In this episode Trent responds to a pastor who smashes Catholic statues and mocks a Catholic priest killed by a crucifix

To support this channel: https://www.patreon.com/counseloftrent

[NEW] Counsel of Trent merch: https://shop.catholic.com/apologists-alley/trent-horn-resources/

Be sure to keep up with our socials!
https://www.tiktok.com/@counseloftrent
https://www.twitter.com/counseloftrent
https://www.instagram.com/counseloftrentpodcast

Transcript

Protestant Pastor Mocks Priest Killed by Crucifix

On October 18th, 2026, a priest in Ecuador was tragically killed when the large crucifix behind him, above the tabernacle, fell over and struck him on the head.

And while most non-Catholic Christians would simply mourn this tragedy and pray for this priest, one Baptist pastor decided to gloat over it and use it as an opportunity to continue his crusade against venerating images of holy people.

So in today’s episode, we will refute this nonsense and also show how nearly all Protestants have an incoherent, unbiblical view of sacred images.

First, here’s what this article says about what happened in Ecuador:

“A priest preparing Communion was fatally struck by a falling crucifix during a livestreamed Mass in Ecuador, turning a moment of worship into a frantic rush to save him.

“Father Patricio Alfredo Sánchez Molinari was standing at the altar of Nuestra Señora del Perpetuo Socorro Church in Guayaquil on Saturday when the large wooden crucifix behind him suddenly fell forward and struck him.

“Video of the service captures screams erupting inside the church as worshippers ran to his side and called for help.”

I’m not going to show the footage of Fr. Molinari being struck, and I exhort Christians not to share videos like this because it ends up turning a tragedy into shareable content.

I will share, however, this clip of the priest, purportedly from the homily at that Mass, where he said in Spanish that:

“One day, all of us who are here will also die.”

That makes what happened to him possibly an example of God’s providence allowing his homily to save souls well beyond his little parish in South America.

It brings to mind the Roman adage:

Hominem te esse memento. Memento mori.

Remember that you are a man. Remember that you must die.

But instead of focusing on this important spiritual truth, a Baptist preacher in Texas named Pastor Jonathan Shelley made this response:

Pastor Jonathan Shelley:

“Everybody, it’s Pastor Shelley from Steadfast Baptist Church. And in a total ironic coincidence, we see that a Catholic priest just died of a crucifix falling on his head.

“Now, this week, I’ve been taken to task by Catholics for crushing and destroying their statues, their graven images to Mary, and all kinds of idolatry that they have.

“And I’ve had all kinds of Catholics emailing me saying that I’m going to be cursed of God and be destroyed and just all this evil.

“But then, of course, God, having a sense of humor, causes a Catholic priest to die today with a crucifix falling directly on his head and killing the false prophet and sending him straight to hell.”

Now, I’m normally pretty measured when I respond to people, but there is one word to describe this guy that I really want to use.

It’s right on the tip of my tongue.

Clip:

“Jackass.”

Yeah, that’s the one.

I mean, does this guy not remember Jesus saying that sometimes bad things happen to good people?

Or, as Jesus said:

“Those eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”

What Does Exodus Actually Say About Images?

As Pastor Shelley admitted, he had previously invited children in his congregation to smash statues of the Blessed Virgin Mary as a way to teach Catholic “idolaters” a lesson.

But here’s the thing:

No Christian—even the most radical anti-Catholic Protestant—follows the Bible’s teaching on images in the way these critics claim Catholics should.

Exodus 20:4–5 says:

“You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;

“You shall not bow down to them or serve them.”

Notice these are two commands, not one.

Critics of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy usually focus on verse five and say they are following the Bible because they don’t bow down to or “serve” images.

But if that’s the only thing the Bible prohibited, then that’s all it would have had to say:

Don’t bow down to or serve images.

But the Bible doesn’t just say that.

Verse four clearly says, “Do not make a pesel,” or a carved object, “or any temunah,” any likeness of anything.

Whether that thing is in heaven, on earth, or under the earth, don’t make an image of it.

And this has far-reaching implications.

If you’re a Christian who says you’re against Catholic religious art because you follow what the Bible says about graven images, then you also have to reject any of Michelangelo’s paintings depicting God the Father creating Adam or the world.

