Welcome to the Weekend Roundup! – News & Views – 9/30/23

• Alternative Catholic synod to push case for ordination of women priests

Liberal Catholics anticipate the upcoming Synod of Bishops on Synodality at the Vatican (October 4-29) as an opportunity for pope Francis and his allied prelates to further advance progressive reforms. At the synod, pragmatic Francis will craftily navigate conservative resistance, but a consortium of 45 pro-reform Catholic organisations will attempt to sway him and liberal bishops even further towards radical reform (women priests, pro-S&G affirmation) with their parallel gathering – Spirit Unbounded. At the synod, there won’t be a single trace of the genuine Gospel of salvation by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone.

• Ideological rifts among U.S. bishops are in the spotlight ahead of momentous Vatican meeting

In contrast, conservative U.S. Catholic prelates are anticipating the upcoming synod with dread. I don’t foresee any shocking declarations. That is not Francis’ style. Instead, there will be calls for “further examination and dialogue” regarding liberal reforms (increasing affirmation of practicing S&G-uals, married priests, female deacons). Affirmation of S&G-ism will occur by determined, deliberate, and systematic osmosis rather than by abrupt proclamation.

• German Catholic priests bless same-sex couples in defiance of archbishop

Liberal Catholic priests are already blessing same-sex S&G couples here in the U.S. on the QT.

• Pope Francis thanks Our Lady for protection on Marseille visit

As he does after each and every foreign trip, pope Francis visited the Basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome to thank the Blessed Virgin Mary for her protection after his 44th “apostolic journey,” this time to Marseille, France.

• Survey: Less than a third of Catholics say marriage and kids are ‘very important’ to a fulfilling life

Roman Catholic churches are shuttering across the country because the vast majority of Catholics are nominal and don’t take their religion seriously. Large Catholic families with many children was once the RCC’s way of replenishing and perpetuating itself.

• Attorney General Merrick Garland reacts to accusation of DOJ’s anti-Catholic bias

Radical traditionalist (rad-trad) Catholics do espouse extreme measures in their goal to “make America Catholic.” Even the Knights of Columbus of the pre-conciliar era didn’t go as far with their militant ideology as these Catholic rad-trads.

• 4 in 10 Evangelicals Say They’ve Been Visited by the Dead

The advance of experientialism/ecstaticism in some camps within evangelicalism is leading people into self-deception and rank heresy.

“Meeting the Protestant Response,” #64: “The oral tradition was only for the first century. The oral tradition/Scripture paradigm changed when the last apostle died.”

Thanks for joining us today as we continue to examine and respond to Catholic apologist, Karlo Broussard’s book, “Meeting the Protestant Response” (2022). This week, Broussard concludes his five-part chapter in which he defends the Catholic doctrine of the authority of “sacred tradition,” using 2 Thessalonians 2:15 as his proof-text:

“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”

The Roman Catholic church claims that many traditions/doctrines were passed down orally from Jesus Christ and the apostles to the early bishops and their successors and that these “sacred traditions” have the same authority as Scripture. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence” – CCC 80.

Protestant response #64: “The oral tradition was only for the first century. The oral tradition/Scripture paradigm changed when the last apostle died.”

Broussard writes, “Unlike the comebacks we’ve considered so far, there’s one response that acknowledges both that there were oral traditions in the first century and that they were binding on first-century Christians. What makes this counter unique is that it claims that the oral tradition/Scripture paradigm was only for the first century. Once all the apostles died off, so it’s argued, the paradigm changed to Scripture alone.

There are a few ways in which a Protestant apologist might try to justify this claim.

1. Steve Hays, for example, appeals to the fact that Paul addresses his letters to the Thessalonians and not to Christians in general. From this, Hays concludes that Paul didn’t intend for Christians beyond the boundaries of Thessalonica to adhere to his instructions concerning the oral traditions.

