I kind of saw this pattern in my own country. First people leave the Catholic Church , then become protestant, stop celebrating Christmas among other traditions and finally athiest when they see something wrong in their own evangelical church. Which is basically what happened to me. I always thought that becoming a protestant is a step away from athiesm. It is worth noticing that the first European countries to become protestant have the highest proportion of atheism nowadays. Fortunately for me I came back to the Catholic Church. One day I was invited to the Eucharist by my then girlfriend and now wife 22 years ago. I literally saw Jesus in the Holy Eucharist and thought of myself unworthy of Him, I literally saw how The Son Of Man was there in that humble host. Giving Himself in the humblest way possible. That was the beginning of my reconversion.
Thank you for your story God bought me back also I saw Blood flowing from the chalice the priest was thrown in the confessional by me and Gods cleansing peace returned Praise God all Holy
France was a Roman Catholic country that turned atheist during the French Revolution. Democracy came out of Protestant countries. Catholic countries gave us fascism and strong communist parties. After World War Two France and Italy had the strongest Communist parties in the free world. Catholic countries gave us tyrants such as Marcos, Franco, Mussolini, Samosa, Batista, Mobuto, and Pinochet.
Aaaannnd this is why I’m catholic. This video plus Trent Horn’s on how prots are like atheists is what put me on the catholic track. With all that’s going on today I think my Protestant grandparents would have converted if they were alive.
Could you do me a favor and look up my video "the Psychology of Catholic Converts." It goes over some stuff you need to hear from the other side. Furthermore, my friend Steve Christie and I (that's who Trent Horn's video was directed at & I believe Steve was mentioned in the vid) will be responding to that in the future.
@@aGoyforJesus Why should I ever become a Protestant? I would have to give up the old Mass, the Sacraments (especially the Blessed Sacrament and Confession), Adoration, and so much more - for what? A great book I already have? A seriously flawed understanding of redemption? Nothing you could give me would equal a fraction of what I would lose.
Except the Counter-Reformation employed Greek skepticism and it seems to have caused the Englightement. Also, Europeans got tired of fighting wars and putting people to death over these matters. That has to be factored in. One last thing, this is like, from a Protestant perspective, blaming the abused spouse for breaking up the family.
@@aGoyforJesus the prot reformation is the reason for the existence for both the counter reformation and the deaths in the religious wars. You point to blame symptoms in order to defend the cause.
This is GREAT. I'm writing a book on this and I came to the same conclusion but I did it in the context of the apparitions of the Sacred Heart to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, which stressed the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The turning away from the Eucharist and the happened in Oct. 31, 1517 at the start of the Protestant Reformation. And if you think about the Fatimah Apparitions, the Miracle of the Sun happened on the inverse of that date, Oct. 13th, 1917. But the Apparitions of the Sacred Heart and Fatima are against the rise of secularism. While secularism was the attack on God's Family, Communism is the attack on all families. This was very helpful. I just ordered the book he was referencing to use in my own book.
I came to the same conlclusion as well while reading through Cadrnial St.John Henry Newman's "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine." If you haven't read that book I highly recommend it. When is your book going to come out?
@@maciejpieczula631 I will definitely read that. Momma Mary has helped me through everything more quickly than I expected. I hope to be finished in another few months. I have a literary agent liked my work in another genre, but it really depends on how quickly I can get the ball rolling on the publishing side of things. It's one thing to write a book and a different kind of challenge to get it published for a new writer. Please pray for me. I consecrated to Mary and St. Joseph this year and I really believe they've been helping things fall into place.
Check out the comment in this video by the user named "Intellectual Conservatism", he cites many authors which might also be useful for you. I wish I could copy comments or their links on mobile
@@Louis.R sacred scripture is the trustworthy authority. As Luther himself said at the Diet of Worms “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.” And nobody then - and nobody since - has refuted this statement.
The idea that the Reformation led to secularism is hardly controversial among historians, and it is not a novel idea. Here are some scholars to look into: Charles Taylor, Brad S. Gregory, Carole Cusack, Carlos Eire, Mark Greengrass, Eamon Duffy, Richard Rex, Michael Questier, Peter Marshall, Ethan Shagan. The first three names on this list are from my own study, but the rest were passed along to me by a historian who likewise noted that this thesis is neither novel nor controversial.
Funnily enough, I came across that idea from reading a book by Ben Shapiro. That was something new. I've been meaning to read Charles Taylor's book. Gonna have to get it soon.
I think there are a few things that Charles Taylor doesn’t really consider, and frankly he is somewhat out of his area of competence on this issue. 1) the arrival of secularism happened independent and prior to the reformation, 2) the medieval papacy did more to destroy confidence in the church than any Protestant, 3) the Protestant tradition itself largely adopted an anti-revolutionary political theory, 4) the greatest violent revolutions have occurred in non-Protestant countries. Suan, perhaps you can read the anti-revolutionary works of Kuyper and Van Prinsterer. I would like to see you interact with them.
@@WarDaddy2.0 Regarding your fourth point, I would contend that revolution occurred more in Catholic nations due to the simple fact that Protestant nations had (for the most part) already embraced many liberal ideas, particularly in the empowerment of the educated middle-class (who spearheaded nearly modern revolution.) Very few revolutions are from the agrarian working-class. The pattern is the educated middle-class covet power in a nation and seek to overthrow the traditional institutions of the church/nobility/agriculture. by the 18th and 19th centuries this traditional style of organizing society was really only present in Catholic and Orthodox nations in Europe. The revolution in France was primarily due to the fact that the educated and philosophical-politically interested middle class had no representation. The 19th century wars in Italy were spurred by middle-class nationalists who wanted to create a unified state conforming to liberal ideals. The revolution in Russia was also orchestrated by the lowborn but wealthy educated middle-class. Germany was by-and-large spared general liberal reformation due to the simple fact that both Catholic and Lutheran princes were able to crush the liberal revolutionaries by force of arms.
@@WarDaddy2.0 Yes secularization was an aspect of the Italian Renaissance, this is true. But Protestantism by destroying the unity of the church and by paving the way for the rise of the modern nation state as an entity disconnected from the Roman church accelerated the process of secularization. Otherwise if the Church had retained its universal standing the church would have been in a position to mediate the process and help to create a form of secularization that would have not been so anti- Christian. Protestant countries are the most secularized regions on earth. Without Protestantism Western Culture would still be Christian particularly in a cultural sense. I don't see how you can say that the papacy did more to destroy confidence in the church than Protestantism. I don't recall any popes questioning the authority of the pope while in Prot that is exactly what they did. Confidence in the church would have worked itself out in time . The church was already in the process of a true reformation, not one based on heresy and division.
Not just secularism but also the moral relativism. The theological relativism of Protestantism led to relativism downstream in morality, culture, politics, etc.
Former Lutheran now becoming Catholic here......This is very insightful. I was thinking the other day about how Catholic truths on praying to the saints, holy water, and the like which presupposes a uniting of the material and spiritual...where Protestants by and large reject the metaphysical aspect of God inhabiting and working regularly through the natural, demonstrated by the rejection of the Sacraments. It really is a completely different worldview. I can see how the Protestant sects could ultimately lead to atheism since they are already "half way there" at least metaphysically.
Martin Luther had a guilty conscience. Period. Like Judas he never was convinced his sins were pardoned and absolved in Confession. He felt he had to DO something to attain freedom from guilt. Then, he misunderstand and misinterpreted - man is saved by grace alone and not by works done in and by faith. He had a lustful nature and even had sex with a nun! St Francis of Assisi also went to Rome to meet the pope for wrongs he experienced in the Church. Did he breakaway from the Church. Neither did St Catherine of Sienna. So what gives with Martin Luther?
Luther was astonishingly arrogant, He could have been a great reformer but he thought he knew better irregardless of the 1,500 years of Christian wisdom that came before him. I still reel at the colossal arrogance of a man who changed scripture to suit his viewpoint... St. Francis and St. Catherine were humble. That's why they were truly great.
@@Peter.4 the saddest part? This will not convince any prot. They just say 'we're not following Luther but our interpretation of the Bible'. And think they won.
@@SneakyEmu i mean even the worst popes did not do heresy and dis not have the arrogance to take out books from the bible. If we are talking about popes vs luther, luther clearly wins out in the most pride competition
Thank you for acknowledging that Protestantism is its own religion! It is not Christianity. Just as Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witness are not Christians either. Yes, we must preach to them in charity and evangelize them to become part of the body of Christ, amen. But they are not a part of Christ’s Church.
Yes, a Protestant told me recently they aren’t being “spiritually fed” at their new church … A) it’s not about you B) come to the Catholic Church where we get fed from God every week (literally)
@Caratacus Not exactly. If you have been baptized you are technically a Christian. What you answered is question of belief which is a standard Protestant error.
@Caratacus I guess if you don't believe in the Holy Spirit, like an atheist, then sure it's mechanical. Christ taught: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God". Christian parents as part of their duty and desire for their child baptize their children to initiate them as Christians, calling on the Trinity in the exact same way as Christ commanded: "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". You are confusing Baptism with a living belief in Christ and putting the cart before the horse. Baptism comes first and Faith follows, not the other way around. No Christian ever believed that Baptism was "mechanistic" before the last few hundred years so it's a man-made tradition, not from God. Baptized people can become atheists since everyone always has free-will. There are no guarantees that anyone will not turn their back in God. Adam didn't even need to be Baptized because he was with God before the fall and yet he still sinned so people always have the ability to reject God no matter if they are Baptized, un-Baptized, or Pre-Baptism.
@Caratacus You are creating some idiosyncratic/sectarian understanding of Christianity that isn't grounded within Apostalic Christianity. Yes the criteria for being considered a member of the Body of Christ is literally Baptism. It's not some intellectual act of faith that is completely subjective and has no grounding in Scripture or Tradition. Baptism isn't some act of faith on the part of the person. It is a profession of faith on the part of the parents to raise their child within Apostalic Christianity as passed down consistently and perfectly in tact from one generation to the next. Baptism is an imparting to the person of the grace of God, resulting from Christ, through the Holy Spirit. You are trying to intellectualize something as if it comes from man when it is a gift of grace that comes from God.
As clear as daylight. Obviously Protestantism is a type of Rationalism, which leads to subjectivism , which leads to individualism, which leads to a break up of unity and communion
I've thought about that - how Protestants are a bit Saddusaical in their denial of the more supernatural aspects of the religion. Everything is merely symbolic or metaphorical. It's not a shock that many Protestant churches become more like self-help seminars - The morality of Christianity is retained but its mystical qualities are downplayed or outright removed.
I think it's true. It turned Christianity into what I want it to be. Morality (or what's supposed to be moral) fell by the wayside and stuff wasn't right or wrong to them anymore. Everyone was their own church and interpreter. Morality was watered down and became subjective. And eventually led to secular culture claiming we don't really care about morality in general, going so far as to not even believe in morality.
I believe the early Protestant churches were quite traditional and faithfully led in some circles compared to now, but it did give the precedence and perceived "justice" of rebellion from tradition, the Christian Faith, and almost everything the Church embodies.
