Matt Fradd
Books • Spirituality/Belief • Writing
This PWA community exists to facilitate an online community of PWA listeners and all lovers of philosophy and theology.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?

Saturday, January 6, 2024. That was the day my official catholic journey really began, when I went to my very first mass for the very first time one year ago. This is my story, written down for the first time.

By way of introduction; I'm an ex-mormon. I was born and raised LDS in Mesa, AZ. I had many experiences within the LDS church growing up, both for good and for ill. As a teenager, I admit I had my troubles, just like many others in their teen years. After graduating high school 10 years ago, I served my 2 year mormon mission in the deep south, and as you might expect, it was an experience. It had its ups, downs, and everything in between. When I returned home, I started the next phase of life; college.

It was around that time President Nelson took over leadership of the LDS church after President Monson passed on. From that point on, nothing would be the same. His radical, transformative reforms, combined with my college experiences, rocked me to my core. It was the beginning of my gradual disillusionment with the institution of the LDS church. However, I still felt deep down that mormon theology was still fundamentally true. Or so I thought.

Looking back now, I realize there was this mental/spiritual fog clouding my mind. I didn't know it at the time, but I was a borderline athiest. After the sheer insanity of 2020, I was on a personal quest to figure out what went wrong. I ended up discovering Dr. Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind", and from there, it kick started a new phase of interest in moral psychology/philosophy/theology.

At one point, I encountered mormon fundamentalism, and I was initially drawn to the appearence of consistent theology, a sharp contrast to President Nelson's radicalism. In an unstable, crazy, upside down world, with so much confusion, I wanted something that was rock solid. Despite it's initial appeal, I never could commit to mormon fundamentalism, even though I could not explain it at the time. I just knew, deep down, something was off. I just didn't know what yet.

In 2023, my personal life fell apart. My career was seemingly stuck in a dead end. My landlord sold my place out from under me, and I could do little, given the state of the housing market. I was in a car accident, and insurance was not helping all that much. I lost the girl of my dreams to the cold, harsh reality that we are incompatable. My dad got diagnosed with brain cancer, one which claims most victims within 5 years. President Nelson's changes to temple ritual liturgy was coming off as a fake attempt to pander to children. My mother confessed the truth of my childhood autism specrum diagnosis, essentially admiting the childhood bullies at school were actually telling the truth, and my own mother, whom I trusted as an actual child, gaslit me into believing nothing was wrong with me, implying I could be normal and fit in with everyone else.

I had a complete breakdown. I had difficulty regulating my eating, I could not sleep for an entire week. I did not know myself, or anything with any real certainty. I tried therapy, I found guys like Redeemed Zoomer and MentisWave, but those didn't seem to really fix anything. Thanksgiving weekend, I was at the end of the line. I was ready to commit suicide and put myself out of my own misery. I was ready. All I had to do was jump. I was completely, and utterly alone. No one was coming to save me.

Then it happened. I felt shoulders against my shoulders. I heard a voice in front of me speak to me. I could see that I was still alone, but I felt as though I had comerades right there, with me, and they were depending on me to do my part. I returned home, thinking maybe God was giving one last chance. I went to my LDS YSA ward that sunday, and all I remember was that the service was so boring, so empty, so meaningless, I was angry. Frustrated. Why would God do this to me? I was so confused and upset, what now?

Later that day, I opened up the YouTube app on my phone. It immediately brought me to my home screen, with recommendations. And the number one recommendation for me, right there, was Pints With Aquinas. It was Stephen Johnson's conversion story, and my first reaction was "five minutes". Six and a half hours later, I was hooked. At Stephen's behest, I ordered the book "Ancient Christians; An Introduction for Latter Day Saints." I started reading; and I became utterly convinced that Joseph Smith was indeed a liar. It was around that time Isaac Hess came on the show, and he mentioned his lds2catholic email. I reached out to him, and he told me about a parish in the general area.

Come January 1st, 2024, I was ready to quit mormonism once and for all and become catholic instead. That saturday, the 6th, I swung by the parish after work, thinking it would be empty. Much to my surprise, I was just in time for saturday evening mass. I watched the whole thing, and stayed in the sanctuary afterward. Growing up LDS, I was told repeatedly that the temple is very spiritually powerful, very peaceful, and yet, in all my experiences with the temple, I never really felt that strong of anything, other than "this is weird" when I went through my first initiatory and endowment. Here, however, in this catholic church, immediately after mass, I felt it. Everything the LDS temple had been described as to me, the catholic church got it.

