This video is so inaccurate. After the persecution by Diocletian the church split and there were two: the Catholics and the so-called Donatists. What happened was that there were many church leaders who rejected Christ during persecution, who went so far as to deny Christ publicly, deliver up Bibles to the pagan authorities to be burned, deliver up fellow Christians to be killed, and sacrifice to an image of the emperor worshiping the emperor as God. Then as soon as the persecution was over, these jackasses expected to instantly be put back in their posts, no questions asked.
The true churches said “hold up, you denied Christ during persecution: you can only be a layman now.” But some other churches said, “Ok. Sure. Here’s your position back,” and these became known as the Catholic church. The Catholic church gave the name of “Donatists” to the true church. And then years later, in 316, Constantine in 316 chose the Catholic church to be the official religion of the empire and persecuted the Donatists passing a law that the Catholic church had the right to seize their property.
So this nonsense that for 1000 years there was only one church is FALSE. There were already two before 316.
(Despite persecution by the Catholics, the Donatists nonetheless had a continued existence and were deeply opposed to the idea of a merger of church and state. During the Protestant Reformation, the magesterial Reformers [i.e. Luther and Calvin] referred to the anabaptists as Donatists. One reason why is the Donatists practiced believers baptism and “rebaptized” those who had been baptized as infants. On these two points the anabaptists were much like the Donatists, even if they were not a literal continuation of their theological line, which they may very well have been.)
A second point: There are Protestants who REJECT faith alonism, and who also oppose the RCC for OTHER reasons: Marydolatry, other idolatry, unscriptural hierarchy, incense in church, the idea that the “mass” is a sacrifice, transubstantiation, original sin, infant baptism, the papacy, etc.
“Luther’s protest is over.” Good for Luther, but Luther was an idiot. If his only beef was that the RCC didn’t teach the FALSE doctrine of faith alonism, then he was a total moron.
The thing is, its clear, those churches that hold to faith alonism are about to merge with Rome, because the only thing they ever really objected to about the RCC was that it seemed to teach justification by works. But since the Vatican II council in the 1960s, and the concord signed with the Luther church in 1999, that objection is gone: the RCC is Protestant now, so far as belief in justification by faith alone goes. Not only is the Catholic hierarchy now Protestant, but the Neo-Catholics (Catholics raised since Vatican II who know next to nothing about pre-Vat II Catholicism) are outright faith alonist Protestants! The traditionalists (who still reject faith alone) are a dying breed. So now all the faith alonist Prots can join up with Rome. Hooray for Protestant stupidity.
So eventually all your Baptist churches will join with Rome, despite that they supposedly reject infant baptism. Since baptism is not considered essential to salvation by them, its not a big enough issue to prevent the merger. Rome now teaches faith alone! So the Baptists will join up.
But in those fringe Protestant groups referred to by “mainline” Prots as “cults,” there’s no chance in hell they will merge with Rome. Because there, they do believe that credo-baptism is ESSENTIAL to salvation and that infant baptism damns (by tricking people into thinking they’re baptized when they aren’t) and so the signing of the concord with the Lutherans declaring a belief in faith alone will not bring them in. In fact, it will prevent them from coming in! Because they reject faith alonism.
(You’ve really got to see the whole video, by the way.)
And this other video might also throw a little damper on the party for those who aren’t insane faith alonist heretics:
Ultimately for Francis, faith alone doesn’t mean faith in Christ alone anyway, as it turns out, but faith in anything alone.