Protestant Reformation is RESPONSIBLE for Secularism w/ Suan Sonna 

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.

“Protestant Reformation is RESPONSIBLE for Secularism” is something that I’ve known deep down inside just never thought of pointing it out.

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.

"You call that a St. Benedict medal? THIS is a St. Benedict medal." -Suan apparently

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.

"My conscience is the only trustworthy authority!" leads straight to Nietzsche, and Nietzsche leads straight back to this subjective egoism.

I don’t even need to watch this video to know it’s going to be a banger.

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.

Not just secularism but also the moral relativism. The theological relativism of Protestantism led to relativism downstream in morality, culture, politics, etc.

Protestantism is the religion of thinking over experiencing.

I like hearing Suan! Very insightful here.

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?

Thanks for sharing that.

Wowza ✌🏻 a great clip.

This is an example of oversimplification and mischarachterization leading to non sequtors. Please don’t take Suans arguments at face value.

thank you for sharing this clip! this was one of the highlights of the interview.

I did like this clip, yes.

Wow! Dude totally hit the nail on the head

Very interesting..Need to do more study into this..

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?

Voltaire was the French revolutionary

Agree. Bishop Athanasius Schneider talks about this in his book “Christus Vincit.”

Scott Hahn said This in his Talk too.

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

Hello. Recommend to you the book "The Catholic Controversy" of Francis of Sales. God bless you!

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.

Properly articulated what I've come to understand since my reversion almost two years ago.

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.

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.

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”?

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).

Q. What caused the Reformation? A. Bad popes

....By the way, T.H. White's "The Sword in the Stone" is also relativist, in it's view perspectives and disestablishmentarianism.

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.

That is why I call modern atheists "post-protestants" (Marx, Nietzsche, etc.). Btw, as an Eastern Orthodox, I call Roman Catholics "papists".

Breaking off from the magisterium sounds quite liberal to me And liberalism, well that's responsible for secularism

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.

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. .

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.

Led to the 30 years war

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?

Basically true. Interestingly nationalism came about in Germany during that time as well and was seen as leftwing back then.

I wonder how Suan would respond to the conclusion that therefore Protestantism also led to the rapid development of science and technology...

All very good points. As a convert, I agree completely!

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

Yes yes yes. Major reason for my changing perspectives on Catholicism.

Brilliant.

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.

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.

Protestants: “You can’t lose your salvation, your sins glorify God’s mercy.” Satanists: “Do what thou wilt.”

Indulgences? Who were they sold by again?

Wow…. This is eye opening

Suan is such a smart thinker. I’m glad that he is getting more of the spotlight. He helped bring me to Catholicism.

Can you interview an Anglican pastor?

Matt, you're way better rocking that beard at the end of the video... just saying

How about the tangible influence of freemasonry. A good book is ‘The Craft’- how Freemasons made the modern world.

5:48 that's purely atheism cover with "fictial faith"

HAIL MARY MOST PURE, CONCEIVED WITHOUT SIN,, PROTECTRESS OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC FAITH

Yes! Absolutely May I recommend "The Great Heresies " by Hilaire Belloc. Explains all of this brilliantly.

What the heck happened in France and Russia then?

When images stopped being an important part of the liturgy itself then our culture relationship with images became pretty secular

I heard very little actual evidence.

The truth divides. Those who love him in truth and those who love his misery like Judas.

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.

Let me summarize: there was 6 minutes of sophistries related to cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this) and post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this). More importantly, it was all a straw man because it was based on a rejection of some protestants of some sacramental realism and equating that with a rejection of the supernatural “the material world and the supernatural realm become two different things”. But, none of those protestants rejected the super natural, they all believed in a super natural creation of the universe and of the resurrection of Jesus and the many other miracles in the scripture. This video was an embarrassing display of mental gymnastics.

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.

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

Blame. It’s easy and fun, isn’t it?

He taught redemption and salvation is a grace given by the mercy of God and that the only way to salvation is believing Jesus is Messiah. Lutherans are taught to be humble, honest and modest. They live by the ten commandments and behave in such a way they don't have to buy their way to heaven. Many wanted to buy a place in heaven through a letter from the pope and travelling monks sold these letters of redemption, it was a huge business. Luther thought it wrong to buy forgivness. "This one and only rock, that we call the righteous doctrine, is the main principle within christianity, which contains the heart of godliness" This is a quote from Luther himself, not sure if my translation did it justice but i think it sums it up quite well. Luther also translated the bible from latin making it accessible for everyone. I believe that the biggest reason for the secularism has to do with politics more than religion e g many communists are atheists, it has probably been developing during the last 60-70 years Voltaire wasn't even born when Luther presented his thesis...

"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.

Silly, reductionist history mixed with Catholic triumphalism and the myth of past piety.

Uh... is Suan criticizing liberal democracy?

Is Protestantism responsible for the secularism in Spain, Italy and Ireland?

This is what we call scapegoating in my part of town, and it's never that productive

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.

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’ 😊

Likewise, Catholicism is responsible for Protestantism. Therefore...

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

Sonna is way too smart to actually think protestantism brought about secularism. To think protestants as apostates is simply wrong.

I really like this guy. Very intelligent.

Suan is an interesting speaker and thinker.

So he prefers a theocracy like a medieval type one ? I don't understand what he is criticizing here

I wonder who was responsible for the Protestant reformation 🤔

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 🙏🏼

Yes, this makes total sense. the protestant reformation unleashed a demon loose on the world. Ideas have consequences. Far reaching Consequences.

Protestants actually still believe ...

Of course it is.

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!!

Pope Franky seems pretty secular. Aren’t you tolerating and agreeing to disagree with your own Pope?

Most Catholic countries where Protestantism doesn't have a big history aren't like bastions of Christianity or anything. Id much rather be in secular northern European countries than Latin american "catholic" ones

I think the Roman church crushing theological and political dissent is what led to the rise of secularism.

Love the channel (and Suan) but what a pile of drivel. How can one claim that a single event caused all that follows? I would suggest that there is a greater percentage of autonomous thinking and belief (ignoring the official beliefs of the church and the authority of the pope) in the catholic church than the protestant; so couldn't I say that the catholic church caused secularism? More importantly, who 'caused' the reformation then? Scholasticism in the catholic universities (itself loci of independent thought based on the supremacy of rationalism... can anyone say secularism), the church selling indulgences and over-reaching its sphere of authority, and its general drift from scriptural teaching... So... if the reformation caused secularism and the catholic church caused the reformation then... the ball is in your court.

*Secular:* c. 1300, "living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," also "belonging to the state," from Old French seculer. We Americans *don't use this word the right way.* Religious orders means monasteries. Europe's Protestants were *statists.* Don't confuse 21st C. America with 17th C. Europe.

I'm a protestant and I accept this

Protestantism is not Christianity. He is correct in saying it was the first major “break“ from Christianity. It is a man-made religion.

I find it hard to be sympathetic to this perspective knowing what the Catholic Church was like at the time.

So, you still refer to the heretical apostasy as "reformation"?

What's wrong with Secularism anyway ?

Protestantism gives you permission to believe whatever you want; and whatever is, you can still believe you're a good person.