2. Another justification, given by (Norman) Geisler and (Ralph) MacKenzie and Ron Rhodes is that apostolic authority resided in only the apostles. Since they’re all dead, the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching.

3. A third argument that a Protestant might give is to say that the Catholic idea that these traditions are always binding is an inference that’s not supported by the text. There’s nothing in the text itself, it might be argued, that says Christians were always to depend on those oral traditions.”

Broussard’s response

Broussard responds to the three Protestant arguments with the corresponding rebuttals below:

1. Broussard writes that Hays’ argument fails because if oral teachings delivered to the Thessalonians were meant only for them then it must logically follow that the written traditions (epistles) written to the Thessalonians were also intended only for them, which no Christian would accept.

2. Broussard states that the Catholic church readily agrees that authoritative apostolic revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle, but claims apostolic oral teaching was passed down from the apostles to their bishop-successors, who passed it down to their successors, and so on.

3. Broussard argues that this hypothetical argument is without merit because Paul’s exhortation in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is to “stand firm and hold to” both the oral and written traditions.

My response

This is the fifth and final installment in Broussard’s defense of Roman Catholicism’s doctrine of “sacred oral tradition.” He’s basically beating the same drum in this installment and there’s no need to trouble ourselves with the last of these “clutching at straws” arguments. It’s all a ruse to cloak from the reader the fatal weakness of the “sacred oral tradition” argument that we pointed out in the previous two installments, which is that neither Broussard, Catholic theologians, or the pope can or will specify what particular oral teachings Paul was referring to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 or in their other two primary proof-texts, 2 Timothy 2:2 and 1 Corinthians 11:2, so all of these arguments defending “sacred oral tradition” are a smokescreen. Apostolic oral teaching was not documented and preserved under the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit as was Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17). We simply don’t have any verifiable records of apostolic oral teaching precisely because it was oral and undocumented.

What do I mean by stating these arguments defending “sacred oral tradition” are a smokescreen? As we’ve also pointed out previously, the RCC has used its “sacred oral tradition” wildcard to introduce a plethora of extrabiblical heresies such as praying to saints, the papacy, papal infallibility, indulgences, Mary’s immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary, use of statuary and icons, etc. Incorporating some fabricated heretical doctrine as “apostolic oral tradition” was a way to “legitimize” the unscripturated and unverifiable. Yes, these arguments defending “sacred oral tradition” divert attention away from the RCC as an ongoing heresy factory.

---

Are you one of those ecumenical evangelicals who believes Biblical Christianity and Roman Catholicism “basically” preach the same gospel? Do you consider debates over doctrine to be “divisive” and “unproductive”? Please stay tuned because for the remaining thirteen installments Mr. Broussard is going to attempt to convince the reader that salvation must ultimately be merited, which is the official teaching of the RCC.

Next week: Protestant response #65: “James is speaking of justification in the sight of men – because he says so in James 2:18.”

Throwback Thursday: In praise of Catholic cathedrals?

Welcome to this week’s “Throwback Thursday” installment. Today, we’re going to revisit a post that was originally published back on May 30, 2017 and has been revised.

On my drive-in to work this morning, I was listening to the local Christian radio station and popular evangelical speaker and author, Joni Eareckson Tada (pictured), was giving her usual 5-minute inspirational message for the day. In this particular episode, Joni was expounding upon her trip to Paris and especially her joy in visiting the Notre Dame (“Our Lady”) Cathedral, with its “harmony of unspeakable splendors,” although she used the grime that had accumulated on the building’s exterior as an analogy for the worldly attachments and attitudes that accumulate in a Christian’s life. Is Joni so ignorant of Reformation history and comparative theology that she doesn’t know that the genuine Gospel of salvation by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone was never preached inside Notre Dame? The mammoth Roman Catholic cathedral was constructed between 1163 and 1345 on the backs of medieval peasants who were never shown the Biblical way to Jesus Christ. The structure stands as a monument to institutional, legalistic religion with its grandiose, but empty splendor. Joni “should” know better, but this isn’t the first time she’s tread these ecumenical roads. Back in 2015, I posted about Joni’s enthusiastic endorsement of a Catholic journal. See here.