"Protestant Reformation is responsible for Secularism." False. Man, it's so disappointing to hear this false information. 1) The Protestant Reformation did NOT push for abandoning traditions. It is an objective lie to say otherwise. The intent and execution was such: Keep the traditions that scripture teaches. That is it. Sonna mentions Zwingli - yes, he was a radical. He intended to take his beliefs beyond Sacred Scripture. Guess what? Luther rebuked that! AGAIN, the point was not to abandon tradition but to criticize the Pope and his doctrinal exploits. 2) People have been killing each other BEFORE there was a "universal authority." People have killed for that "universal authority." That universal authority has also killed people. The PR didn't start the murder of other individuals for their beliefs. Catholics were pretty good at that too. 3) The Reformation was not a fundamental break from "the" Christian tradition. It was a fundamental break from the exploitive practices of "A CHRISTIAN" tradition - which most reasonable Catholics today would say was the right and dutiful thing for Martin Luther to do. It's hilarious to me that the one tradition that brags about assembling the Biblical canon is very eager to ignore it - which is precisely what Luther was fighting. He wanted to bring the focus back on Sacred Scripture - and because that would have obliterated the money making doctrines of his day. 1 Tim. 6:10, gentlemen. Martin Luther had nothing to lose. The Pope had everything to lose. I really do love Mr. Fradd's channel and he's helped me a lot in regards to understanding Catholicism. But, if we're going to be intellectually honest, you have to appropriately represent the side you're criticizing.
@@mike-cc3dd Also false. In fact, the dispute in Antioch is a great example of subjectivity in theology and itself had result in different view points. The PR isn't responsible for Secularism. Atheism is responsible for Secularism. Both hard and soft secularism reject faith. Obviously the Reformation DID NOT do that.
Pope Luther was not the embodiment of the reformation. The Protestant revolt included the Lutherans, calvinists, Anglicans, anabaptist, and every other sect that arose during that time period. This plurality of Christianities could not stand together like the pre reformation church did. Thus resulting in the numerous religious wars. They're only solution was religious toleration, seperation of church and state, and no universal true church. A relativistic Christianity with divided power that decreased every century. Christ was fully dethroned from society becuase no one could agree on his gospel. Thus giving way to the Secular State.
@@Daniel_Abraham1099 Lol "Pope Luther." How... elementary. Naturally the Reformation had many participants. That in no way changes the fact that Luther's goal was NOT to get rid of tradition, but to challenge the doctrines Catholics willingly exploited for monetary gain. Regarding religious wars, it's not like the Catholic church was inexperienced in that area. The Reformation was just an excuse for the Catholic Church to continue perpetuating violence on earth. Finally, no, Christ has not been dethroned in any way, shape or form. You ought keep that kind of blasphemy to yourself.
@@coffeeanddavid I did not say Christ has been dethroned in the general sense. But thanks to Religious indifference of post reformation Europe and America, the majority of people have dethroned him from their hearts. And consequently give no honor due to him in matters of divine law. When America saw it fit to legalize abortion and homosexuality, did they once consult the Scripture in their deliberation? Nope thanks to the supposed "Christian" constitution and the "Christian" Founding fathers. Christ has no say in our state and look at where it has lead us. As for Luther, heretics have been challenging the church since the New testement. And it only comes in the guise of some rando, who claims Divine authority from God to tell the church she has erred. Luther may have been deluded into thinking once everyone had a Bible in their hands, the true gospel of Lutheranism would be discovered. Unfortunately for Luther, he was completely niave. If he had read the early Church fathers like St. Vincent of Lerins who wrote his Commonitory in AD 434, he would have known better than to fracture the church, rather than STAYING within it to reform. I realize the church needed reform, but to split the church into pieces was a much greater sin, than a few corrupt Popes. Thats why MANY other Catholic reformation saints are celebrated because they brought reform without splitting the church. ruclips.net/video/xHjVsNFE60U/видео.html&ab_channel=RyanReeves If we can and must hold the Magisterium to our own interpretation of Scripture, then Protestants can be justified in separating from the Catholic Church in protest until the Magisterium conforms to their interpretation of Scripture. But if we must submit our interpretation of Scripture to that of the Magisterium, then Protestants were not justified in placing their own interpretation of Scripture above that of the Magisterium, and are obliged before God in humility and repentance to be reconciled to the Catholic Church and submit to her teaching authority. St. Vincent then provides the answer to his question: "For this reason-because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation. (p. 5)" His point is that because of the depth of Scripture due to its divine quality, not all persons interpret it in the same sense. In fact, there are, according to St. Vincent, almost as many interpretations as there are interpreters. When these interpretations are contrary to those decreed by general councils or taught by the consent of the Church Fathers, they are invariably heretical,
"Martín Luther wanted to preserve biblical traditions" Proceeds to negate the authority of sevens books, calls the epistle of James as "having nothing of the nature of the gospel", and tries to reject Revelation. Cool, at least he tried.
I contend that first with Huss, or then with Luther, if the Pope and Magisterium of the Church had listened to their scriptural calls for reform that the reformation would not have happened as it has. Huss wouldn't have been burned at the stake, Luther would have remained an Augustinian Friar, the abuse of indulgences would have ended, the people would have gained access to God's Word in language they understood (which I notice is now an emphasis among faithful Catholics, reading and knowing the bible) and Christianity would be a much more united place. Luther got nasty and vehement towards the Pope because of the deaf ear his concerns were falling upon. And now, if Luther were to return from the grave, who would be more in line with Catholic teaching? The German bishops or Luther? Pope Francis or Luther? The LGBTQ+ mass or a current confessional Lutheran (not the ELCA) divine service?
Well it wasnt just indulges he was teaching was it? He was teaching faith alone - never mind the acts that go with faith. Then there’s the foolishness with sola scriptura etc. lets admit it, luther had the sin of pride. Its what got lucofer thrown out of heaven. I mean padre pio and st. Francis of assisi criticized the churh but they didnt peddle any heresies doing it.
@@markv1974 as I read scripture, I find Luther was correct in criticizing indulgences, and the need to test every teaching and tradition against scripture. Luther, you, & I are guilty of pride. I notice the Catholic apologists try to defend Catholic doctrine using scripture. Why? Because it's God's authoritative revelation. You might say "scripture alone."
Luther was against far more than just indulgences. It is a well promulgated myth that if the church had simply ended indulgences then Luther would have "remained" an obedient servant of the church. That simplification also ignores the fact that Luther was not the only one advocating reformation at that time. Heresies had been a problem since the beginning of the church, but by the renaissance there was a growing interest among some to return to what they saw as a "purer" form of Christianity based on scripture and rejecting tradition.
There was once an abusive dad who beat his wife a bunch. He kicked her out of the house with their children, and although she was a model of charity and grace, their children grew up with a hatred of men and became raging feminists. They founded fourth-wave feminism Do you think it would be right if the abusive man said to his wife, “your protests of me caused fourth wave feminism”?
“We don’t need the institution, we don’t need the tradition”-said no reformer ever. The reformers believed they were *recovering* authority, hence why Luther and Calvin labor to show how what they taught is present in the fathers Wright traces the “I just wanna go to heaven when I die” stuff to *medieval Catholicism*, not Protestantism. Dante, for example. And also, you’ve misunderstood Paley’s watchmaker argument. It’s not a “we don’t know therefore God did it” argument, or “God needed to supply the gap in the natural.” That’s Dawkins’ misrepresentation. It’s a teleological argument-that the world shows the marks of intelligence through its order. That’s why people still used Paley’s argument who were evolutionists. Divine Command theory-didn’t start with Protestants. William of Ockham. Hobbes-“Aristotle was a tool for the Pope.” Great. Scholastic Reformed and Lutheran traditions? Heavily use Aristotelian categories of primary and secondary causes
I agree with you, as someone whose not Catholic yet Christian. I believe it’s a big jump to say Protestantism caused Secularism, especially when so many different movements were cited in this clip. Though I do understand the argument. Protestantism brought about/was apart of the many movements that did away with tradition and sought to reestablish what tradition had built up. Since this was starting from ground zero, it was young and splintered, never fully developing into what it needed to be to stand the wave of Secularism that’s come about.
@@MechaMan3451 No, Protestantism didn’t seek to start from the ground up. The Radical Reformation did (the anabaptists), but Lutherans and Reformed Protestants always distanced themselves from that.
@@anglicanaesthetics Well I didn’t. First off let’s clarify terms. It wasn’t a reform of the Church, it was a divorce from her. A revolt from the Divinely established and authoritative Church Jesus started. To be fair the moral corruption in the Church AND her clergy then as well as now obscure that fact. In fact, those of us Catholics who take Christ seriously and are sickened by our leadership from the top down have a level of understanding of at least some of the legitimate objections they had. But we come to the same conclusion we always have. Jesus started one Church teaching one Truth and one worship. To borrow a phrase, here we stand. We can do no other. Here’s the theology. Jesus is both Divine and human. His Church is His Body. Therefore His Church has a Divine side which is perfect and a human side which is not. So we cling to the Divine and resist the human evil in our midst. We have no option to leave Jesus because of Judas.
I'm a Protestant and opposed to secularism, so I should be inclined to dislike this video, but for some reason I find the story of the historical development from the Reformation to the Enlightenment and modernity as both compelling and fascinating. To me, it makes a lot of sense seeing Luther telling the Catholic Church at Worms basically, "I get to interpret Scripture for myself and I have to go with what my conscience is telling me," as a kind of strange precursor to the modern gender-confused person "interpreting" their feelings as indicative that they are a woman trapped in a man's body. Obviously Luther would find the transgender ideology radically incoherent, but I don't think you get that ideology without the Protestant Reformation (and a lot of other historical developments which follow from that) happening first.
I'm not extremely well read, and I'm not super smart. I do try to see how one thing leads to another. Real things should have a consistency and coherence like a good dough. I was raised Methodist if that means anything to anyone anymore. The John 6:66 + Luke 22:19 = the True Presence. I don't see how anyone who claims to read the Bible literally can see it any other way. Also, there's Jesus' prayer from John 17. He prayed that we would be one in Him as He was one with the Father. Every protestant denomination fractures nearly with every major generation. Methodists became United Methodists, now United Methodists appear to be fracturing over LGBTQ lines. Catholics appear to be on the verge of a schism... but from what I can see the foundations of doctrine are still there.
Voltaire was not merely pro-secularist. He was pro-relativist. That pretty clear from "Candid." His negative view of religion (particularly Christianity) is abundantly clear (not to mention mocking).
And, of course, by extension, the catastrophic ecological effects of that rapid development which today threaten to trigger the next great extinction event.
@@delsydebothom3544 problem is that in most Christian Conservative circles, Catholic and Protestant alike, climate alarmism is treated like a conspiracy theory and not many in that space believe there will be "the next great extinction event". So the conservative Protestent still wins LOL
@@ugandancatholicguy Most Christian conservatives remain entranced by the sort picture painted by an earlier form of progressivism--the one that produced images of man's tacit victory over nature like those found, for instance, in Disney's Carousel of Progress ride. On the darker side of that particular zeitgeist, it is the same form of progressivism that resulted in the violent displacement of American Indians, or the anti-miscegenation laws that first show up in the 17th century. Really, conservative Christians, at least in the United States, generally embrace progressivism. There is just a buffer or delay of several generations, with the upshot that conservative Christians embrace the cultural outcome of progressive thought as it stood in earlier stages of its development.
@@delsydebothom3544 you seem to be implying that, ironically, it is the most Christian of the Christian community that will realise the end of the world too late?