Imagine if you had one of those paintings in the ancient Israelite assembly and somebody asked you what it depicted, and you said:

“It’s Yahweh.”

You’d probably be stoned pretty quickly.

And not the kind of stoning that takes place in liberal cities on April 20th.

Was the Golden Calf Supposed to Represent Yahweh?

On a related note, some people gave my colleague and friend Jimmy Akin a hard time because he was asked whether the Israelites who worshipped the Golden Calf were worshipping Yahweh.

Here’s the exchange he had with Matt Fradd:

Matt Fradd:

“When Israel came out of Egypt and they built a Golden Calf and they said, you know, ‘This is your God,’ bowed down and worshipped—were they worshipping the one true God?”

Jimmy Akin:

“Possibly.”

Jimmy went on to correctly say that many conservative scholars believe the bull imagery was used to represent Yahweh or El in illicit worship.

The Israelites identified Yahweh with the supreme Canaanite deity El, which makes sense for the people of Israel—“he who wrestles with El.”

According to Joel Baden of Yale University:

“The story of the golden calf is commonly misconstrued to be about idolatry, but it is not. It is, rather, about the incorrect worship of Yahweh: the kind of worship that requires a physical shape.”

In Exodus 32:4–5, Aaron says:

“These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.”

But that doesn’t prove this is a reference to multiple pagan deities.

The Hebrew word Elohim can mean God or gods and has plural elements.

Critical scholars also note that this may be a later editor referencing the two golden calves King Jeroboam made, since 1 Kings records him saying:

“Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.”

What makes this more interesting is that Nehemiah records Aaron mentioning only one God:

“This is your God who brought you up out of Egypt.”

And Exodus records Aaron explicitly saying that the feast with the calf would be “to the Lord,” which was how the Jews rendered Yahweh’s name.

So the Golden Calf might have been a way to put Yahweh inside an object, or it could have been an object for Yahweh to sit upon, like a pedestal.

Either way, if this interpretation is correct—and Jimmy said it’s possible but not proven—then this shows that what God was angry about was illicit worship of him using images.

Don’t try to forcibly put God inside an object.

You don’t have that power over the Supreme Creator.

And God doesn’t want a people so tempted by idolatry to be making just any images.

But God Himself Commands Sacred Images

However, this restriction on creating images and interacting with them was loosened later in salvation history—and not much later.

For example, in Numbers 25, God tells Moses to create a bronze serpent, and anyone who looked at the bronze serpent would be cured of snake bites.

Consider also the angels and other earthly objects carved into the walls of Solomon’s Temple, as described in 1 Kings 6.

Even just five chapters later in the book of Exodus, God says to carve cherubim angels on the Ark of the Covenant.

Joshua 7:6 describes Joshua and the elders falling face down before the Ark.

And in 1 Samuel 5:3, a Philistine pagan idol is found lying face down before the captured Ark of the Covenant, signifying that God demands worship from all people and uses material objects to communicate that truth.

And if bowing were the issue, the Old Testament records several instances of people bowing in honor to one another.

And, as I’ll go into more later, most Protestants see nothing wrong with choosing to bow or kneel in prayer before a wooden cross.

But back to my main point:

If you condemn Catholic images because of what is in the book of Exodus, then you also have to condemn not just all religious images—from crosses to coloring books—but images of any kind whatsoever, even pictures of loved ones on your cell phone.

So the truth is, no Protestant follows the Old Testament teaching on images in this absolute way.

Therefore, they have no grounds to say Catholics are being disobedient in this regard.

Catholics are not disobedient to God’s commands because the context in Exodus 20 is clearly about bowing and serving idols—committing idolatry.

That is what is being condemned:

Treating images as if they were God, not merely paying respect to images of God or holy people.

Would You Step on a Crucifix?

When Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid debated James White on sacred images, Madrid held up a large crucifix and said that if images of God are actually idols that cannot be honored, then it wouldn’t be wrong to dishonor the crucifix he brought by stepping on it.

But no Protestant took him up on that offer.

