesn’t have a human shape — it doesn’t fit in with the rest of your life. Most people need to sleep more than five hours a night, so a 19-hour prayer wouldn’t work.

God wants you to pray, eat, sleep, work, recreate, and spend time with loved ones. You shouldn’t let prayers take you away from other duties.

Longer is not always better.
If love motivates you to pray longer, then that prayer is beautiful and powerful. But it’s pure superstition to think that a prayer is more efficacious just because it’s longer.

There occasionally are times when you need to put a bit more into prayers than usual. But if you’re exhausting and frustrating yourself by saying four complete Rosaries every day, it’s time to cut back. It’s better to say short prayers devoutly than to say longer ones half-heartedly.

Avoid piety sprawls in prayer groups.
Not everyone has the same prayer capacity. Some people can easily say four Rosaries a day. Others barely get by with one. If you’re praying with a group — say, at Holy Hour — keep this in mind and avoid adding material to established prayers.

Ultimately, we are saved by the mysteries of the life of Christ. The best prayers are the ones that help us enter more deeply into these mysteries. If you can accomplish that with shorter prayers, stick to those. God will judge you on your love, not your verbal score.

The post Why Longer Prayers Are Not Always Better appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Catholic Church in the United States

Americans are known for their intense patriotism and sometimes this carries over to Catholic life. Many Catholics are proud of their church and think the U.S. church is the strongest member of the Universal Church.

There are a lot of strengths in the U.S. church, but also many weaknesses. Let’s look at both.

Strengths of the U.S. Catholic Church
1. Liturgical trends in the U.S. are (mostly) moving in the right direction.
The Second Vatican Council was a gift to the Church. On the other hand, the implementation of the council in parishes was disastrous. From the late 1960s through the 1990s, many priests experimented with the liturgy in defiance of Church law. At the same time, numerous American Catholics rebelled against Church teaching and authority, especially on the issue of contraception.

Some of these problems remain, but we’ve turned a corner. It’s now easier to find a parish with a faithful priest who celebrates a reverant liturgy. It may not be your local parish, but chances are one is within driving distance.

We’ve also seen more American Catholics defending Church teaching on controversial issues. This is progress.

2. U.S. Catholics are hopeful.
In the 1990s many American Catholics heard dire homilies about the Church’s vocational crisis and closing parishes. Not so much today. Over the past couple of decades, we’ve seen more young men and women enter priestly or religious vocations and many new religious orders have emerged. More are needed, but the American church is trending in the right direction.

In contrast, you still hear a lot about a demographic and vocational crisis in Europe. Some dioceses have entire offices dedicated to managing people’s departure from the Church.

3. The laity in U.S. churches actively contribute to their dioceses and parishes.
There’s a long list of Catholic organizations and apostolates run by laypeople. They tend to many needs, including pro-life work, healthcare, and apologetics, and assist the clergy in administering parishes, evangelization, and education.

This shows there’s less anticlericalism in the U.S. than in Europe, even as secular society attempts to discredit these Catholics.

Weaknesses of the U.S. Catholic Church
1. American Catholics can get too comparative.
American Catholics sometimes transfer the spirit of American exceptionalism to the church and think they’re superior to other churches.

Despite its strengths, the American church is still relatively young. European and Middle Eastern churches have been around for centuries or — in some cases — nearly two millennia. The American church has a lot more to experience before we can fairly compare ourselves to the churches that have seen the Roman Empire fall, Viking raids, or the Crusades.

We must remember that the universal Church is, in many ways, more important than its local expressions. We are bound to the universal Church’s teaching and discipline, not the opinion of Fr. So-And-So, who may want to do his own thing.

2. Some Americans treat the Church like a business.
Running a parish or diocese requires good business practices, but the faith should never be reduced to a charity organization. Some European Catholics think their American counterparts do just that.

Fundamentally, Catholicism is about living and growing in God’s grace and getting to heaven. Everything else is secondary.

3. Many non-Americans believe U.S. Catholics are hyper-politicized.
U.S. Catholics have been fighting the culture wars in our society for over 60 years. Sometimes they view issues like abortion and same-sex relationships through a political — rather than a moral — lens.

Rather than taking a knee-jerk “us-versus-them” mentality, American Catholics should focus on presenting Church teaching on these issues in a rational, calm manner, keeping in mind that they are more complex than some politicians think.

There is nothing wrong with having a special love for the American church. Just don’t let your affection blind you to its problems. Let love inspire you to keep working to improve our church for the glory of God!

The post Strengths and Weaknesses of the Catholic Church in the United States appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Who Really Wrote the Gospels?

Some scholars claim that the four Gospels were written anonymously and only later attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

This theory doesn’t hold weight in light of the evidence. Here are four reasons why the traditionally named evangelists wrote the Gospels bearing their names.