@@ugandancatholicguy The sort of Christian of western civilization who identifies or is identified as "conservative", most often is not the "most Christian". Neither are those identified as "liberal". At least, if we are speaking in historical terms, both of these groups are fairly well distant in political thought from most Christians of Antiquity and the Middle Ages.
I came to the same conclusion while reading Cardinal St.John Henry Newman's "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine." I would even go as far as to say Protestantism is responsible for the post-modernist movement.
As I’ve seen it, “the Left” is a political commitment to change, with no End to a for and no commitment to any step along the changes. So, in a sense, as protestantism leads to secularism, it’s the “change” which is indicative of the Left. Nationalism, in that sense, was secular, which is how it can become socialism in a couple hundred years and then most of the Jews in Europe die. Christian Nationalism is also a step, of a totally secular globalism back into a United Christianity
During the 18th and 19th centuries nationalism wasn't seen in the modern view as "pride in one's nation," but rather as a philosophy that sought to replace the traditional institutions of monarchy/church/nobility/pastoralism with that of a central ethno-national state. This ideology usually came from the educated upper-middle class, who by the 19th century were economically powerful and covetous of the privileged position held by the church/nobility. The main values that came along with this were often middle-class political representation, government education, industrialization, and ethno-statism.
In some way things started in the middle ages by the intellectual struggle whether uniersalia (abstract things) do exist outside of the mind or not, and if so, to what extent. .
Is my brother in Christ suggesting that the split between Protestants and Catholics justified *killing* one another? Who killed who first... the Catholic onto the Protestant?
It could be true that Protestantism is responsible for secularism, but remember that Catholicism is responsible for the protestant reformation. Remember that protestants aren't protesting against Christ or the Bible but the Catholic doctrine, which blends pagan beliefs, and moved away from the scriptures. Why do we fail to see how our focus shifted from Christ and God to choosing the right saint to fulfil our personal needs and such ideas? While Protestant apologetics explain and preach the gospel to the world of unbelievers, Catholic apologetics try to justify pagan superstition and unbiblical ideas to the protestants. This is not to say that there aren't any missionaries. Also, realise how we justify Catholicism and defend the ideas unaccepted by protestants based on the sayings and writings of other Catholics but not the Bible. Emphasis on physical actions, deeds and some people over the primary focus of the Bible and Christ is something to be examined and rectified. I like to believe that all Catholics are not that way, but it is sad to see people like Suan talk this way.
@@t.l.ciottoli4319 Correct, filioque destroyed the balance of the Trinity; it makes the Holy Spirit the lesser of the Three. Many theological errors flow from this - it is too much to narrate here. Ultimately you get humanism and secularism (atheism) - man's worship of himself and the world, i.e. Satanism.
Most people who think they have rejected God have really only rejected a caricature of him. - Rich Hannon When Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses in 1517, did he intend to try to reform the church? The papacy had always had its detractors but, from the fourth century A.D. until Luther posted his theses, the vast majority of people in western Europe used the phrase “the church” to refer to an ORGANIZATION with headquarters in Rome. I think Luther wanted to reform the organization. Did he succeed? Yes and No. The organization was reformed to some degree and it can be argued that those reforms either would not have occurred or would not have occurred as soon as they did if it had not been for the discussions and political agitation that was set in motion by the posting of the 95 Theses. Some people prefer to think those reforms would have occurred anyway and hesitate to give Luther any credit for setting events in motion to that effect. Also some of the reforms Luther seems to have wanted were not adopted by the papacy. On the other hand, the posting of the 95 Theses set in motion a chain of events that resulted in a concept of the nature of the church that may have existed before 1517 among Waldensians, Lollards or Hussites but that became much more widespread after that date, namely, the concept that the church may be organization but that, because the true church (or what might be called “the essential church”) consists of believers in the Messiah, no organization of the church IS the church. Using this definition, it could be said that the church (the believers) - at least in some places - DID adopt some of the reforms Luther had envisioned. It is interesting how different definitions of words lead to differing conclusions. For just over 1,000 years (800 - 1806) a large portion of western Europe was ruled by a series of about 50 emperors. The empire seems to have been considered “Roman” primarily in the sense that the emperors were politically or religiously aligned with the various popes of that era. Charles V was emperor at the time of the edict in 1526 granting religious freedom to each member state of the empire. The edict was voted (unanimously) at a diet (conference) at Speyer in what is now Germany. In 1929, Charles V convened another diet at Speyer for the purpose of repealing the edict of 1526. On April 19, the majority voted to repeal the earlier edict. The word “protestant” was first used in connection with the protest of several German “princes”* against the decision of the majority. On April 25, the protesting princes issued a formal protest that included the statement, “...in matters of conscience the majority has no power”. This principle has sometimes been articulated as the doctrine that the legitimate role of kings and civil governments does not include promoting religious doctrines or practices or enforcing religious prohibitions. In their effort to secure religious freedom for themselves, however, theists made a significant blunder, namely, by defining “religion” so narrowly as to include only theistic doctrines, practices and prohibitions, they opened the door to civil government promoting everything from animism (the worship of the physical universe or objects within the universe) to “secular humanism” (“secular” in the sense of not being based on a theistic view of the universe). These agnostic or atheistic philosophies are “secular” only in the sense implied by the too-narrow definition of “religion” but, together such philosophies are now viewed as “secularism”. If Suan Sonna or other people prefer a “simple” view of reality in which there is (or should be) only one “right” way to understand or worship the creator, the argument in this video might seem persuasive. In actual application, however, it tends toward a theocratic version of Pax Romana (the Roman peace) in which a semblance of peace is imposed by sufficient coercion to virtually eliminate arguments. It is understandable that some people would prefer a semblance of peace, even if coercion is the tool to achieve it. Other people, however, still prefer to believe that, even if there is only one “right” way to understand and worship the creator, people (or at least adults) should be free to explain and worship him as they see fit - or to discard theism if they aren’t acquainted with an explanation of God that makes sense to them. *Landholders whose titles had been inherited or bestowed by royalty
Fundamentally the argument presented here is a straw man. It's also historically inaccurate. Read the magisterial reformers along with the Westminster Confession of faith along with other early protestant confessions. They all have a very high view of tradition, historical theology, council's, and especially church authority and duty to preserve God's truth. There was nothing secular or liberal about reforming views of the church that one thought has exceeded or contradicts God's very own word. However, if we were to look at the recent history of the Roman Catholic Church we can see where ideas such as evolution and others have become gradually accepted and/or tolerated in the Roman church. Both Vatican council's in one form or another revolved around liberalism and the second council embraced much more of a secularist view than did the first. However, despite scientific claims of the early 20th century, men like Machen and Warfield in my own tradition (Presbyterian) frequently tackle head on the rise of a secular worldview. One can balance reason, logic, history, church authority, and the absolute and final authority of Scripture and not succumb to gradual secularism. As a matter of fact, it's even necessary to do so.
Thank you. I'm not too clear on the reasons for the Vatican Councils, but I do know that the Reformed tradition is not fiercely individualistic, and we don't push history and authority to the wayside. He said the Protestants rejected authority when really, we simply disagreed on who the authority is.
@@NnannaO right it appears suan was arguing against the radical anabaptist movement if anything. Calvin, Luther, and others all frequently explored the writings of church fathers and appealed and taught about church authority. But that authority is always and only subject to God's word. Suan seems to be arguing more so against a radical and unfaithful view of authority which all together rejects church authority and tradition.
They all started the secularism. Because individuals could be wrong, instead "Securus judicat orbis terrarum" of Augustine. In protestant views, every time you disagree you form a new "church"; instead, catholics we fight for absolute truth that should be universally believe until it is settled. Protestants atomized society, and individuals are free to grab for any ideology.
@@RicardoGarcia-ib8ro No. We do not. There is a variety of different views even within individual churches and especially in larger denominations. I will concede, however, that there are unjustified splits in the Protestant church. It is also important to note that we recognize others as brothers and sisters in Christ who hold to the true gospel but disagree on secondary issues (Protestant denominations). Our acceptance of them as siblings does not necessarily mean that we have to turn a blind eye to false doctrine. Any church can and has been wrong about things because it is run by sinful human beings. Truth be told, there are a number of different views even within the Catholic Church. You guys aren't monolithic and we aren't as divided as you claim. The Catholic Church is plainly wrong about some things the Bible teaches, and I believe the only reason the only reason many Catholics don't see that is because they decide to bow to their traditions before the acknowledge God's authority.
@@NnannaO One concept you mentioned is wrong. The Catholic church is not a book religion. It is apostolic. So the interpretation of the bible by definition is according the patristic authority. The same wich, without it, no inerrancy criteria could be attributed to the bible. If the Catholic church has no magisterial innerancy, the bible also doesn't have it. It is true that catholic are not completely united. Because not every doctrine is definitly defined, so in that matter people are free to believe what they want. An in those affairs are division, most of them theologically very minor. Today most of the people is confused, mostly because a poor theological formation, rather than troubles with itself.
Protestantism is stop on the way to atheism. Not everybody stays on the train for the entire ride-some get off at Lutherville or Baptistburg, but it’s easier to reboard the train from those locations.
Characterizing Protestantism in this way is not charitable, nor is it accurate. Conservative Protestants do not define 'sola scriptura' in the way portrayed here or by other Catholic apologists. I could go on. Also, 'Liberals' and secularists can be found in liberal Catholicism and Protestantism. To blame Protestantism for secularism (have we looked at our own house here?) is paint with a very broad brush. Not impressed with his reasoning.
@Roger Mills the definition is flawed. therefore the conclusion is as well. The Catholic Church has enough division. Of course, most Catholic lamestream media/apologists/apologist ministries don't want to talk about that. Ask Patrick Coffin.
You are looking at the point with no sense of nuance. Yes, individual Protestant communions have and are still firmly conservative. But these are not, and I am sure you will agree with me, the majority. Do liberals and even secularists exist in the Roman church? Of course, but they are bound by the central institution of the church. The countless splintered Protestant groups by and large have no central authority to declare what is heretical and what is godly. In short, Protestant churches are far more susceptible to conforming to worldly values and interests within the society they inhabit. Need an example? I implore you to look for yourself at Protestant and Catholic churches within large urban centers. Look at how many Protestant churches fly "pride" flags. Compare that you Catholic churches. The latter will be a value of 0. Even conservative Protestant churches tend to exist mainly in relatively conservative areas. Their values are a reflection of the community in which they inhabit.
But who created Freemasonry? You should check out a book called The Plot Against the Church by Maurice Pinay. It explains everything. You can find free PDF copies online.
At the core of it, I think the spirit of Protestantism, and not necessarily Protestants themselves, naturally leads down to the path of secularism and Freemasonry. It’s an interesting conversation which raises a lot of shackles among Protestants, but you just can’t deny how many Protestant pastors/ leaders are also Freemasons and think it is perfectly compatible with Christian faith.... Now that having been said, many many Catholics are more Protestant than Catholic and are also Freemasons themselves. Look at the Jesuits.... And many Protestants are more Catholic than than some Catholics and Protestants.... It’s why I don’t like calling the very good Protestants as “Protestants or Prots” ... I prefer to call good Prots as ‘Evangelicals’ 😊
@@joecoolmccall you’re either a troll or one of the most ignorant people on RUclips? Are you so triggered by talk of actual organized men who hate Christianity that instead of arguing against his proposition you just try to mock it?