I enrolled into the parish OCIA, and from there, my life started to change. I had already bought a fixer upper house I now live in. My career took a step foreward. My mind is growing in knowledge and clarity. My mental and emotional health is getting better, especially now since I'm building bridges in my diocese with fellow adults, young and old, married and single. I'm studying bible, praying rosary, attending mass, speaking with priests and deacons; it may not seem impressive, but from my perspective, I am not the same person I was over a year ago.

There are so many details I never discussed here, but I'm getting tired now. Maybe someday I'll write more, possibly publish a book, God willing. Good night all, and God bless.

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Spiritual Direction - Lessons Learned at SEEK - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

I was at SEEK in DC this past week. As is my tradition, I got hilariously sick and managed to learn some sweet lessons along the way : )

00:21:44
January 02, 2025
Studio Update Video
00:01:50
December 30, 2024
Quick short update
00:02:09
Simple NEW Lofi Song

Working on an entire album of lofi music. Here's one of those songs. Album should drop next week. THEN, a couple of weeks after that we hope to have our 24/7 stream up and running.

Simple NEW Lofi Song
December 01, 2022
Day 5 of Advent

THE ERROR OF ARIUS ABOUT THE INCARNATION

In their eagerness to proclaim the unity of God and man in Christ, some heretics went to the opposite extreme and taught that not only was there one person, but also a single nature, in God and man. This error took its rise from Arius. To defend his position that those scriptural passages where Christ is represented as being inferior to the Father, must refer to the Son of God Himself, regarded in His assuming nature, Arius taught that in Christ there is no other soul than the Word of God who, he maintained, took the place of the soul in Christ’s body. Thus when Christ says, in John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I,” or when He is introduced as praying or as being sad, such matters are to be referred to the very nature of the Son of God. If this were so, the union of God’s Son with man would be effected not only in the person, but also in the nature. For, as we know, the unity of human nature arises from the union of soul and body.

The...

Day 5 of Advent
November 27, 2022
Day 1 of Advent

RESTORATION OF MAN BY GOD THROUGH THE INCARNATION

We indicated above that the reparation of human nature could not be effected either by Adam or by any other purely human being. For no individual man ever occupied a position of pre-eminence over the whole of nature; nor can any mere man be the cause of grace. The same reasoning shows that not even an angel could be the author of man’s restoration. An angel cannot be the cause of grace, just as he cannot be man’s recompense with regard to the ultimate perfection of beatitude, to which man was to be recalled. In this matter of beatitude angels and men are on a footing of equality. Nothing remains, therefore, but that such restoration could be effected by God alone.

But if God had decided to restore man solely by an act of His will and power, the order of divine justice would not have been observed. justice demands satisfaction for sin. But God cannot render satisfaction, just as He cannot merit. Such a service pertains to one who ...

Day 1 of Advent
Coming soon!
January 05, 2025
Headed to Nashville

I’ll be on two podcasts: Michael Knowles and John Crists. Say a prayer for me, please.

Ave Maria…

post photo preview
January 06, 2025
Meme Monday!
post photo preview
January 03, 2025
post photo preview
Did the Early Church Recognize the Pope’s Authority? A Socratic Dialogue You Can’t Ignore

Below is an imagined Socratic dialogue between a Catholic (Leo) and a Protestant (Martin). It is not intended to be an exhaustive argument but rather to help Catholics see that there is strong Patristic evidence for the early Church's belief in the authority of the Pope.

Special thanks to Madeline McCourt for her assistance in editing this article.

 


 

Martin: I’ve heard it said that the early Church gave unique authority to the Bishop of Rome, but honestly, I just don’t see it. To me, it seems like a later development rather than something the early Christians actually believed.

Leo: That’s an understandable concern, and one I’ve heard before. But if we take an honest look at the writings of the early Church Fathers, they seem to say something very different. Let’s start with Ignatius of Antioch. He wrote around A.D. 110 and called the Church of Rome the one that “holds the presidency.” Doesn’t that suggest a kind of leadership role?

Martin: Not necessarily. When Ignatius says that Rome “holds the presidency,” he could be referring to its importance as the capital of the empire, not as some kind of spiritual authority.

Leo: That’s an interesting point, but Ignatius doesn’t frame it that way. He’s writing to a church, not the emperor or the civic authorities. And he specifically praises the Roman Church for its spiritual character, saying it’s “worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing.” Moreover, he commends them for teaching others and instructing the faithful. That’s not a description of political power—it’s spiritual authority (Letter to the Romans 1:1, 3:1).