And it is telling that radical pastors like Jonathan Shelley are quick to abuse images of Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and defend that practice by saying they don’t think those images represent the real Mary—just the false Catholic view of Mary.

But by that logic, Shelley also believes Catholics have a false view of Jesus.

He believes in a false Catholic Jesus.

So he should have no problem shattering a Catholic statue of Jesus.

But I think deep down he knows it is sinful to purposefully disrespect an image of our Lord.

Why he refuses to give the Mother of our Lord the same respect—even if Catholics are wrong about Mary—boggles my mind.

But I, for one, would not want to be in Jonathan Shelley’s shoes on Judgment Day when he has to explain this blasphemy to the Lord.

So pray for him that he comes to his senses and repents.

James White, Craig Truglia, and Honoring Images

Oh, and speaking of James White, he recently debated Orthodox apologist Craig Truglia on images.

And to Truglia’s credit, he made arguments I hadn’t thought of before.

For example, Peter’s shadow in Acts 5 was an icon of Peter—a monochromatic, single-color image that represented Peter.

The people showed deference toward this image, and through that holy image the people were healed.

But this part of the debate was especially revealing:

Craig Truglia:

“Let me ask you this. If we could presume upon the appropriate way to show this affection with a dead loved one at a funeral, could someone here in this audience show that identical visual affection you would see to an image of Christ or saints?”

James White:

“I would say no, because they did not have personal knowledge of the person in the image.”

Craig Truglia:

“So you need personal knowledge to show someone affection? A Christian does not have personal knowledge of Christ?”

James White:

“That was the context of your original statement, and so I’m just sticking with the context of the original statement. It’s an invalid parallel, and it’s invalid in our debate, and it’s a waste of our time.”

Now, James White has walked this back on social media, saying Craig interrupted him and he didn’t hear the part about personal knowledge of Christ.

But the point still stands.

If we can show affection to an image of a relative we love, then why can’t we show affection, such as kissing, to an image of a Christian we love—or to an image of Christ himself, whom we should love above all things?

White’s response is that you can’t show that affection to someone like St. Basil the Great because you never knew this person.

But that’s dubious because you could show affection to an image of a deceased relative even if you never personally knew that person.

You could simply be grateful for that person being part of your lineage.

Likewise, someone like St. Basil the Great and all the other saints are part of my spiritual lineage, and I know they pray for me in virtue of their belonging to the one Body of Christ.

But more importantly, if it’s always wrong to honor someone in an image, then it would be wrong to honor Christ through an image of him.

But if we can honor the people we love in this life through their images, then surely we can do the same for Christ, whom we are called to love above all things.

Protestants Already Use Sacred Images

Protestants do this all the time when they pray in the presence of a barren cross to remind them of Christ.

So why not do this in the presence of a cross that shows what Christ did for us on that piece of wood—which, by itself, cannot save us?

Galatians 3:1 even mentions the importance of this graphic truth when Paul says:

“O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?”

Paul also says in Colossians 1:15 that Christ is:

“The image of the invisible God.”

Or, in Greek, the icon of God.

The Church teaches that while the people of God in the Old Testament were tempted to idolatry, they could not freely create images of God.

But after the Incarnation, we as the people of God are free to depict God because God has already depicted himself through Christ.

And we can honor God through images of him.

We can also show respect—but not divine worship—to holy men and women God used throughout history through images of them, just as Protestants show respect but not worship to images of the cross God used to save humanity.

Consider how this is done in many popular Protestant worship songs about Jesus and his cross.

They sing things like:

“I love that old cross.”

They cherish the cross.

They glory in the cross.

So according to these Protestants, it’s idolatrous to say:

“I love Mary. I cling to Mary. I honor Mary, the Mother of God,”

because Mary is “just a creature” God used to bring Christ into the world.

But it’s totally fine to say:

“I love the cross. I cherish the cross. I glory in the cross,”

even though the cross is just a piece of wood God chose to bring about the redemption of the world.

If you can make that make sense for me, I would appreciate it.

If you’d like more information on this subject, check out the chapter on intercession and veneration of the saints in my book The Case for Catholicism, published by Ignatius Press.

Thank you so much for watching, and I hope you have a very blessed day.