WILL THE REAL RICHARD BENNETT PLEASE STAND UP?In 1963, when he was 25, Richard Bennett, a native of Ireland, was ordained to the Catholic priesthood. In 1985 he abandoned the priesthood and Catholicism. Today he is a Fundamentalist missionary and decidedly anti-Catholic.
He runs a small ministry known as the Berean Beacon (www.bereanbeacon.org). At his web site he has an archive of articles, one of which is called "The Antichrist Unveiled." The final line in that article says that the testimony of "martyrs and reformers" "was that Papal Rome is the Babylon of prophecy, 'that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth,' and that its head, the Roman pontiff, is the predicted 'Man of Sin,' or Antichrist."
Most Fundamentalists do not go so far as to claim that the pope is the Antichrist. They realize that Scripture refers to the Antichrist as being a particular man, and, if a pope is the Antichrist, which pope would that be? There are so many to choose from! If they say, "the current pope," they look a bit ridiculous, since John Paul II has not performed a single act that is attributed by Scripture to the Antichrist.
Bennett also offers his "Life Testimony" at his site. It reads as many others read: lots of little facts, but big things seem to be missing. The reasons offered for his disillusionment with Catholicism and conversion to Fundamentalism just don't add up. They are too insubstantial.
Do intelligent people really abandon the Catholic Church because they suddenly discover that some Catholics, including some priests and bishops, are venal or ignorant?
I can imagine how a youth who lived under overly protective parents might venture into the world for the first time and be surprised, but how long can that surprise last? Seminary life 40 years ago was more sheltered than it is today, but were the new ordinands of 1963 really so cut off from the world and from an understanding of human nature? I doubt it.
If a man throws up his hands and says, "I can't be a priest any longer; I can't serve with such men any longer," is there anything that necessarily impels him toward Fundamentalism? Wouldn't it make more sense for such a man to set aside religion entirely, at least for a while, as he sorts out his life?
Something in Bennett's story just doesn't add up.
Go to his site and see the other conversion stories he has posted. One is by A.J. Krause. Among other things, Krause discusses the meaning of "rock" in Matthew 16:18. He seems unaware that the argument he proffers has been refuted innumerable times by Catholic apologists.
No, in Matthew 16:18 "rock" does not refer to Jesus or to Peter's profession of faith. The only interpretation that makes sense is that the word refers to Peter himself, as I explained at length in "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" and as many other Catholics have explained in other books. Krause makes no attempt to grapple with the Catholic rebuttal; he does not even seem to be aware that there is one.
The top page of the Berean Beacon web site sports photographs of Richard Bennett and A.J. Krause. They look like regular guys. One could imagine spending a pleasant evening with them, if the topic of discussion were not religion.
Krause I take to be an enthusiastic new convert to Fundamentalism; allowances must be made for him. Bennett is in a different category, since he has every reason to know better. Like some other ex-priests I know, Bennett brings to mind the young fellow who, having jilted his girlfriend, now takes every opportunity to talk her down.
There is something ungentlemanly and unseemly in that.
So, they think Bennett's "testimony" doesn't quite pass the smell test either.
I've always though "Berean Beacon" to be a particularly odd citation for Protestants. The Bereans are mentioned in Acts 17:10-14, as being "more open-minded than those [Jews] in Thessalonika, and they welcomed the word very readily; every day they studied the scriptures to check whether it was true." Now, scholars tell us that the letters to the Thessalonians are the earliest-written books of the New Testament. Therefore the only scriptures available to the Bereans were the books of the Old Testament. Being Hellenistic Jews, the Bereans would have used a Greek (Septuagint) version of the OT, which contains 2 Maccabees, so they probably would have believed in Purgatory and prayers for the dead, both very Catholic and not very Protestant ideas. Moreover, it is in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 that we read: "Stand firm, then, brothers, and keep the traditions that we [Paul] taught you, whether by word of mouth or letter". Which pretty much knocks sola scriptura into a cocked hat.
As for the breviary, anyone who is interested can visit an online version at Universalis and judge for themselves how much scripture is involved in saying the daily office, and whether or not it is taken "out of context".
Please note that Catholics Answers said EXACTLY what I said they said about Bennett: that he was once a Catholic priest.
That’s all I said they said about him.
I saw nothing in the article written from the catholic site that doesn’t do more than try to rain on the mans parade. Making issue of how He sees the catholic church in end times is not the first one to say this and frankly I don’t know if I even adhere to that...but many speculate because we really don’t know yet. So this doesn’t mean he lies. Not by a long shot.
Further the Pope won’t be the anti-Christ but many say will have to do with the one world religion..and that’s posssible as is the world council of churches.
“littlefacts”...”things missing” just don’t wash either. Perhaps he is trying to avoid degrading the catholic church so avoided certain things he might otherwise say. It is speculation again.
” Something in hsi story dosn’t add up...” says nothing either..what doesn’t add up?
It’s all iffy’s and uncertaintanties in their critique of the man. Nothing there substantial at all.