Yes. Suan taking a class his freshman year in college does not make him a scholar. The idea that Protestantism leads to Secularism is a tired old idea that vastly oversimplifies a complex subject. Matt, you can do better.
There's a difference between disagreeing on fundamental truths and disagreeing on things that really don't matter... How many protestant sects disagree on the fundamental catholic truth that Jesus is present in the Eucharist? That's different between disagreeing with the pope on Joe Biden being a "good catholic"... The difference matters.
Maybe just maybe if the catholic church had not deviated from the Gospel and things like indulgences, killing heretics at the stake then the reformers would have not needed to protest. Just a thought.
But who was responsible for the Protestant reformation?🤔🤔🤔 Protestants thought that there were good reasons to separate. Catholics did not. Seems like this discussion just shifts the responsibility for society’s problems over to the Protestants. Let’s stop blaming and take responsibility for ourselves 🙏🏼
Bad take on history. It was not until the French Revolution that the church had no authority in regards to the state. Even many early colonies in America were interwoven with church authority, protestant authority at that. Catholic France is to blame imo, if you want to get simplistic
@@Louis.R still hold. A pious king doesn't have much swing when his head is gone. Unless you want to argue that France was no longer Catholic by that point. But none of that changes my premise.
@@nicford1486 That is indeed what I want to argue. The French monarchs had been fighting back heresies since well after the Edict of Nantes, but the repercussions of that Edict, and the Wars of Religion more generally, put the Catholic Church and monarchy on notice that their time was coming to an end, if not by Protestants, then by Revolutionaries influenced by the same, anti-Catholic, anti-hierarchy spirit.
Sorry…love you brothers (really appreciate Pints)…but I find this clip preposterous. Sounds arrogant and presumptuous as well as a major oversimplification. It’s like a family and the father is abusive so the wife leaves him and the man blames her for the family falling apart…actually not just their family, but all families that fall apart. All because she wouldn’t go along with things. Not saying the wife was perfect, but that logic doesn’t add up. I love my Catholic & Protestant brothers & I believe God has given us minds to think and process…and it’s ok to disagree, but a dissenting view doesn’t ultimately lead to secularism. May you all experience the love of Jesus today family of God!!
it didnt even start with the protestant reformation. the reformation grew out of renaissance humanism which started well before, and the refusal of the church leaders to correct their unchristlike ways. also the catholic church could have probably found a path to being in communion once again with the eastern church by then, but instead it abused them at stood by when the ottoman empire destroyed them turning what is now turkey into Muslim majority.
@@namapalsu2364 You can think it’s true if you want, but to me the logic is an overreach. “I drink milk ever day including Friday. The garbage truck comes every Friday. These must be related. Yeah…no.
I enjoy both of these guys channels online but this interpretation is too simplistic. its one thing to say the Reformation open the door to unintended consequences but it's another to put it on their feet as their responsibility or moral responsibility. Because we can say the same thing with the Constitution of the United States or separation from church and state all these had unintended consequences as well, namely secularism. but it was the enlightenment that was the driving force and was responsible for secularism. Isn't nominalism a precondition to secularism? nominalism is an opposing worldview that trys to destroy universals, Aristotelian metaphysics and so on. Yet that philosophy was produced by one of your own, A franciscan friar in good standing with the church, William of Ockham. would we say then Catholics or responsible for secularism and materialism? One should read the scholar Tom Holland's Dominion and realize secularism started way before the Reformation. But that said I could just simplify and say Catholicism was responsible for secularism. because when the Roman papacy rejected the truth of Luther's Reformation they made a great division within the church and did not support the truth of the Reformation. therefore forced the Protestants (true Christians) out of the instituted Church to flee which then produced an environment where faithful Christians outside their instituted Church were forced to make individual Church bodies, which allowed unbelievers around them in countries to use that to their advantage to reject the authority of the church because of the fragment and division of Christianity and produced secularism. But if that's too simplistic well I'd say the same for this video.
Luther wasn't right though. All he did was noticed some humans acting badly (as humans often do) and then that means the Church is bad? Luther is someone who would not have followed Jesus because he noticed Judas was bad. Sad thing is, one thing he pointed out, which was some bishop abusing indulgences, is a thousand times worse now in the Protestant age. How many "Christians" are out there on cable grifting poor people out of millions with their nonsense? Promising salvation.
@@manonthestars You said "I could just simplify and say Catholicism was responsible for secularism. because when the Roman papacy rejected the truth of Luther's Reformation they made a great division within the church" So I pointed out that Luther was wrong, which disproves your entire point.
@@nealkriesterer Nope, because then I said, "But if that's too simplistic well I'd say the same for this video." i.e calling the kettle black... which you just did. So you did miss the point. I was NOT trying to give a defense of the truthfulness of the Reformation or Luther. I was critiquing the guys reasoning and understanding of the historical events around it. What you quoted was written to show I could simplify the events through a reformed perspective and it would be untrue merely because it one dimensionalizes the historical events and also assumes certain theological views and therefore not at all convincing to the other side. That is I wrote up a strawman to show the problem with its reasoning. Thus my critique was this strawmanning was what the video also did by, presupposes Catholicism and then it simplifies/ one-dimensionalizes the historical events. Example historically Luther never wanted to leave the church he wanted to fix the issues he perceived. Like other catholic reformers in history but the pope excommunicated him because the pope strongly disagreed. It wasn't like Luther woke up one day and saw issue in the church so he's like, "screw that I'm going to start my own church." This is true irrelevant of which side is correct. The issue is not which theological view is correct, the issue is they were simplifying history which misinforms all sides. Which ever view is true, Catholicism or the Reformation the historical events are what there are. The problem is the simplification and then the interpretation from it in the video which misinforms the listeners. My focus wasn't which Christian tradition is true, my issue was them trying to connect the Reformation with secularism, as if it was a direct causation. Maybe a correlation could be argued but not causation. Also Catholicism could be true and still have unintended consequences. Or Reformation could be true and still have unintended consequences. So it is irrelevant if secularism was or wasn't caused by Luthers belief system when it comes to the truthfulness of either side. it's not a one to one like you think. Again Catholicism can be true and the video's interpretation of the historical events and secularism still can also be false. my point was on the latter not former.
@@manonthestars I understand all that. What you're not getting, is that if you can't actually make a logical argument for why someone else/some other group should be blamed...then that defeats your entire argument. This video makes a compelling case that Protestantism can be blamed for secularism. You counter with "well, you could blame anyone." But you have failed to show how anyone else could be blamed. You just assert that anyone could be blamed, without anything to back it up.
Sorry but this guy is not as clever or well-informed as he thinks he is. There are a number of errors in what he says. Be careful of giving him more credence than he deserves.
I kind of saw this pattern in my own country. First people leave the Catholic Church , then become protestant, stop celebrating Christmas among other traditions and finally athiest when they see something wrong in their own evangelical church. Which is basically what happened to me. I always thought that becoming a protestant is a step away from athiesm.
It is worth noticing that the first European countries to become protestant have the highest proportion of atheism nowadays.
Fortunately for me I came back to the Catholic Church. One day I was invited to the Eucharist by my then girlfriend and now wife 22 years ago.
I literally saw Jesus in the Holy Eucharist and thought of myself unworthy of Him, I literally saw how The Son Of Man was there in that humble host. Giving Himself in the humblest way possible.
That was the beginning of my reconversion.
Thanks for sharing your story!
Much love to you brother.
Nice story.. God bless!!
Thank you for your story God bought me back also I saw Blood flowing from the chalice the priest was thrown in the confessional by me and Gods cleansing peace returned Praise God all Holy
France was a Roman Catholic country that turned atheist during the French Revolution. Democracy came out of Protestant countries. Catholic countries gave us fascism and strong communist parties. After World War Two France and Italy had the strongest Communist parties in the free world. Catholic countries gave us tyrants such as Marcos, Franco, Mussolini, Samosa, Batista, Mobuto, and Pinochet.
Aaaannnd this is why I’m catholic. This video plus Trent Horn’s on how prots are like atheists is what put me on the catholic track. With all that’s going on today I think my Protestant grandparents would have converted if they were alive.
Could you do me a favor and look up my video "the Psychology of Catholic Converts." It goes over some stuff you need to hear from the other side.
Furthermore, my friend Steve Christie and I (that's who Trent Horn's video was directed at & I believe Steve was mentioned in the vid) will be responding to that in the future.
What “other side” do you mean?
@@johnflorio3052 from Protestants who have thought through this form of Catholic critique and have responded thoughtfully
@@aGoyforJesus Why should I ever become a Protestant? I would have to give up the old Mass, the Sacraments (especially the Blessed Sacrament and Confession), Adoration, and so much more - for what? A great book I already have? A seriously flawed understanding of redemption? Nothing you could give me would equal a fraction of what I would lose.
@@rtyria you don't have the gospel & without that you have nothing
“Protestant Reformation is RESPONSIBLE for Secularism” is something that I’ve known deep down inside just never thought of pointing it out.
Except the Counter-Reformation employed Greek skepticism and it seems to have caused the Englightement.
Also, Europeans got tired of fighting wars and putting people to death over these matters. That has to be factored in.
One last thing, this is like, from a Protestant perspective, blaming the abused spouse for breaking up the family.
Protestantism is responsible for Humanism.
@@aGoyforJesus the prot reformation is the reason for the existence for both the counter reformation and the deaths in the religious wars. You point to blame symptoms in order to defend the cause.
@David V Who here is showing hate. Maybe you for singling me out despite my post being no more or less in character than whose I respond to.
@David V I love you too brother.
"You call that a St. Benedict medal? THIS is a St. Benedict medal." -Suan apparently
😂😂👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
My kind of humor . . . thanks for the laugh.
This is GREAT. I'm writing a book on this and I came to the same conclusion but I did it in the context of the apparitions of the Sacred Heart to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, which stressed the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The turning away from the Eucharist and the happened in Oct. 31, 1517 at the start of the Protestant Reformation. And if you think about the Fatimah Apparitions, the Miracle of the Sun happened on the inverse of that date, Oct. 13th, 1917. But the Apparitions of the Sacred Heart and Fatima are against the rise of secularism. While secularism was the attack on God's Family, Communism is the attack on all families. This was very helpful. I just ordered the book he was referencing to use in my own book.
I came to the same conlclusion as well while reading through Cadrnial St.John Henry Newman's "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine." If you haven't read that book I highly recommend it.
When is your book going to come out?
@@maciejpieczula631 I will definitely read that. Momma Mary has helped me through everything more quickly than I expected. I hope to be finished in another few months. I have a literary agent liked my work in another genre, but it really depends on how quickly I can get the ball rolling on the publishing side of things. It's one thing to write a book and a different kind of challenge to get it published for a new writer. Please pray for me. I consecrated to Mary and St. Joseph this year and I really believe they've been helping things fall into place.
Check out the comment in this video by the user named "Intellectual Conservatism", he cites many authors which might also be useful for you. I wish I could copy comments or their links on mobile
@@MutohMech thank you very much. That was helpful.
@@MutohMech Intellectual Conservatism is Suan Sonna himself. The one Matt Frad interview here.
I don’t even need to watch this video to know it’s going to be a banger.