Martin: Even so, Ignatius doesn’t explicitly say that the Roman Church has authority over other churches. He’s being respectful, but respect isn’t the same as submission.

Leo: Fair enough, but let’s consider Pope Clement I. Around A.D. 80, he wrote to the church in Corinth to address a serious dispute. He doesn’t just offer advice—he commands them to reinstate their leaders and warns them that disobedience to his letter would put them in “no small danger.” Clement even claims to be speaking “through the Holy Spirit” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63). Why would a bishop in Rome have the right to intervene in the internal affairs of a church in Greece unless there was an acknowledged authority?

Martin: Maybe Corinth respected Clement’s wisdom, but that doesn’t mean they recognized him as having jurisdiction over them. He could have been acting as a wise elder, not as a pope.

Leo: That’s possible, but Clement’s tone doesn’t suggest he’s merely offering advice. He writes as someone with the authority to settle the matter definitively. And we see this pattern again with later bishops of Rome. Take Pope Victor, who excommunicated the churches in Asia Minor over the date of Easter. Other bishops appealed for peace, but they didn’t deny that Victor had the authority to make such a decision (Eusebius, Church History 5:23:1–24:11). If the early Church didn’t recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome, why didn’t they challenge his right to excommunicate?

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
December 14, 2024
post photo preview
13 Rules for the Spiritual Life by St. John of the Cross

While reading the Mass readings in my Magnificat this evening, I came across a beautiful excerpt from St. John of the Cross. I won’t share the entire passage, as writing it out would take some time, but it’s the kind of text that reads like a series of aphorisms. The only thing I’ve added are the numbers, to present his words more clearly.

St. John of the Cross, pray for us.

  1. The further you withdraw from earthly things the closer you approach heavenly things.

  2. Whoever knows how to die in all will have life in all.

  3. Abandon evil, do good, and seek peace.

  4. Anyone who complains or grumbles is not perfect, nor even a good Christian.

  5. The humble are those who hide in their own nothingness and know how to abandon themselves to God.

  6. If you desire to be perfect, sell your will, give it to the poor in spirit.

  7. Those who trust in themselves are worse than the devil.

  8. Those who do not love their neighbor abhor God.

  9. Anyone who does things lukewarmly is close to falling.

  10. Whoever flees prayer flees all that is good.

  11. Conquering the tongue is better than fasting on bread and water.

  12. Suffering for Gopd is better than working miracles.

  13. As for trials, the more the better. What does anyone know who doesn’t know how to suffer for Christ.

May the wisdom of St. John of the Cross inspire us to strive for holiness and draw closer to Christ, following his example of humility, prayer, and trust in God. Which of his insights struck you the most?

Read full Article
December 12, 2024
post photo preview
Mother of God? A Socratic Conversation on Mary’s Role in Salvation

Morning, all.

Today I’ll attempt a socratic dialogue on Mary as Theotokos, or "Mother of God."

James is the Protestant, Thomas is the Catholic.

 


 

James: Thomas, I gotta say, I don’t get how you can call Mary the “Mother of God.”

Thomas: Alright?

James: I mean, how can a finite human being possibly be the mother of the infinite God? It doesn’t make sense—unless you’re elevating Mary to some sort of divine status.

Thomas: Well, let me ask you: do you agree that Mary is the mother of Jesus?

James: Obviously, yes.

Thomas: And do you agree that Jesus is God?

James: Of course. He’s fully God and fully man.

Thomas: Then logically, Mary is the Mother of God. She isn’t the mother of His divine nature—that’s eternal and uncreated, which I think is where you’re getting stuck. But she is the mother of Jesus, the one person who is both fully God and fully man. The logic is simple and unavoidable:

  1. Mary is the mother of Jesus.

  2. Jesus is God.

  3. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

James: I don’t know… it feels like another invention by the Church to give Mary too much attention. And it’s nowhere in Scripture.

Thomas: True, the title “Mother of God” isn’t explicitly in Scripture, but neither are terms like “Trinity,” “Hypostatic Union,” or even “Bible.” The title is a theological conclusion drawn from Scripture, not something made up later. Take Luke 1:43, for instance. Elizabeth calls Mary “the mother of my Lord.” In the context of Luke’s Gospel, “Lord” is clearly a title for God.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals