Can We Go Too Far With Ecumenism?

A Friendly Critique of Trent Horn's Recent Videos

Jul 03, 2026

Can we go too far with ecumenical dialogue? I think that the answer is “Yes.” To be clear, I’m not talking about the Catholic priests out there who say Christians should celebrate gay pride in order to reach the LGBTQ+ community. This would be an obvious and blatant example of ecumenicism going too far.

I think that we can go too far with ecumenicism in our Catholic-Protestant dialogues. When Catholics over-emphasize the positive qualities of their Protestant brethren, who these same Catholics believe hold to heretical and even damnable beliefs about the teachings of Christianity, I think we are creating more confusion than we are understanding.

Maybe I’m just settling into being a Catholic (coming up on three years), but I’ve noticed some Catholics being inconsistent on what they think the risks of being a non-Catholic are. On the one hand, non-Catholics, specifically Protestants, teach some very dangerous morals and heresies. Take your pick of Protestantism. Regardless of the one you pick, they all have at least one formal teaching that is condemned and could potentially lead their followers into heresy, schism, or both. On the other hand, you have Catholic apologists like Trent Horn endorsing prominent Protestant evangelists in their evangelism of the Gospel. While Trent is consistent here based on a technicality, I’m reminded of the quote from the character Sir Thomas More in the film A Man for All Seasons, who says,

The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.

Sometimes, I think that our ecumenicism can be like this. Technically, we are not saying anything wrong or in error, but we forget that we are preaching to a world that will judge our content according to their wits, not according to the law. That said, I think all the Catholic Apologists out there are doing a really good job. That’s obvious considering the number of people, including myself, who have decided to swim the Tiber. This is just more of a critical questioning that is hoping to foster dialogue and clarity around the way we should engage ecumenically and the rhetoric we select in doing so.

Are Protestants True Evangelists?

If the Catholic Church and her saints have argued that the Eucharist is the “food of immortality” and that it is essential to persevering in the life of grace, then it follows that those who preach the opposite could not be considered evangelists in the sense that Catholics ought to mean it.

For example, Trent Horn, one of my favorite apologists on the internet, recently posted a video titled “The Best Living Evangelists.” In it, he proposed that there were three criteria for being considered:

Fruit of the Spirit
Bold Proclamation
Influence or Reach

But it seemed that “Preaches the Truth” should have been a requirement. If Catholics really do believe, as Trent does, that merely believing in Jesus is not enough to be saved, then the Protestants who do preach this cannot be true evangelists on Catholic teaching. But if Protestants are preaching the truth by simply trying to get people to have a “belief” in Jesus alone, then Trent and the Catholic Answers team should pack it in because Protestants and Catholics don’t have any meaningful disagreement.

As I said, Trent is one of my favorite apologists, so my critique here is more of a disagreement in strategy than I would say a disagreement in content. As a regular watcher and reader of his content, it seems to me that he may be spreading himself too thin rhetorically and opening himself up for easy wins from his Protestant opponents. That doesn’t mean I’m going to take it easy on him. But I hope that this is seen as an “iron sharpens iron” article, not one of antagonism or attack.

For those who might think this is too harsh, there is a list of recommended books from Trent on Catholicism that helped me become Catholic in the footnotes.1 If Trent responds, that would be awesome. What would be even better is if we could have a conversation. Who knows, maybe someone who knows him will see this and share it with him. But until providence shines on me with such grace and fortune, I’m going to share my thoughts here and on my podcast in the hope that more dialogue on the subject between Protestants and Catholics occurs.

As one of my favorite soon-to-be Catholic saints said,

“There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing”
— Venerable Bishop Fulton Sheen

To be clear, I think that ecumencial dialog is great, but I don’t think it’s great in itself. The “ecumenical” harvest we find ourselves in can be extremely fruitful as we are really making headway in recognizing our shared beliefs, but if our theological differences were actually “just differences” or matters of Christian preference, then I would have never become Catholic. Ultimately, Protestants and Catholics are trying to convert each other, and if we deny that, then both end up in a kind of indifferentism.

My Critique of Trent

Did I mention that Trent was one of my favorite apologists? Great!

Recently, Trent Horn posted a series of videos engaging with Protestants on this question, and the more specific question, “Do Protestants need to become Catholic to go to heaven?” (I plan to respond to this next week) But before those videos came out, he posted a video (mentioned above) called “The Best Living Evangelists.”

On the male side, Trent nominated Fr. Mike Schmitz (Catholic) and Wes Huff (Protestant). On the female side, the nominations were Lila Rose (Catholic) and Allie Beth Stuckey (Protestant).