"My conscience is the only trustworthy authority!" leads straight to Nietzsche, and Nietzsche leads straight back to this subjective egoism.
"trust the authorities" leads to what?
@@aGoyforJesus One authority happens to have been founded by your titular namesake and God and remains intact, despite what many slanderers say.
@@Louis.R that's the same argument the Pharisees use, but, alas, it's not sufficient to ignore all the errors
@@aGoyforJesus good luck in your journey to the truth.
@@Louis.R sacred scripture is the trustworthy authority. As Luther himself said at the Diet of Worms “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.” And nobody then - and nobody since - has refuted this statement.
The idea that the Reformation led to secularism is hardly controversial among historians, and it is not a novel idea. Here are some scholars to look into: Charles Taylor, Brad S. Gregory, Carole Cusack, Carlos Eire, Mark Greengrass, Eamon Duffy, Richard Rex, Michael Questier, Peter Marshall, Ethan Shagan.
The first three names on this list are from my own study, but the rest were passed along to me by a historian who likewise noted that this thesis is neither novel nor controversial.
Funnily enough, I came across that idea from reading a book by Ben Shapiro. That was something new. I've been meaning to read Charles Taylor's book. Gonna have to get it soon.
I think there are a few things that Charles Taylor doesn’t really consider, and frankly he is somewhat out of his area of competence on this issue. 1) the arrival of secularism happened independent and prior to the reformation, 2) the medieval papacy did more to destroy confidence in the church than any Protestant, 3) the Protestant tradition itself largely adopted an anti-revolutionary political theory, 4) the greatest violent revolutions have occurred in non-Protestant countries. Suan, perhaps you can read the anti-revolutionary works of Kuyper and Van Prinsterer. I would like to see you interact with them.
@@WarDaddy2.0 Regarding your fourth point, I would contend that revolution occurred more in Catholic nations due to the simple fact that Protestant nations had (for the most part) already embraced many liberal ideas, particularly in the empowerment of the educated middle-class (who spearheaded nearly modern revolution.) Very few revolutions are from the agrarian working-class. The pattern is the educated middle-class covet power in a nation and seek to overthrow the traditional institutions of the church/nobility/agriculture. by the 18th and 19th centuries this traditional style of organizing society was really only present in Catholic and Orthodox nations in Europe. The revolution in France was primarily due to the fact that the educated and philosophical-politically interested middle class had no representation. The 19th century wars in Italy were spurred by middle-class nationalists who wanted to create a unified state conforming to liberal ideals. The revolution in Russia was also orchestrated by the lowborn but wealthy educated middle-class. Germany was by-and-large spared general liberal reformation due to the simple fact that both Catholic and Lutheran princes were able to crush the liberal revolutionaries by force of arms.
@@WarDaddy2.0 Yes secularization was an aspect of the Italian Renaissance, this is true. But Protestantism by destroying the unity of the church and by paving the way for the rise of the modern nation state as an entity disconnected from the Roman church accelerated the process of secularization. Otherwise if the Church had retained its universal standing the church would have been in a position to mediate the process and help to create a form of secularization that would have not been so anti- Christian. Protestant countries are the most secularized regions on earth. Without Protestantism Western Culture would still be Christian particularly in a cultural sense.
I don't see how you can say that the papacy did more to destroy confidence in the church than Protestantism. I don't recall any popes questioning the authority of the pope while in Prot that is exactly what they did. Confidence in the church would have worked itself out in time . The church was already in the process of a true reformation, not one based on heresy and division.
Not just secularism but also the moral relativism. The theological relativism of Protestantism led to relativism downstream in morality, culture, politics, etc.
Former Lutheran now becoming Catholic here......This is very insightful. I was thinking the other day about how Catholic truths on praying to the saints, holy water, and the like which presupposes a uniting of the material and spiritual...where Protestants by and large reject the metaphysical aspect of God inhabiting and working regularly through the natural, demonstrated by the rejection of the Sacraments. It really is a completely different worldview. I can see how the Protestant sects could ultimately lead to atheism since they are already "half way there" at least metaphysically.
Martin Luther had a guilty conscience. Period. Like Judas he never was convinced his sins were pardoned and absolved in Confession. He felt he had to DO something to attain freedom from guilt. Then, he misunderstand and misinterpreted - man is saved by grace alone and not by works done in and by faith. He had a lustful nature and even had sex with a nun! St Francis of Assisi also went to Rome to meet the pope for wrongs he experienced in the Church. Did he breakaway from the Church. Neither did St Catherine of Sienna. So what gives with Martin Luther?
Luther was astonishingly arrogant, He could have been a great reformer but he thought he knew better irregardless of the 1,500 years of Christian wisdom that came before him.
I still reel at the colossal arrogance of a man who changed scripture to suit his viewpoint...
St. Francis and St. Catherine were humble. That's why they were truly great.
@@Peter.4 the saddest part? This will not convince any prot. They just say 'we're not following Luther but our interpretation of the Bible'. And think they won.
I mean... Are we going to need to bring up what the Popes were also doing at the time?
@@SneakyEmu i mean even the worst popes did not do heresy and dis not have the arrogance to take out books from the bible. If we are talking about popes vs luther, luther clearly wins out in the most pride competition
I like hearing Suan! Very insightful here.
I did like this clip, yes.
Protestantism is the religion of thinking over experiencing.
Thank you for acknowledging that Protestantism is its own religion!
It is not Christianity.
Just as Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witness are not Christians either.
Yes, we must preach to them in charity and evangelize them to become part of the body of Christ, amen.
But they are not a part of Christ’s Church.
Yes, a Protestant told me recently they aren’t being “spiritually fed” at their new church … A) it’s not about you B) come to the Catholic Church where we get fed from God every week (literally)
@Caratacus Not exactly. If you have been baptized you are technically a Christian. What you answered is question of belief which is a standard Protestant error.
@Caratacus I guess if you don't believe in the Holy Spirit, like an atheist, then sure it's mechanical. Christ taught: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God". Christian parents as part of their duty and desire for their child baptize their children to initiate them as Christians, calling on the Trinity in the exact same way as Christ commanded: "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
You are confusing Baptism with a living belief in Christ and putting the cart before the horse. Baptism comes first and Faith follows, not the other way around. No Christian ever believed that Baptism was "mechanistic" before the last few hundred years so it's a man-made tradition, not from God. Baptized people can become atheists since everyone always has free-will. There are no guarantees that anyone will not turn their back in God. Adam didn't even need to be Baptized because he was with God before the fall and yet he still sinned so people always have the ability to reject God no matter if they are Baptized, un-Baptized, or Pre-Baptism.
@Caratacus You are creating some idiosyncratic/sectarian understanding of Christianity that isn't grounded within Apostalic Christianity. Yes the criteria for being considered a member of the Body of Christ is literally Baptism. It's not some intellectual act of faith that is completely subjective and has no grounding in Scripture or Tradition. Baptism isn't some act of faith on the part of the person. It is a profession of faith on the part of the parents to raise their child within Apostalic Christianity as passed down consistently and perfectly in tact from one generation to the next. Baptism is an imparting to the person of the grace of God, resulting from Christ, through the Holy Spirit. You are trying to intellectualize something as if it comes from man when it is a gift of grace that comes from God.
Suan is such a smart thinker. I’m glad that he is getting more of the spotlight. He helped bring me to Catholicism.
Properly articulated what I've come to understand since my reversion almost two years ago.
Lol
As clear as daylight. Obviously Protestantism is a type of Rationalism, which leads to subjectivism , which leads to individualism, which leads to a break up of unity and communion
I've thought about that - how Protestants are a bit Saddusaical in their denial of the more supernatural aspects of the religion. Everything is merely symbolic or metaphorical. It's not a shock that many Protestant churches become more like self-help seminars - The morality of Christianity is retained but its mystical qualities are downplayed or outright removed.
Voltaire was the French revolutionary
Wow! Dude totally hit the nail on the head
I think it's true. It turned Christianity into what I want it to be. Morality (or what's supposed to be moral) fell by the wayside and stuff wasn't right or wrong to them anymore. Everyone was their own church and interpreter. Morality was watered down and became subjective. And eventually led to secular culture claiming we don't really care about morality in general, going so far as to not even believe in morality.
I believe the early Protestant churches were quite traditional and faithfully led in some circles compared to now, but it did give the precedence and perceived "justice" of rebellion from tradition, the Christian Faith, and almost everything the Church embodies.
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 yes good point
@@t.l.ciottoli4319 a church without papism isn't the true church
@@t.l.ciottoli4319 I have but it wasn't accurate. Gotta fact check. God bless you, friend
Wowza ✌🏻 a great clip.
Hello. Recommend to you the book "The Catholic Controversy" of Francis of Sales. God bless you!
Thanks for sharing that.
Protestants: “You can’t lose your salvation, your sins glorify God’s mercy.”
Satanists: “Do what thou wilt.”
You sound an awful lot like the objector Paul anticipates in Romans 6:1.
Really not the same things at all
@@eg4848 yes it is. Both encourage to break the law. When Protestants say that they mean to go and sin and no consequences will happen.
I don't think that's what most of our protestant cousins believe.
@@NewNoise1 I've never heard a prot say that. In fact they always say the opposite
"Protestant Reformation is responsible for Secularism." False.
Man, it's so disappointing to hear this false information.
1) The Protestant Reformation did NOT push for abandoning traditions. It is an objective lie to say otherwise. The intent and execution was such: Keep the traditions that scripture teaches. That is it. Sonna mentions Zwingli - yes, he was a radical. He intended to take his beliefs beyond Sacred Scripture. Guess what? Luther rebuked that! AGAIN, the point was not to abandon tradition but to criticize the Pope and his doctrinal exploits.
2) People have been killing each other BEFORE there was a "universal authority." People have killed for that "universal authority." That universal authority has also killed people. The PR didn't start the murder of other individuals for their beliefs. Catholics were pretty good at that too.
3) The Reformation was not a fundamental break from "the" Christian tradition. It was a fundamental break from the exploitive practices of "A CHRISTIAN" tradition - which most reasonable Catholics today would say was the right and dutiful thing for Martin Luther to do.
It's hilarious to me that the one tradition that brags about assembling the Biblical canon is very eager to ignore it - which is precisely what Luther was fighting. He wanted to bring the focus back on Sacred Scripture - and because that would have obliterated the money making doctrines of his day. 1 Tim. 6:10, gentlemen. Martin Luther had nothing to lose. The Pope had everything to lose.
I really do love Mr. Fradd's channel and he's helped me a lot in regards to understanding Catholicism. But, if we're going to be intellectually honest, you have to appropriately represent the side you're criticizing.
@@mike-cc3dd Also false. In fact, the dispute in Antioch is a great example of subjectivity in theology and itself had result in different view points.
The PR isn't responsible for Secularism. Atheism is responsible for Secularism. Both hard and soft secularism reject faith. Obviously the Reformation DID NOT do that.
Pope Luther was not the embodiment of the reformation. The Protestant revolt included the Lutherans, calvinists, Anglicans, anabaptist, and every other sect that arose during that time period. This plurality of Christianities could not stand together like the pre reformation church did. Thus resulting in the numerous religious wars. They're only solution was religious toleration, seperation of church and state, and no universal true church. A relativistic Christianity with divided power that decreased every century. Christ was fully dethroned from society becuase no one could agree on his gospel. Thus giving way to the Secular State.