Gutter Guard$? Ach, it’s time to face reality.

A few weeks ago, in the middle of my house painting project, my wife called to me and said a representative from LeafFilter was standing outside waiting to speak to me. The gentleman was asking homeowners in the neighborhood if they were interested in having gutter guards installed. Ach. I’ve been dodging that guy for years.

Blogging friends know our backyard is surrounded by oak trees. We’re inundated with falling leaves in October-November and with stringy, catkin seed pods in May-June. Our gutters become clogged up with both. During off-peak months, even if just a handful of leaves get into the gutters and clog the downspouts, a good rainfall results in water flowing over the gutters and down into the basement windows and collecting on the basement floor. Most people love to hear the pitter-patter of rainfall on the roof during the night. Me? When I hear rain, I spring out of bed like a jack-in-the-box to check for water coming over the gutters. I try to keep the gutters and downspouts cleaned out, but at least once or twice a year they plug up before a rainstorm and we get water in the basement. Man, it’s a three or four-hour project rearranging all of the storage totes and sucking up the water with a shop vac.

The truth is, I’m getting too old to continue climbing the extension ladder to the roof and blowing the leaves out of the gutters or using the step ladder to check the downspouts. For the past several years, my concerned and loving wife has been nagging . . . er, rather, “strongly suggesting” to me, that we should get gutter guards. Every time a gutter guard commercial aired on TV, I cringed and hoped my wife wasn’t paying attention. I hate to admit it, but seniors have no business climbing ladders or walking on roofs. Every day throughout the country, injured seniors are brought into the ER after a fall from a ladder or roof. Well, the gutter guard guy finally caught up with me and was waiting at our door. I reluctantly agreed to have an estimate done.

The following day, Mike from LeafFilter showed up and gave a good presentation, but WOW, those gutter guards aren’t cheap! However, the reality that I’m not getting any younger becomes clearer every day and I . . . gulp . . . signed the paperwork. Justin arrived early Monday AM and installed the gutter guards that day.

I’ve read pros and cons about the various gutter guard systems. The other major brand, Leafguard installs their own specially-made gutter$ that use water adhesion, allowing rainwater to travel around a hood and into the gutter, while leaves and other objects supposedly roll over the hood lip and down to the ground. I’ve read complaints that small objects (like catkins) are able to enter the Leafguard gutter and that water will flow over the gutter in a heavy rain. In contrast, the LeafFilter system is basically a robust screen installed over the existing gutters.

The LeafFilter salesman claimed I “should never” have to clear the screens, that any accumulated leaves and debris will blow off, but I suspect otherwise. Four years ago, I had bought a WORX brand, gutter-cleaning J-wand kit that hooks up to most smaller, handheld leaf blowers via a universal adaptor collar in the hope of cleaning out the gutters while standing on terra firma. I didn’t follow through at the time because I knew the leaves wedged too tightly into the gutters for that system to be effective. But such a system would definitely work for removing loose debris off of the top of the gutter screens. Last week, I bought a Somorei brand, 500 CFM, battery-powered blower via Amazon and successfully fitted it with my unused J-wand. See photos below.

I’m now locked and loaded! Bring it on! The big leaf-fall starts in about four weeks, so stay tuned.

Above: A detailed view of my new Somorei 500 CFM battery-powered blower outfitted with a Worx, gutter-cleaning J-wand kit, both available from Amazon.

Above: Yup, that’s me practicing with my latest toy.

Justin Peters interviews former-Catholic, Mike Gendron

We’ve been seeing quite a bit of apologist/evangelist Mike Gendron lately. I’ve been featuring Mike and Costi Hinn in our Sunday video-shorts series for several months.