Screen capture from The Counsel of Trent Podcast

So you don’t have to scroll up to the top; recall that his criteria were the following:

Fruit of the Spirit
Bold Proclamation
Influence or Reach

As I mentioned, truthful preaching was not part of the criteria, and I think that is problematic. Especially since throughout the video, Trent seems to condemn Protestants like Joel Osteen for preaching a false Gospel. Trent has argued that the Gospel is not defined in scripture and that it’s simply the “paschal mystery,” which is essentially just telling people about who Jesus was and why he came, i.e., Jesus was God, died for your sins, and rose again.

I think this video is problematic for several reasons. First, Allie and Wes, as we will see, do not accept the idea that the Gospel is merely preaching the life of Jesus. Secondly, Allie and Wes are, theologically speaking, extremely hostile to the Catholic Church. They have frequently argued that Catholics must leave the Church if they are “mature” Christians and want to believe the “Biblical Gospel.” For example, take a look at this clip from a video — “6 Reasons why I’m not Roman Catholic” — that Wes posted a week before Trent’s video came out.2

Some might argue that Trent was unaware of Wes’s video, but Trent was aware because he referenced it in the “Best Evangelists” video. Additionally, Trent was already preparing to respond to Wes’s video because two days later, Trent dropped the video responding to Wes’s 6-point argument. In his “Why I’m not Catholic” video, Wes goes on to condemn the Mass as contradictory to the Gospel.

WATCH:

Trent “nominating” Wes Huff as one of the best “living evangelists” gives the impression that Wes and Trent are preaching the same thing about salvation. In one sense they are, because they both preach about several necessary truths: God’s existence, the Resurrection, and even some moral truths. However, Trent has written a book titled Salvation is From the Church: How Christ Uses the Church to Bring Us to Him, in which the actual title shows what Trent thinks Protestants need to know about salvation that is missing from their understanding of the Gospel. Wes just told Catholics not only that salvation does not come from the Church, but that if a Catholic wants the true gospel, they need to leave the Church that Trent believes is necessary for salvation. How then can a Catholic apologist knowingly endorse a Protestant who is so adamantly opposed to the Catholic Church? Especially when apologists frequently cite the existence of people like Wes Huff (intelligent, articulate, friendly, and heretical) as the reason we need the Church so that we don’t fall into heresy and risk our souls.

Catholics: “We Preach the Same Gospel”; Protestants: “No, We Don’t”

I sympathize with Protestants who look at the Catholic Church and assume that they are safer outside of the Church than they are within it, because many Catholic apologists will say one thing and do another. For example, saying that we need a magisterium because heretics are smart and persuasive and can lead souls to hell, but then posting videos promoting Protestants who explicitly say to Catholics, “Leave the Catholic Church,” is understandably confusing for the sincere Protestant trying to understand what is at stake if they choose not to become Catholic.

Like Wes Huff, Allie Beth Stuckey is also problematic. She has a view that the Church teaches a false gospel as well, and has had guests who come on her show, like ex-Catholic Mike Grendon, whose ministry is to get people to leave the Catholic Church and embrace the Gospel of Biblical Christianity.

In Allie’s conversation from 2025 with Trent on Catholicism, she borders on accusing Catholics of committing the sin of necromancy because of the Church’s teachings on the intercession of the saints. But none of this stopped Trent from endorsing her as an evangelist that Christians should “listen to and learn from.”

To be clear, I’m not worried if Catholics and Protestants listen to her; she is an incredible cultural warrior and ally on many moral issues. Giving an endorsement based on the idea that we have so much in common that the substantial and “real” differences we have are not potentially a risk to someone’s soul breeds confusion among both Protestants and Catholics. Furthermore, you can find a lot of saints who were very firm in their condemnation of heretics and the dangers they posed to the salvation of the faithful.

Consider this quote from around the year 100 A.D. about the Eucharist being the body and blood of Jesus, and those who denied it being a danger to themselves and the Church.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ…Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes…It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.3

Protestants like Wes Huff and other academics have argued that the Catholicism of today just doesn’t seem to look like the Catholicism of history. Some Catholic apologists think these Protestants object to the development of doctrine. But I think when one reads the language and writings of saints, you see a courage and unwavering attitude for the truth that is lacking in modern Catholic-Protestant discourse. Even Fulton Sheen said that people were leaving the faith, not because it was too hard, but because it had become too soft.

There are a lot of factors that keep one from seriously wrestling with Catholicism, but our rhetoric around the Gospel and salvation, in my experience, can certainly contribute to that confusion and apathy.

For example, consider the following clip of Allie Beth Stuckey from 2023 when she did a debate on The Daily Wire with Candace Owen’s husband, George Farmer.

Allie said,

Of course, I would just want to know what is the gospel and what do you think it takes to be saved? Because if someone tells me, “Well, it takes this, this, and this as a part of the Catholic Church to be saved,” well, then we’re both going to disagree. We’re both going to think the other one is not saved.