@@Daniel_Abraham1099 Lol "Pope Luther." How... elementary. Naturally the Reformation had many participants. That in no way changes the fact that Luther's goal was NOT to get rid of tradition, but to challenge the doctrines Catholics willingly exploited for monetary gain. Regarding religious wars, it's not like the Catholic church was inexperienced in that area. The Reformation was just an excuse for the Catholic Church to continue perpetuating violence on earth. Finally, no, Christ has not been dethroned in any way, shape or form. You ought keep that kind of blasphemy to yourself.
@@coffeeanddavid I did not say Christ has been dethroned in the general sense. But thanks to Religious indifference of post reformation Europe and America, the majority of people have dethroned him from their hearts. And consequently give no honor due to him in matters of divine law. When America saw it fit to legalize abortion and homosexuality, did they once consult the Scripture in their deliberation? Nope thanks to the supposed "Christian" constitution and the "Christian" Founding fathers. Christ has no say in our state and look at where it has lead us.
As for Luther, heretics have been challenging the church since the New testement. And it only comes in the guise of some rando, who claims Divine authority from God to tell the church she has erred. Luther may have been deluded into thinking once everyone had a Bible in their hands, the true gospel of Lutheranism would be discovered. Unfortunately for Luther, he was completely niave. If he had read the early Church fathers like St. Vincent of Lerins who wrote his Commonitory in AD 434, he would have known better than to fracture the church, rather than STAYING within it to reform. I realize the church needed reform, but to split the church into pieces was a much greater sin, than a few corrupt Popes. Thats why MANY other Catholic reformation saints are celebrated because they brought reform without splitting the church.
ruclips.net/video/xHjVsNFE60U/видео.html&ab_channel=RyanReeves
If we can and must hold the Magisterium to our own interpretation of Scripture, then Protestants can be justified in separating from the Catholic Church in protest until the Magisterium conforms to their interpretation of Scripture. But if we must submit our interpretation of Scripture to that of the Magisterium, then Protestants were not justified in placing their own interpretation of Scripture above that of the Magisterium, and are obliged before God in humility and repentance to be reconciled to the Catholic Church and submit to her teaching authority.
St. Vincent then provides the answer to his question:
"For this reason-because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation. (p. 5)"
His point is that because of the depth of Scripture due to its divine quality, not all persons interpret it in the same sense. In fact, there are, according to St. Vincent, almost as many interpretations as there are interpreters. When these interpretations are contrary to those decreed by general councils or taught by the consent of the Church Fathers, they are invariably heretical,
"Martín Luther wanted to preserve biblical traditions"
Proceeds to negate the authority of sevens books, calls the epistle of James as "having nothing of the nature of the gospel", and tries to reject Revelation.
Cool, at least he tried.
I contend that first with Huss, or then with Luther, if the Pope and Magisterium of the Church had listened to their scriptural calls for reform that the reformation would not have happened as it has. Huss wouldn't have been burned at the stake, Luther would have remained an Augustinian Friar, the abuse of indulgences would have ended, the people would have gained access to God's Word in language they understood (which I notice is now an emphasis among faithful Catholics, reading and knowing the bible) and Christianity would be a much more united place. Luther got nasty and vehement towards the Pope because of the deaf ear his concerns were falling upon. And now, if Luther were to return from the grave, who would be more in line with Catholic teaching? The German bishops or Luther? Pope Francis or Luther? The LGBTQ+ mass or a current confessional Lutheran (not the ELCA) divine service?
Well it wasnt just indulges he was teaching was it? He was teaching faith alone - never mind the acts that go with faith. Then there’s the foolishness with sola scriptura etc. lets admit it, luther had the sin of pride. Its what got lucofer thrown out of heaven. I mean padre pio and st. Francis of assisi criticized the churh but they didnt peddle any heresies doing it.
@@markv1974 as I read scripture, I find Luther was correct in criticizing indulgences, and the need to test every teaching and tradition against scripture. Luther, you, & I are guilty of pride. I notice the Catholic apologists try to defend Catholic doctrine using scripture. Why? Because it's God's authoritative revelation. You might say "scripture alone."
Luther was against far more than just indulgences. It is a well promulgated myth that if the church had simply ended indulgences then Luther would have "remained" an obedient servant of the church. That simplification also ignores the fact that Luther was not the only one advocating reformation at that time. Heresies had been a problem since the beginning of the church, but by the renaissance there was a growing interest among some to return to what they saw as a "purer" form of Christianity based on scripture and rejecting tradition.
Very interesting..Need to do more study into this..
Agree. Bishop Athanasius Schneider talks about this in his book “Christus Vincit.”
Breaking off from the magisterium sounds quite liberal to me
And liberalism, well that's responsible for secularism
Scott Hahn said This in his Talk too.
There was once an abusive dad who beat his wife a bunch. He kicked her out
of the house with their children, and although she was a model of charity and grace, their children grew up with a hatred of men and became raging feminists. They founded fourth-wave feminism
Do you think it would be right if the abusive man said to his wife, “your protests of me caused fourth wave feminism”?
“We don’t need the institution, we don’t need the tradition”-said no reformer ever. The reformers believed they were *recovering* authority, hence why Luther and Calvin labor to show how what they taught is present in the fathers
Wright traces the “I just wanna go to heaven when I die” stuff to *medieval Catholicism*, not Protestantism. Dante, for example.
And also, you’ve misunderstood Paley’s watchmaker argument. It’s not a “we don’t know therefore God did it” argument, or “God needed to supply the gap in the natural.” That’s Dawkins’ misrepresentation. It’s a teleological argument-that the world shows the marks of intelligence through its order. That’s why people still used Paley’s argument who were evolutionists.
Divine Command theory-didn’t start with Protestants. William of Ockham.
Hobbes-“Aristotle was a tool for the Pope.” Great. Scholastic Reformed and Lutheran traditions? Heavily use Aristotelian categories of primary and secondary causes
I agree with you, as someone whose not Catholic yet Christian. I believe it’s a big jump to say Protestantism caused Secularism, especially when so many different movements were cited in this clip. Though I do understand the argument. Protestantism brought about/was apart of the many movements that did away with tradition and sought to reestablish what tradition had built up. Since this was starting from ground zero, it was young and splintered, never fully developing into what it needed to be to stand the wave of Secularism that’s come about.
@@MechaMan3451 No, Protestantism didn’t seek to start from the ground up. The Radical Reformation did (the anabaptists), but Lutherans and Reformed Protestants always distanced themselves from that.
@@mike-cc3dd You missed the point of the analogy...
@@anglicanaesthetics Well I didn’t. First off let’s clarify terms. It wasn’t a reform of the Church, it was a divorce from her. A revolt from the Divinely established and authoritative Church Jesus started.
To be fair the moral corruption in the Church AND her clergy then as well as now obscure that fact.
In fact, those of us Catholics who take Christ seriously and are sickened by our leadership from the top down have a level of understanding of at least some of the legitimate objections they had. But we come to the same conclusion we always have. Jesus started one Church teaching one Truth and one worship. To borrow a phrase, here we stand. We can do no other.
Here’s the theology. Jesus is both Divine and human. His Church is His Body. Therefore His Church has a Divine side which is perfect and a human side which is not. So we cling to the Divine and resist the human evil in our midst. We have no option to leave Jesus because of Judas.
I'm a Protestant and opposed to secularism, so I should be inclined to dislike this video, but for some reason I find the story of the historical development from the Reformation to the Enlightenment and modernity as both compelling and fascinating. To me, it makes a lot of sense seeing Luther telling the Catholic Church at Worms basically, "I get to interpret Scripture for myself and I have to go with what my conscience is telling me," as a kind of strange precursor to the modern gender-confused person "interpreting" their feelings as indicative that they are a woman trapped in a man's body. Obviously Luther would find the transgender ideology radically incoherent, but I don't think you get that ideology without the Protestant Reformation (and a lot of other historical developments which follow from that) happening first.
thank you for sharing this clip! this was one of the highlights of the interview.
A dialogue or debate on this topic could be interesting.
I'm not extremely well read, and I'm not super smart. I do try to see how one thing leads to another. Real things should have a consistency and coherence like a good dough. I was raised Methodist if that means anything to anyone anymore. The John 6:66 + Luke 22:19 = the True Presence. I don't see how anyone who claims to read the Bible literally can see it any other way.
Also, there's Jesus' prayer from John 17. He prayed that we would be one in Him as He was one with the Father. Every protestant denomination fractures nearly with every major generation. Methodists became United Methodists, now United Methodists appear to be fracturing over LGBTQ lines.
Catholics appear to be on the verge of a schism... but from what I can see the foundations of doctrine are still there.
Catholicism is like a river, streams may diverge but ultimately grt back to the river and the sea. The holy see. 😅
Voltaire was not merely pro-secularist. He was pro-relativist. That pretty clear from "Candid." His negative view of religion (particularly Christianity) is abundantly clear (not to mention mocking).
Well I put dirt in his eyes
I wonder how Suan would respond to the conclusion that therefore Protestantism also led to the rapid development of science and technology...
And, of course, by extension, the catastrophic ecological effects of that rapid development which today threaten to trigger the next great extinction event.
@@delsydebothom3544 problem is that in most Christian Conservative circles, Catholic and Protestant alike, climate alarmism is treated like a conspiracy theory and not many in that space believe there will be "the next great extinction event". So the conservative Protestent still wins LOL
@@ugandancatholicguy Most Christian conservatives remain entranced by the sort picture painted by an earlier form of progressivism--the one that produced images of man's tacit victory over nature like those found, for instance, in Disney's Carousel of Progress ride. On the darker side of that particular zeitgeist, it is the same form of progressivism that resulted in the violent displacement of American Indians, or the anti-miscegenation laws that first show up in the 17th century.
Really, conservative Christians, at least in the United States, generally embrace progressivism. There is just a buffer or delay of several generations, with the upshot that conservative Christians embrace the cultural outcome of progressive thought as it stood in earlier stages of its development.
@@delsydebothom3544 you seem to be implying that, ironically, it is the most Christian of the Christian community that will realise the end of the world too late?
@@ugandancatholicguy The sort of Christian of western civilization who identifies or is identified as "conservative", most often is not the "most Christian". Neither are those identified as "liberal". At least, if we are speaking in historical terms, both of these groups are fairly well distant in political thought from most Christians of Antiquity and the Middle Ages.
Yes yes yes. Major reason for my changing perspectives on Catholicism.
I came to the same conclusion while reading Cardinal St.John Henry Newman's "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine." I would even go as far as to say Protestantism is responsible for the post-modernist movement.
Bingo.
Led to the 30 years war
And thank God.
Basically true. Interestingly nationalism came about in Germany during that time as well and was seen as leftwing back then.
As I’ve seen it, “the Left” is a political commitment to change, with no End to a for and no commitment to any step along the changes. So, in a sense, as protestantism leads to secularism, it’s the “change” which is indicative of the Left. Nationalism, in that sense, was secular, which is how it can become socialism in a couple hundred years and then most of the Jews in Europe die. Christian Nationalism is also a step, of a totally secular globalism back into a United Christianity
During the 18th and 19th centuries nationalism wasn't seen in the modern view as "pride in one's nation," but rather as a philosophy that sought to replace the traditional institutions of monarchy/church/nobility/pastoralism with that of a central ethno-national state. This ideology usually came from the educated upper-middle class, who by the 19th century were economically powerful and covetous of the privileged position held by the church/nobility. The main values that came along with this were often middle-class political representation, government education, industrialization, and ethno-statism.