In the 65-minute video below, recorded in November, 2021, apologist/evangelist, Justin Peters, interviews Mike. Brother Justin’s ministry is focused mainly on exposing the shysters of the “word of faith,” prosperity gospel sham. I’m glad that he could spend an hour with Mike discussing the heresies of Roman Catholicism.

Before you begin watching/listening to the video, I wanted to comment on a couple of the statements.

A) In discussing ecumenical evangelicals who have compromised with Rome, Mike cites Christian nationalist pastor, Robert Jeffress (44:25-47:15 mark), and SBC seminary president, Albert Mohler (47:15-50:20). In their courting of politically-conservative Roman Catholics as allies in the culture wars, both men have made unambiguous statements in the past embracing popes and the RCC as being genuinely Christian.

B) In discussing evangelical Protestant martyrs of past eras who were killed at the direction of Catholic prelates, Mike says of pope Francis that “he’s also willing to put to death anyone who stands opposed to the Roman Catholic religion” (55:13). I respect and appreciate Mike, but this statement is not accurate. Progressive and pragmatic Francis has been neutralizing undiscerning evangelicals quite successfully with his “We just all love Jesus” smiling-papa persona. Reverting back to some form of violent, Counter-Reformation-style militantism isn’t on Bergoglio’s radar. Mike certainly knows this, but sometimes even the most knowledgeable apologists and discernment ministers lapse into hyperbole. That single qualifier aside, this is an excellent podcast.

.

Reformanda Initiative Podcast #49: Recall Notice! Your Baptism is not Valid: Part I

Welcome to this week’s installment of our Reformanda Initiative podcast series! I’m excited to present the ministry of Dr. Leonardo De Chirico and his associates at Reformanda Initiative as they examine Roman Catholic theology in order to inform and equip evangelicals.

Episode #49: Recall Notice! Your Baptism is not Valid: Part 1

Show Notes

The diocese of Phoenix, Arizona recently declared the thousands of baptisms performed by “Father Andres” over the last 20 years to be invalid. Listen as we visit with church planter Jordan Standridge to discuss his article on this matter, “When you lose your salvation based on a technicality” (see here). To learn more about Jordan’s ministry you can visit the website: standridge.org.

In part II we will further discuss the theological implications of this story and respond to the questions that naturally arise from the apparent contradictions that are presented.

My Comments

I actually featured parts 1 and 2 of the “Recall Notice! Your Baptism is not Valid” podcasts in a post back on September 19, 2022 (see here), which gave me the idea to publish all of the Reformanda Initiative podcasts as a Monday series, beginning on October 3, 2022. After almost one year, we’ve worked back up to these two “invalid baptisms” episodes and I briefly thought about skipping over them to avoid redundancy. However, the controversy is such a revealing exposé of the inanity of Roman Catholic baptismal regeneration specifically and RC legalism generally that I’ve opted to present the two podcasts once again.

Episode #49: Recall Notice! Your Baptism is not Valid: Part 1
Featuring Reid Karr, Clay Kannard, and guest, Jordan Standridge
March 1, 2022 – 39 minutes
https://reformandainitiative.buzzsprout.com/663850/10165146-49-recall-notice-your-baptism-is-not-valid-part-i

There is no YouTube video version of this podcast. The RI guys discontinued posting episodes on YouTube following Episode #38.

Next week: Episode #50: Recall Notice! Your Baptism is not Valid: Part 2

Sunday video short #14: The three-fold exploitation of Catholics.

In this one-minute video-short, Costi Hinn (forthegospel.org) and apologist-evangelist, Mike Gendron, discuss the three-fold exploitation of Catholics via the false doctrines of venial sins, purgatory, and indulgences.

.

Below is a link to Mike Gendron’s Gospel outreach ministry to Roman Catholics, Proclaiming the Gospel.