After that clip, Trent makes an argument based on the meaning of the word “gospel” and scripture.

WATCH:

Trent argued that scripture never explicitly defines the gospel. He quotes 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 as the closest description. He draws a distinction between the story of Christ’s life and the teachings about how to receive the graces that come from Christ’s life. The latter is what the Church teaches is required for salvation, and that those who knowingly reject this do so at their own risk.4

I don’t disagree with Trent here, and he’s right to clarify in contrast to Allie’s view. However, Protestants, like Allie and Wes, would argue that faith alone is part of the Gospel. Trent appears to be reading his definition of the Gospel into the definition held and promulgated by hostile Protestants. Why? I’m not sure. I don’t necessarily disagree with this strategy because you're trying to show common ground, but it seems to me that Trent has taken it too far when he starts endorsing these Protestants as the exemplars of Christian evangelism when they are evangelizing that people leave your Church. After all, how many pastors do you know who would endorse an evangelist who regularly called out that pastor’s church for preaching a false gospel and told that pastor’s congregants to find a different church to join?

If Protestants say, “We preach a different gospel than Rome, and our gospel is the true one!” We should not, as Catholics, say, “We agree on the first part about Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection, so it’s basically the same thing.” If Protestants tell you their gospel is different, believe them. If they are willing to argue that Rome is heretical on their paradigm, then we should ensure we don’t give the impression that there is no difference between what the Church teaches and what they teach.

Do Protestants and Catholics Live the Same Way?

That previous point is especially important since the Catholic Church teaches that it is a grave sin to leave the Church. Which is precisely what Wes and Allie constantly promote and preach. Saints throughout history have always been loving of those outside the Church, but they also recognized the dangers of heretics. We saw this earlier with Ignatius of Antioch, who told his recipients that they should avoid people who denied the Eucharist.

Catharine of Sienna is another saint who had a deep love for sinners and those fallen away from the Church, and who also had no doubts about who was on their way to hell and who was not. Another is St. Brigette of Sweden, who, before St. Catharine, attempted to get multiple Popes to return to Rome, rather than remain in Avignon out of fear. These saints were very loving and firm in their preaching; they were even willing to warn Popes about the consequences of sin and the risk of eternal separation.

Now, listen to this clip from Wes Huff and ask yourself how Ignatius or Catharine of Sienna would have responded to, not Wes himself as a person, but the message that Wes is preaching.

WATCH:

Note the “I reject that…I reject that…I reject that…” This is harsh language according to my understanding of Catholic teaching. Wes does not appear ignorant of the Church’s teachings or the arguments that the Church might make in response. In other words, it’s safe to say that Wes is not invincibly ignorant. A Catholic is going to find it difficult to argue that Wes is simply rejecting the Catholic Church out of ignorance, maybe in error, but even here it’s unlikely since he was lauded as not misrepresenting the faith egregiously. This argument is going to be especially difficult to make when exceptional Catholic apologists like Joe Heschmeyer (another apologist I would recommend) have credited Wes with having “one of the best” and most charitable “Why I am not Catholic” videos they have seen — something with which I certainly agree.

But since coming into the Church, I can assure you that apparent inconsistencies and heavily nuanced arguments around Catholic-Protestant beliefs are some of the big reasons many Catholics don’t evangelize, and why many Protestants presume that there is no salvific reason to consider Catholicism. The former thinks they need to be some scholar to tell someone they should be Catholic, while the latter looks at the scholars and says, “They told me to just follow my conscience; I guess I’m alright.”

For example, Trent Horn will say that Protestants and Catholics basically live their moral lives the same way. He proposes the idea that if we were to set up security cameras and spy on a devout Catholic and a devout Protestant, we would probably find that they live their lives the same way.

WATCH:5

But then Trent will do a response video to the horrible sexual ethics that Protestants teach.

DISCLAIMER: The following videos for this segment get into sexual ethics and marriage. If you have kids in the room, don’t play videos that say “WATCH: LANGUAGE WARNING”6

Here is a clip where Trent explains that, according to the Catholic Church, masturbation is a grave sin, but he has a problem with the fact that many Protestants condone this activity within the marriage bed.

WATCH: LANGUAGE WARNING:

Trent argues that these Protestants are leading people into sin. But just a moment ago, we saw that Trent made the case to Allie that Protestants and Catholics basically live their life the same. So which is it? Can Protestants commit these sins of masturbation without risk to their soul, or does Protestant theology lead to some pretty insane moral frameworks?

In the next clip, Trent demonstrates that Protestants are willing to go even further on the topic of sodomy within the marriage bed.