Indulgences? Who were they sold by again?
Abuses by a few individual German priests don't justify mass apostasy from Christ and His Church. Selling indulgences is also Biblical btw.
In some way things started in the middle ages by the intellectual struggle whether uniersalia (abstract things) do exist outside of the mind or not, and if so, to what extent. .
Is my brother in Christ suggesting that the split between Protestants and Catholics justified *killing* one another?
Who killed who first... the Catholic onto the Protestant?
It could be true that Protestantism is responsible for secularism, but remember that Catholicism is responsible for the protestant reformation. Remember that protestants aren't protesting against Christ or the Bible but the Catholic doctrine, which blends pagan beliefs, and moved away from the scriptures. Why do we fail to see how our focus shifted from Christ and God to choosing the right saint to fulfil our personal needs and such ideas? While Protestant apologetics explain and preach the gospel to the world of unbelievers, Catholic apologetics try to justify pagan superstition and unbiblical ideas to the protestants. This is not to say that there aren't any missionaries. Also, realise how we justify Catholicism and defend the ideas unaccepted by protestants based on the sayings and writings of other Catholics but not the Bible. Emphasis on physical actions, deeds and some people over the primary focus of the Bible and Christ is something to be examined and rectified. I like to believe that all Catholics are not that way, but it is sad to see people like Suan talk this way.
....By the way, T.H. White's "The Sword in the Stone" is also relativist, in it's view perspectives and disestablishmentarianism.
Is Protestantism responsible for the secularism in Spain, Italy and Ireland?
Good point
Well Suan did say that the protestant world was hit harder, meaning the Catholics will get hit but not as much since we have an objective framework
Those countries you mentioned have been oppressed and seriously influenced by wealthy Protestant countries.
Yes. Heresy doesn't have geographic limitations.
@@t.l.ciottoli4319 Correct, filioque destroyed the balance of the Trinity; it makes the Holy Spirit the lesser of the Three. Many theological errors flow from this - it is too much to narrate here. Ultimately you get humanism and secularism (atheism) - man's worship of himself and the world, i.e. Satanism.
Protestantism is not Christianity.
He is correct in saying it was the first major “break“ from Christianity.
It is a man-made religion.
Most people who think they have rejected God have really only rejected a caricature of him. - Rich Hannon
When Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses in 1517, did he intend to try to reform the church?
The papacy had always had its detractors but, from the fourth century A.D. until Luther posted his theses, the vast majority of people in western Europe used the phrase “the church” to refer to an ORGANIZATION with headquarters in Rome. I think Luther wanted to reform the organization.
Did he succeed?
Yes and No. The organization was reformed to some degree and it can be argued that those reforms either would not have occurred or would not have occurred as soon as they did if it had not been for the discussions and political agitation that was set in motion by the posting of the 95 Theses. Some people prefer to think those reforms would have occurred anyway and hesitate to give Luther any credit for setting events in motion to that effect. Also some of the reforms Luther seems to have wanted were not adopted by the papacy.
On the other hand, the posting of the 95 Theses set in motion a chain of events that resulted in a concept of the nature of the church that may have existed before 1517 among Waldensians, Lollards or Hussites but that became much more widespread after that date, namely, the concept that the church may be organization but that, because the true church (or what might be called “the essential church”) consists of believers in the Messiah, no organization of the church IS the church. Using this definition, it could be said that the church (the believers) - at least in some places - DID adopt some of the reforms Luther had envisioned.
It is interesting how different definitions of words lead to differing conclusions.
For just over 1,000 years (800 - 1806) a large portion of western Europe was ruled by a series of about 50 emperors. The empire seems to have been considered “Roman” primarily in the sense that the emperors were politically or religiously aligned with the various popes of that era.
Charles V was emperor at the time of the edict in 1526 granting religious freedom to each member state of the empire. The edict was voted (unanimously) at a diet (conference) at Speyer in what is now Germany.
In 1929, Charles V convened another diet at Speyer for the purpose of repealing the edict of 1526. On April 19, the majority voted to repeal the earlier edict.
The word “protestant” was first used in connection with the protest of several German “princes”* against the decision of the majority. On April 25, the protesting princes issued a formal protest that included the statement, “...in matters of conscience the majority has no power”.
This principle has sometimes been articulated as the doctrine that the legitimate role of kings and civil governments does not include promoting religious doctrines or practices or enforcing religious prohibitions.
In their effort to secure religious freedom for themselves, however, theists made a significant blunder, namely, by defining “religion” so narrowly as to include only theistic doctrines, practices and prohibitions, they opened the door to civil government promoting everything from animism (the worship of the physical universe or objects within the universe) to “secular humanism” (“secular” in the sense of not being based on a theistic view of the universe).
These agnostic or atheistic philosophies are “secular” only in the sense implied by the too-narrow definition of “religion” but, together such philosophies are now viewed as “secularism”.
If Suan Sonna or other people prefer a “simple” view of reality in which there is (or should be) only one “right” way to understand or worship the creator, the argument in this video might seem persuasive. In actual application, however, it tends toward a theocratic version of Pax Romana (the Roman peace) in which a semblance of peace is imposed by sufficient coercion to virtually eliminate arguments.
It is understandable that some people would prefer a semblance of peace, even if coercion is the tool to achieve it.
Other people, however, still prefer to believe that, even if there is only one “right” way to understand and worship the creator, people (or at least adults) should be free to explain and worship him as they see fit - or to discard theism if they aren’t acquainted with an explanation of God that makes sense to them.
*Landholders whose titles had been inherited or bestowed by royalty
Fundamentally the argument presented here is a straw man. It's also historically inaccurate. Read the magisterial reformers along with the Westminster Confession of faith along with other early protestant confessions. They all have a very high view of tradition, historical theology, council's, and especially church authority and duty to preserve God's truth. There was nothing secular or liberal about reforming views of the church that one thought has exceeded or contradicts God's very own word. However, if we were to look at the recent history of the Roman Catholic Church we can see where ideas such as evolution and others have become gradually accepted and/or tolerated in the Roman church. Both Vatican council's in one form or another revolved around liberalism and the second council embraced much more of a secularist view than did the first. However, despite scientific claims of the early 20th century, men like Machen and Warfield in my own tradition (Presbyterian) frequently tackle head on the rise of a secular worldview. One can balance reason, logic, history, church authority, and the absolute and final authority of Scripture and not succumb to gradual secularism. As a matter of fact, it's even necessary to do so.
Thank you. I'm not too clear on the reasons for the Vatican Councils, but I do know that the Reformed tradition is not fiercely individualistic, and we don't push history and authority to the wayside. He said the Protestants rejected authority when really, we simply disagreed on who the authority is.
@@NnannaO right it appears suan was arguing against the radical anabaptist movement if anything. Calvin, Luther, and others all frequently explored the writings of church fathers and appealed and taught about church authority. But that authority is always and only subject to God's word. Suan seems to be arguing more so against a radical and unfaithful view of authority which all together rejects church authority and tradition.
They all started the secularism. Because individuals could be wrong, instead "Securus judicat orbis terrarum" of Augustine. In protestant views, every time you disagree you form a new "church"; instead, catholics we fight for absolute truth that should be universally believe until it is settled.
Protestants atomized society, and individuals are free to grab for any ideology.
@@RicardoGarcia-ib8ro No. We do not. There is a variety of different views even within individual churches and especially in larger denominations. I will concede, however, that there are unjustified splits in the Protestant church. It is also important to note that we recognize others as brothers and sisters in Christ who hold to the true gospel but disagree on secondary issues (Protestant denominations). Our acceptance of them as siblings does not necessarily mean that we have to turn a blind eye to false doctrine. Any church can and has been wrong about things because it is run by sinful human beings. Truth be told, there are a number of different views even within the Catholic Church. You guys aren't monolithic and we aren't as divided as you claim. The Catholic Church is plainly wrong about some things the Bible teaches, and I believe the only reason the only reason many Catholics don't see that is because they decide to bow to their traditions before the acknowledge God's authority.
@@NnannaO One concept you mentioned is wrong. The Catholic church is not a book religion. It is apostolic. So the interpretation of the bible by definition is according the patristic authority. The same wich, without it, no inerrancy criteria could be attributed to the bible. If the Catholic church has no magisterial innerancy, the bible also doesn't have it.
It is true that catholic are not completely united. Because not every doctrine is definitly defined, so in that matter people are free to believe what they want. An in those affairs are division, most of them theologically very minor. Today most of the people is confused, mostly because a poor theological formation, rather than troubles with itself.
All very good points. As a convert, I agree completely!
Protestantism is stop on the way to atheism. Not everybody stays on the train for the entire ride-some get off at Lutherville or Baptistburg, but it’s easier to reboard the train from those locations.
HAIL MARY MOST PURE, CONCEIVED WITHOUT SIN,, PROTECTRESS OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC FAITH
Characterizing Protestantism in this way is not charitable, nor is it accurate. Conservative Protestants do not define 'sola scriptura' in the way portrayed here or by other Catholic apologists. I could go on. Also, 'Liberals' and secularists can be found in liberal Catholicism and Protestantism. To blame Protestantism for secularism (have we looked at our own house here?) is paint with a very broad brush. Not impressed with his reasoning.
@Roger Mills the definition is flawed. therefore the conclusion is as well. The Catholic Church has enough division. Of course, most Catholic lamestream media/apologists/apologist ministries don't want to talk about that. Ask Patrick Coffin.
You are looking at the point with no sense of nuance. Yes, individual Protestant communions have and are still firmly conservative. But these are not, and I am sure you will agree with me, the majority. Do liberals and even secularists exist in the Roman church? Of course, but they are bound by the central institution of the church. The countless splintered Protestant groups by and large have no central authority to declare what is heretical and what is godly.
In short, Protestant churches are far more susceptible to conforming to worldly values and interests within the society they inhabit. Need an example? I implore you to look for yourself at Protestant and Catholic churches within large urban centers. Look at how many Protestant churches fly "pride" flags. Compare that you Catholic churches. The latter will be a value of 0. Even conservative Protestant churches tend to exist mainly in relatively conservative areas. Their values are a reflection of the community in which they inhabit.
Can you interview an Anglican pastor?
@Bully Maguire That would be cool! Ps I never thought I would see you here😆
i'm begging you MATT FRADD, ACKNOWLEDGE ME SEMPAI
But catholic magesterium is the most liberal is that our fault as well?
Wow…. This is eye opening
Yes, this makes total sense. the protestant reformation unleashed a demon loose on the world. Ideas have consequences. Far reaching Consequences.
🤦♀️
How about the tangible influence of freemasonry. A good book is ‘The Craft’- how Freemasons made the modern world.
But who created Freemasonry? You should check out a book called The Plot Against the Church by Maurice Pinay. It explains everything. You can find free PDF copies online.
What the heck happened in France and Russia then?
The French revolution inspired on protestantism
This is what we call scapegoating in my part of town, and it's never that productive
heh?