1. The oldest manuscripts name the four evangelists.
We don’t have anonymous ancient manuscripts of the Gospels. They all include the name of the author at the beginning and/or end.

There’s one manuscript of Luke missing its ending and lacking attribution at the beginning. This is an ambiguous case, as there could have been an ending with Luke’s name.

The attributions on the other hundreds of early manuscripts are on point. You never see Mark’s Gospel attributed to John or vice versa. For ancient manuscripts where the author isn’t known, you find many different attributions. Not so with the Gospels.

2. People in the ancient world distrusted unattributed information.
If you get an anonymous email or text, do you automatically trust it? People from the first few centuries A.D. were just as skeptical of unattributed information.

If someone were writing a bogus gospel, he wouldn’t remain anonymous. He would add the name of someone with authority, such as Peter.

3. Early Christians mention the four evangelists.
Papias (c. 60–130 A.D.) is one of the earliest Church Fathers. His life overlapped with the apostle John. He named Matthew as the author of the first Gospel. Later Church Fathers repeatedly identified Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the four writers.

4. It’s unlikely a fraud would attribute the Gospels to these four men.
John was one of Jesus’ apostles, so it’s easy to see a fraudulent author slapping John’s name on a gospel for authenticity. But Matthew? He was a tax collector. Ancient Jews despised his type, as much as we dislike drug dealers today.

Mark abandoned St. Paul during his travels. Luke was not an important figure. A fake author would have known better than to use their names to give his work credibility.

Once again, research supports the credibility of the Gospels. Christ requires our faith, but He gives us plenty of evidence supporting His Gospels, if only we have the ears to hear!

The post Who Really Wrote the Gospels? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

3 Lesser-Known Scripture Passages That Prove the Divinity of Christ

John’s Gospel portrays Jesus as divine. Matthew, Mark, and Luke seem to see Him as only human. Since John was the last Gospel written, some scholars claim that the divinity of Jesus is a later invention.

However, Jesus does claim divinity in the first three gospels. You just need to approach the text with the eyes of the Jews and pagans of the time.

Here are three often-missed passages where Jesus makes it clear that He is God.

1. Jesus calms the sea.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record Jesus stopping a storm that threatened to overturn the boat He and His apostles were traveling in. Here’s how Matthew 4:37-41 recounts the event:

“And a great storm of wind arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. But he [Jesus] was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him and said to him, ‘Teacher, do you not care if we perish?’ And he awoke and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, ‘Peace! Be still!’ And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. He said to them, ‘Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?’ And they were filled with awe, and said to one another, ‘Who then is this, that even wind and sea obey him?’”

Now, put on your ancient glasses and consider this passage from the standpoint of the ancients.

For the Jews, these passages called to mind Psalm 107: “Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress; he made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed.”

Who, according to the Psalmist, has the power over the wind and sea? Only God Himself. The Jews memorized the Psalms and many would have instantly seen the connection.

The Romans had Jupiter, who ruled the winds, and Neptune, the lord of the seas. The pagans too would have seen Jesus’s act as an assertion of divinity.

2. Jesus overrules Moses.
In Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, there are the famous five antitheses. For example: “You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.”

Five times in this chapter, Jesus either corrects a misinterpretation of the Law of Moses or corrects the Law itself.

For the Jews, no one had more authority than Moses other than God Himself. Jesus presumed to correct Moses, which the Jews saw as a claim to divinity.

3. Jesus calls Himself the Son of Man.
Many people misinterpret the Jewish phrase “Son of Man.” Jesus wasn’t claiming to be a Joe Six-Pack when He called Himself this.

Chapter 7 of the Book of Daniel introduces the Son of Man: “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.” What does that mean? Psalm 18 says that the Lord rides on the clouds.

Now view Jesus’s words through the lens of the Old Testament. Jews would have thought of Daniel 7 and Psalm 18 when Jesus called Himself the Son of Man. The high priest in Jerusalem certainly held this interpretation:

“Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ And Jesus said, ‘I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’ And the high priest tore his mantle, and said, ‘Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?’ And they all condemned him as deserving death. And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to strike him, saying to him, ‘Prophesy!’ And the guards received him with blows” (Mark 14:61-65).

Even the pagans would have recognized this claim to divinity, since Zeus also rode on the clouds.

As you can see, Jesus makes Himself out to be God all through the Gospels, but usually by dropping strong hints for us to piece together. We need to understand the culture of His time to clearly interpret His words.

To His question to Simon Peter, “Who do you say I am?,” the Gospels unequivocally answer, “The Lord our God!”

The post 3 Lesser-Known Scripture Passages That Prove the Divinity of Christ appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.