Proclaiming the Gospel
https://www.proclaimingthegospel.org/

Welcome to the Weekend Roundup! – News & Views – 9/23/23

Above photo: Pope Francis and bishop Joseph Strickland in January, 2020.

• ‘I cannot resign,’ says Bishop Strickland amid speculation that Pope wants him out

We’ve been keeping close tabs on conservative Catholic bishop, Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, a vocal critic of progressive pope Francis. It appears Bergoglio’s “request” for Strickland to resign is imminent, but the bishop is already saying he will not comply. If Strickland refuses to resign, the Vatican would initiate a penal trial to deprive him of his office. Many U.S. conservative Catholic bishops share Strickland’s disdain for papa Francis, but are not willing to risk their cushy prerogatives.

• Cleveland Catholic Diocese Bans S&G Expression After Pope’s ‘Backward’ Comment
• Cleveland-area Catholics react to diocese’s policy on ‘issues of sexuality and gender identity’

Last week, Roman Catholic bishop, Edward C. Malesic, of Cleveland, Ohio issued a directive affecting Catholic schools within his diocese. The new policy bars students, faculty, and staff from outwardly identifying as S&G, using pronouns or dressing in a way that matches their S&G identity, or publicly advocating or celebrating S&G “pride” on school property. The directive warns that those who fail to comply could/will face disciplinary action. Public backlash is already mounting against the new policy. Roman Catholicism is increasingly divided over S&G-ism, with pope Francis and progressives taking a more affirmative approach and conservatives digging in the heels.

• Why you should pray for Jimmy Buffett

Last weekend, we noted the death of popular, Margarita-swilling singer and nominal Catholic, Jimmy Buffett. There was a surprising degree of reaction to Buffett’s death in the Catholic media, with liberal elements praising his denunciations of corporate careerism and with conservatives decrying his Catholic nominalism and his veiled swipes at his RC upbringing. In the article above, the conservative Catholic writer assumes Buffett is in purgatory at best and exhorts her readers to pray so that he might be released from that fictional abode ahead of schedule.

• Sweeping study finds 1,000 cases of sexual abuse in Swiss Catholic Church since mid-20th century

Investigations into Catholic priest pedophilia have been conducted in several European nations over the past several years revealing widespread sexual abuse of Catholic children. This latest report comes from Switzerland. The 1000 confirmed cases of abuse in Switzerland since the 1950s are just the tip of the iceberg. The RCC’s rule of mandatory celibacy for its clergy has made RC seminaries both magnets and incubators of deviancy.

• Christian ecumenism on display at Lutheran World Federation assembly

The liberal Lutheran World Federation, which includes the 4-million-member, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), is in lockstep with Rome.

• “The Exorcist: Believer” Gears Up to Smash a 50-Year Franchise Box Office Record

Before I begin, allow me to state that I’m not a fan of horror films, whether they exploit demonism or otherwise. However, in my own personal experience, the Lord used “The Exorcist” (1973) and especially “The Omen” (1976) to pique my curiosity about spiritual matters and, along with many other factors, eventually draw me to Him. I see “The Exorcist: Believer” will be opening at theaters on October 6th. Many people “enjoy” the adrenaline rush of a scary movie and I’m confident this film will fill the bill. Without endorsing this movie, I do want to note some biting irony. The Bible says Satan appears as a seductive angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14), not as some pea soup-spewing ogre. Evangelical Christians will scowl at this “glorification of demonism,” and yet will readily embrace false religious teachers (e.g., smiling pope Francis) and false churches (the RCC with its false gospel of salvation by sacramental grace and merit). The most dangerous character in a Hollywood exorcism film is not the caricaturish demon, but the Catholic priest “hero” with his false gospel.

“Meeting the Protestant Response,” #63: “The oral traditions were authoritative but not inspired or infallible.”