At the core of it, I think the spirit of Protestantism, and not necessarily Protestants themselves, naturally leads down to the path of secularism and Freemasonry. It’s an interesting conversation which raises a lot of shackles among Protestants, but you just can’t deny how many Protestant pastors/ leaders are also Freemasons and think it is perfectly compatible with Christian faith.... Now that having been said, many many Catholics are more Protestant than Catholic and are also Freemasons themselves. Look at the Jesuits.... And many Protestants are more Catholic than than some Catholics and Protestants.... It’s why I don’t like calling the very good Protestants as “Protestants or Prots” ... I prefer to call good Prots as ‘Evangelicals’ 😊
hahahahaha....I stopped after you mentioned freemasonry...next.
Very astute observation’s. Because Protestants are not Christians anything goes.
@@joecoolmccall you’re either a troll or one of the most ignorant people on RUclips? Are you so triggered by talk of actual organized men who hate Christianity that instead of arguing against his proposition you just try to mock it?
I hate this jesuits are freemasons bs, which is coming up from time to time.
@@verum-in-omnibus1035 anytime anyone brings up free masonry it always ends up being a conspiracy theory that I have never taken seriously.
5:48 that's purely atheism cover with "fictial faith"
Sonna is way too smart to actually think protestantism brought about secularism. To think protestants as apostates is simply wrong.
That's not what he is saying.
Silly, reductionist history mixed with Catholic triumphalism and the myth of past piety.
Yes. Suan taking a class his freshman year in college does not make him a scholar. The idea that Protestantism leads to Secularism is a tired old idea that vastly oversimplifies a complex subject. Matt, you can do better.
@@t.l.ciottoli4319 Hey we find an schismatic! Orthodox are the first Protestants so you too share in their evils.
@@mj6493 And you soul would do better by coming home to Rome.
I think the Roman church crushing theological and political dissent is what led to the rise of secularism.
What? Read what you just wrote. Its pure nonsense.
The Church have magisterium and doctrinal debate since Christ instituted the Church, what are you talking about? 😂😂😂
I heard very little actual evidence.
Pope Franky seems pretty secular. Aren’t you tolerating and agreeing to disagree with your own Pope?
Our first Pope Peter denied Christ 3 times, popes still sin just like you do every single day
But you're still in communion with him, aren't you? k@@Joetheshow445
There's a difference between disagreeing on fundamental truths and disagreeing on things that really don't matter... How many protestant sects disagree on the fundamental catholic truth that Jesus is present in the Eucharist? That's different between disagreeing with the pope on Joe Biden being a "good catholic"... The difference matters.
@@Joetheshow445 Peter was NEVER a pope!!!!
Matt, you're way better rocking that beard at the end of the video... just saying
Likewise, Catholicism is responsible for Protestantism. Therefore...
incompetent clergy were responsible for the reformation
Maybe just maybe if the catholic church had not deviated from the Gospel and things like indulgences, killing heretics at the stake then the reformers would have not needed to protest. Just a thought.
They should have become Eastern Orthodox instead. But they tried to reinvent the wheel and now we have this chaotic mess that is Protestantism.
Why not in the X century then, or the VII??????? Because protestantism is a monarquical reform, not religious, pure modernism
Brilliant.
But who was responsible for the Protestant reformation?🤔🤔🤔
Protestants thought that there were good reasons to separate. Catholics did not. Seems like this discussion just shifts the responsibility for society’s problems over to the Protestants. Let’s stop blaming and take responsibility for ourselves 🙏🏼
This is an example of oversimplification and mischarachterization leading to non sequtors. Please don’t take Suans arguments at face value.
I really like this guy. Very intelligent.
The truth divides.
Those who love him in truth and those who love his misery like Judas.
Protestants actually still believe ...
Bad take on history. It was not until the French Revolution that the church had no authority in regards to the state. Even many early colonies in America were interwoven with church authority, protestant authority at that.
Catholic France is to blame imo, if you want to get simplistic
Read the letter and last will and testament of both Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette and tell me if you still hold this view.
@@Louis.R still hold. A pious king doesn't have much swing when his head is gone.
Unless you want to argue that France was no longer Catholic by that point. But none of that changes my premise.
@@nicford1486 That is indeed what I want to argue. The French monarchs had been fighting back heresies since well after the Edict of Nantes, but the repercussions of that Edict, and the Wars of Religion more generally, put the Catholic Church and monarchy on notice that their time was coming to an end, if not by Protestants, then by Revolutionaries influenced by the same, anti-Catholic, anti-hierarchy spirit.
Sorry…love you brothers (really appreciate Pints)…but I find this clip preposterous. Sounds arrogant and presumptuous as well as a major oversimplification. It’s like a family and the father is abusive so the wife leaves him and the man blames her for the family falling apart…actually not just their family, but all families that fall apart. All because she wouldn’t go along with things. Not saying the wife was perfect, but that logic doesn’t add up. I love my Catholic & Protestant brothers & I believe God has given us minds to think and process…and it’s ok to disagree, but a dissenting view doesn’t ultimately lead to secularism. May you all experience the love of Jesus today family of God!!
@Caratacus and Cal Krahn
What Suan saying is true. Truth sometimes displeases us.
it didnt even start with the protestant reformation. the reformation grew out of renaissance humanism which started well before, and the refusal of the church leaders to correct their unchristlike ways. also the catholic church could have probably found a path to being in communion once again with the eastern church by then, but instead it abused them at stood by when the ottoman empire destroyed them turning what is now turkey into Muslim majority.
Protestants = heretics.
@@namapalsu2364 You can think it’s true if you want, but to me the logic is an overreach. “I drink milk ever day including Friday. The garbage truck comes every Friday. These must be related. Yeah…no.
@Caratacus No, it's not. And "truth" is not just about gospel.
Yes! Absolutely
May I recommend "The Great Heresies " by Hilaire Belloc. Explains all of this brilliantly.
I enjoy both of these guys channels online but this interpretation is too simplistic. its one thing to say the Reformation open the door to unintended consequences but it's another to put it on their feet as their responsibility or moral responsibility. Because we can say the same thing with the Constitution of the United States or separation from church and state all these had unintended consequences as well, namely secularism. but it was the enlightenment that was the driving force and was responsible for secularism.
Isn't nominalism a precondition to secularism? nominalism is an opposing worldview that trys to destroy universals, Aristotelian metaphysics and so on. Yet that philosophy was produced by one of your own, A franciscan friar in good standing with the church, William of Ockham. would we say then Catholics or responsible for secularism and materialism?
One should read the scholar Tom Holland's Dominion and realize secularism started way before the Reformation.
But that said I could just simplify and say Catholicism was responsible for secularism. because when the Roman papacy rejected the truth of Luther's Reformation they made a great division within the church and did not support the truth of the Reformation. therefore forced the Protestants (true Christians) out of the instituted Church to flee which then produced an environment where faithful Christians outside their instituted Church were forced to make individual Church bodies, which allowed unbelievers around them in countries to use that to their advantage to reject the authority of the church because of the fragment and division of Christianity and produced secularism.
But if that's too simplistic well I'd say the same for this video.
Luther wasn't right though.
All he did was noticed some humans acting badly (as humans often do) and then that means the Church is bad? Luther is someone who would not have followed Jesus because he noticed Judas was bad.
Sad thing is, one thing he pointed out, which was some bishop abusing indulgences, is a thousand times worse now in the Protestant age. How many "Christians" are out there on cable grifting poor people out of millions with their nonsense? Promising salvation.
@@nealkriesterer you completely missed my point.
@@manonthestars You said "I could just simplify and say Catholicism was responsible for secularism. because when the Roman papacy rejected the truth of Luther's Reformation they made a great division within the church"
So I pointed out that Luther was wrong, which disproves your entire point.
@@nealkriesterer Nope, because then I said, "But if that's too simplistic well I'd say the same for this video." i.e calling the kettle black... which you just did.
So you did miss the point. I was NOT trying to give a defense of the truthfulness of the Reformation or Luther. I was critiquing the guys reasoning and understanding of the historical events around it.
What you quoted was written to show I could simplify the events through a reformed perspective and it would be untrue merely because it one dimensionalizes the historical events and also assumes certain theological views and therefore not at all convincing to the other side. That is I wrote up a strawman to show the problem with its reasoning. Thus my critique was this strawmanning was what the video also did by, presupposes Catholicism and then it simplifies/ one-dimensionalizes the historical events.
Example historically Luther never wanted to leave the church he wanted to fix the issues he perceived. Like other catholic reformers in history but the pope excommunicated him because the pope strongly disagreed. It wasn't like Luther woke up one day and saw issue in the church so he's like, "screw that I'm going to start my own church." This is true irrelevant of which side is correct.
The issue is not which theological view is correct, the issue is they were simplifying history which misinforms all sides. Which ever view is true, Catholicism or the Reformation the historical events are what there are. The problem is the simplification and then the interpretation from it in the video which misinforms the listeners.
My focus wasn't which Christian tradition is true, my issue was them trying to connect the Reformation with secularism, as if it was a direct causation. Maybe a correlation could be argued but not causation.
Also Catholicism could be true and still have unintended consequences. Or Reformation could be true and still have unintended consequences. So it is irrelevant if secularism was or wasn't caused by Luthers belief system when it comes to the truthfulness of either side. it's not a one to one like you think.
Again Catholicism can be true and the video's interpretation of the historical events and secularism still can also be false. my point was on the latter not former.
@@manonthestars I understand all that.
What you're not getting, is that if you can't actually make a logical argument for why someone else/some other group should be blamed...then that defeats your entire argument.
This video makes a compelling case that Protestantism can be blamed for secularism. You counter with "well, you could blame anyone." But you have failed to show how anyone else could be blamed. You just assert that anyone could be blamed, without anything to back it up.
Let me be candid with you Voltaire fresh drip with egg noodles hair your egos just so distracting free speech doesn't mean just keep yapping~Confucius
I'm a protestant and I accept this
Q. What caused the Reformation?
A. Bad popes
There were bad Popes before...
Uh... is Suan criticizing liberal democracy?
As well he should be.
Sorry but this guy is not as clever or well-informed as he thinks he is. There are a number of errors in what he says. Be careful of giving him more credence than he deserves.
Why not explain and give some points/examples?
I say clever is an understatement ,I give him the credence he deserves but ur statement is just vague
Every time I listen to this dude, I'm like... Wow .. he is smart
Suan is an interesting speaker and thinker.
When images stopped being an important part of the liturgy itself then our culture relationship with images became pretty secular
Straw-man after straw-man, drawing conclusion from straws
So he prefers a theocracy like a medieval type one ? I don't understand what he is criticizing here
Oh boy. You are totally ignorant of Medieval history...just like most heretical prots.
Protestantism gives you permission to believe whatever you want; and whatever is, you can still believe you're a good person.
Orthodox are first protestents. God bless u suan.
Name ONE Catholic country that has given the world what Protestant America has
You honestly can't
Do you mean the war on Irak or the woke movement?
@@J.R2023 Wokeness is actually a creation of Jesuitism
That is why I call modern atheists "post-protestants" (Marx, Nietzsche, etc.).
Btw, as an Eastern Orthodox, I call Roman Catholics "papists".
Orthodox are completely divided, not the universal church, onlñy nationalistic
I wonder who was responsible for the Protestant reformation 🤔
Satan.
I find it hard to be sympathetic to this perspective knowing what the Catholic Church was like at the time.
Of course it is.