WATCH: LANGUAGE WARNING:

I won’t post another video on this topic, but even in Trent’s most recent debate with Ryan from NeedGod.Net, this topic of sodomy between married couples came up in the context of eternal security and salvation. Trent was arguing that people could lose their salvation by committing these actions, and the Protestant, Ryan, would not concede the point that Christians would be risking their salvation in doing so. Even from a Calvinist perspective, you could at least say “They were never saved to begin with.” But Ryan would not concede. Wild….For the record, Trent crushed it. There is a link in the footnotes. It is easily one of the best debates I’ve seen on Eternal Security and why it is so dangerous.7

At the end of this debate, it seemed clear to me that Trent was scandalized by the brazen attitude that Christians could commit murder and sexual immorality, with no eternal consequence. Considering that the Church condemns these as grave sins, it was obvious that, to Trent, the reason this debate was important was because of the souls; assuming Catholicism is true, Ryan would be leading and encouraging them to go to hell.

In reality, those outside the Church not only don’t have the sacraments, but they also don’t have the teachings of the Church to protect them from committing acts of grave sin, which is the first precondition to a mortal sin — sin that, if unrepented of, will lead to damnation. This seems to be Trent’s actual position, but it seems to get lost in different contexts.

But I don’t think these contexts would be as confusing if he had never taken the step of endorsing Protestants who actually teach heresies that lead to immoral frameworks and a rejection of the Church. Had he never made the video endorsing these Protestants, I think everyone would reasonably presume that he was tailoring his responses to those specific contexts for evangelistic and prudential reasons. But when we present individuals that preach against our denomination and its teachings as contrary to scripture and the gospel, and then turn around and say those preachers’ teachings are dangerous, it can feel like Catholics don’t actually know what they believe or are just unwilling to give a straightforward, common-sense answer.

Closing Thoughts

Trent and the other Catholic apologists are doing incredible work. I’m not offering this critique because I’m an expert on Catholic apologetics and evangelism. Instead, I’m offering it as a hearer who finds himself confused, along with my Protestant friends and family, when trying to figure out what some of these apologists are saying.

Second, these apologists, like Trent, have years of videos. If I had published videos two times a week on my YouTube channel for as long as Trent has, I’m sure that others would be able to use AI to find and clip the videos to reveal some holes in my presentations too. That’s why I don’t see this as an argument against Trent, but a demonstration of the fact that sometimes we can be overly precise and nuanced in our rhetoric, creating more confusion than understanding. Trent just happened to be the guy I listened to the most, and so, unfortunately, he was the easiest to critique. But he’s not the only one who has unintentionally caused confusion in ecumenical dialogues.

I have also seen this kind of rhetoric at ecumenical events where the vibe feels like we are there to just mingle and chat, rather than discuss the stakes of being wrong about the Church you submit to. I’ve also met Catholics who have told me that many Catholics chose not to evangelize because they were worried that sharing the Gospel with someone would remove their ignorance and make them culpable for the non-Catholics rejection of the Gospel, thereby damning the person they were trying to save.

These ideas come from the false belief that ignorance is just as probable a way of salvation as submission to the Church. I would argue that our rhetoric and “soft” nuances are a major reason we have confusion on this issue. Yes, many are coming into the Church, but are they coming into the Church with an understanding of what is at stake, what they will have to defend to those who disagree with their decision?

When I finished OCIA with my wife and the deacon assigned to our class, on the last day, the deacon said, “Now, just know that you are culpable if you reject this.” The implication was that I was no longer ignorant of the teachings of the Church and that to reject what they had instructed me on could lead to eternal consequences. He was not judging me. He was simply looking at the spiritual symptoms based on his human understanding of Church teaching and the young couple in front of him and making a judgment, not a condemnation. I’m grateful he did this because it reminded a theological nerd like me why we investigate and seek God on these matters. It’s because we want to hear the words, “Well done.”

We as Christians must taste the grace of God and be so changed that we not only want to save other people, but that we want them to experience the love of God in the most radical way possible this side of heaven, which is only possible in the sacraments. The reality is that, as long as one is outside the Church, they are missing out, not just on the assurance of salvation the sacraments give, but on the intimacy with God that is only found in His Church, His sacraments, and His saints.

Yes, God is not bound by the sacraments, but all Catholics must recognize that it’s safer within those sacraments precisely because they are the ordinary means of salvation. My main point here is that if we emphasize the exceptions over the ordinary ways of salvation, or we emphasize the kindness of heretics to the obscurity of their errors, we will create confusion and apathy among both the faithful and the lost.

That doesn’t mean we “go Rambo” and “hell, fire, and brimstone” on a person, but we do have to recognize that becoming Catholic is a sacrifice that has real cost, and that remaining outside the assurance and confidence in the Church also has real cost. But, having been on both sides of the Tiber, the best way to sum up this wager is the way my confirmation sponsor did before I came into the Church: “You’re gonna lose a lot, but you will gain so much more!”

— DR

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?