Thanks for joining us today as we continue to examine and respond to Catholic apologist, Karlo Broussard’s book, “Meeting the Protestant Response” (2022). This week, Broussard continues his five-part chapter in which he defends the Catholic doctrine of the authority of “sacred tradition,” using 2 Thessalonians 2:15 as his proof-text:

“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”

The Roman Catholic church claims that many traditions/doctrines were passed down orally from Jesus Christ and the apostles to the early bishops and their successors and that these “sacred traditions” have the same authority as Scripture. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence” – CCC 80.

Protestant response #63: “The oral traditions were authoritative but not inspired or infallible.”

Broussard writes, “This comeback acknowledges distinct oral traditions present in the first century but argues they didn’t have the authority Catholics say they had. In reference to the oral traditions spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, (evangelical apologists, Norman) Geisler and (Ralph) MacKenzie write, ‘It is not necessary to claim that these oral teachings were inspired or infallible, only that they were authoritative.’ Geisler and MacKenzie give three lines of evidence to support their claim:

1. ‘The believers were asked to ‘maintain’ them [the traditions] (1 Cor. 11:2) and ‘stand fast in them’ (2 Thess. 2:15).’

2. ‘Oral teachings about Christ (not the words of Christ) and the apostles’ affirmations were not called inspired or unbreakable or the equivalent unless they were inscripturated in the Bible (2 Tim. 3:16).’

3. ‘The apostles were living authorities, but not everything they said was infallible. Catholics understand the difference between authoritative and infallible, since they make the same distinction with regards to non-infallible and [infallible (ex cathedra)] statements made by the pope.’

Broussard’s response

Broussard presents a lengthy, five-page rebuttal, which I will attempt to summarize as succinctly as possible.

Before addressing Geisler and MacKenzie’s three points, Broussard presents three “general comments” as a preliminary:

* Catholics do not refer to oral sacred traditions as infallible, as that is a term reserved for post-biblical magisterial declarations, however, Catholics would say oral sacred traditions are inerrant “because they come from God and thus are binding for Christians.”

* Catholics reserve the term inspired only for Scripture and not for oral sacred traditions. “But even though the words that made up the apostolic preaching may not have been inspired, the substance of what they preached – what they asserted to be true – was.”

* “The real question is whether Paul thought the oral traditions that he speaks of were just as binding for Christians as Scripture was.” Broussard argues for the affirmative and presents 1 Thessalonians 2:13 as his proof-text:

“And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.”

Broussard then addresses Geisler and MacKenzie’s three arguments:

1. “The assumption . . . that the exhortation to maintain and stand fast doesn’t connote a binding authority” is erroneous. Paul exhorted the Thessalonians to maintain and stand fast in regards to both oral teaching and his writings (2 Thessalonians 2:15). “So Paul’s exhortation to ‘maintain’ and ‘stand fast’ in the oral traditions does not provide evidence that the binding authority of the oral traditions was not equivalent to the binding authority of Sacred Scripture.”

2. “Paul may have considered the oral traditions to be ‘God-breathed’ given the fact that he recognized the apostolic traditions concerning Jesus as part of the ‘word of God’ (again citing 1 Thessalonians 2:13). “That the oral traditions may not have been inspired in the way the written traditions were doesn’t take away from the fact that the oral traditions contained divine revelation and therefore bound Christians to stand firm in them.”

3. Broussard agrees that not every word spoken by the apostles was inerrant. “But that can’t possibly be evidence that the traditions spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 were not binding parts of Christian truth. We have already seen that Paul regarded these (oral) traditions as part of the ‘word of God.'”

My response

This is all a painfully tedious exercise in absolute and utter futility. As we pointed out last week, neither Broussard, Catholic theologians, or the pope will or can specify what particular oral teachings Paul was referring to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (or 2 Timothy 2:2 or 1 Corinthians 11:2), so this debate about the inspiration and inerrancy of apostolic oral teaching is a moot point. Apostolic oral teaching was not documented and preserved under the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit as was Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17). We simply do not have the oral teachings of the apostles PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY WERE ORAL AND UNDOCUMENTED. Here’s the bottom line of all of this my friends. Don’t miss this. The reality is that the Roman Catholic church has fabricated a plethora of unscripturated doctrines (e.g., praying to saints, papal infallibility, indulgences, the assumption of Mary, etc.) under the inscrutable cloak of “oral sacred traditions.” We hold to Sola Scriptura, the authority of Scripture alone, precisely because of the duplicity of this “oral sacred traditions” contrivance and subterfuge.

Next week: Protestant response #64: “The oral tradition was only for the first century. The oral tradition/Scripture paradigm changed when the last apostle died.”

Throwback Thursday: Those angry separated brethren!!!

Welcome to this week’s “Throwback Thursday” installment. Today, we’re going to revisit a post that was originally published back on May 31, 2017 and has been revised.

Yesterday I was listening to the 5/25/17 podcast of the Calling All Catholics talk radio show (The Station of the Cross, 101.7 FM, Buffalo, NY), featuring moderator, Steve Quebral, and priest-host, Kevin Barrett. Toward the end of the show a question came up regarding a case of “drive-by evangelism.”

Steve Quebral: Let’s go next now to a question we got from Brad, and Brad writes to us, “Recently at our parish someone left anti-Catholic flyers on everyone’s cars during mass and even left some in our pamphlet rack in the vestibule of the church. What would be the best way to handle it if you could catch them in the act.”

Priest Barrett responded by decrying the divisions within (c)hristianity, reaffirming that the Catholic church is the “one true church” established by Jesus Christ. He attributed the efforts of those who reach out to Catholics with the Gospel to the “devil and fallen spirits who are trying to confuse us and divide us.” He stated that (c)hristians should be reaching out to each other and building bridges instead of fomenting division. Barrett argued that hostility towards the Catholic church is not of God. He observed that, “Catholics aren’t constantly agitated towards our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters and yet…so often the separated Christian brethren are constantly agitated with Catholics.” In closing, Barrett recommended Protestants and Catholics put their efforts into praying for each other, looking for ways to work for (c)hristian unity, trying to build bridges, trying to maintain a respectful dialogue, and “celebrating what we share in common and bring that goodness to the world.”

The big problem with Barrett’s approach is that Roman Catholicism teaches a false gospel of salvation by sacramental grace and merit in contrast to the genuine Good News! Gospel of salvation by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. Rather than shake hands with apostasy, it’s every Christian’s duty to expose it. What did the Old Testament prophets say about false religion? Did they coddle it? Did they cooperate with it? What about John the Baptist? Or the Lord, Jesus Christ? What did He say about false teachers? Or the apostle, Paul? Christians today are so saturated with this pluralistic, tolerant culture that the only thing they won’t tolerate is somebody who points out that Rome does not preach the genuine Gospel.

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.” – Matthew 10:34-36

I wholeheartedly agree with priest Barrett that Catholics generally aren’t agitated with the “separated brethren” in this current era, but why would they be when their church now officially teaches all non-Catholic religionists and even atheists will merit Heaven just as long as they are “good”? Since the Catholic view is that the majority of people in the world are hopefully “following the light they’ve been given,” there’s really nothing in the Catholic faith to be passionate about, which is why 83% of American Catholics don’t attend obligatory mass every Sunday.¹

All that being said, we know from history that Roman Catholic prelates and priests were once very much “agitated” with Protestant believers and routinely enlisted monarchs and magistrates to persecute and even execute them.

I don’t endorse the people mentioned far above who left flyers on the car windshields. I don’t know who they were or what information was distributed. Hopefully, those folks were Christians. It’s arguable how effective drive-by evangelism is, but if we put God’s word out there, Scripture says it won’t come back void.

“So shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.” – Isaiah 55:11

1. Where is Mass attendance highest? One country is the clear leader