Interesting video.
I say no because sola scriptura was the doctrine that launched 10000 schisms.
There are impending changes to Lutheran and some other Protestant denominations doctrine during 2017 that could lead to the end of Protestantism as we know it. This you tube speaks for two hours on the changes to Lutheran doctrine to bring Lutherans back to Catholicism:
Was Protestantism ever justified?
I put the following answer on a similar thread which focussed on luther, also anticatholicism. It is just a catholic view...mine!
"
When most denominations and non denominationals disagree with each other on almost all aspects of doctrine, it is suprising that so many unite in a hatred of catholicism. Indeed the accusation of "non christian" about catholics is simply not supportable. We clearly accept the Creed!
I am only too aware of the hatred and misinformation, as an anglican turned evangelical before coming home to Rome , a journey which took a couple of decades, I saw first hand the nasty things that were said about catholics, most of which were born of either illinformed or deliberate misinterpretation of what catholicism stood for. And in my (then) ignorance, sadly I believed what these evangelicals said. It was only when I researched it years later, all the evangelical arguments fell apart.
But there's the thing. Martin Luther is in essence responsible for the doctrine of sola scriptura, which in essence empowered every one to make up their own interpretation of the bible, and in that very act Luther launched 10000 schisms. Because without a source of authority - then from baptism, eucharist, salvation, clergy, morality, sacraments, divorce...each have many mutually exclusive interpretations. You name it, protestants disagree on it. If you don't like the present doctrine, schism to form yet another. None of these can be the true church: because truth is unique, and they all disagree on their version of truth.
The reality is sola scriptura is unsupportable every which way, either historically , biblically, evidentially, even logically as I will now show: If "sola scriptura" is a truth, then for scripture to contain all truth, scripture would have to say so and it does not, so it is self refuting in basic logic.
Indeed scripture itself says sola scriptura is false. It says "the pillar of truth is the CHURCH" which is the "household of God" and in OT speak that means the physical manifestation of the church, not just a spiritual association. Repeat..the pillar of truth is the church! If God had wanted to say scripture he would have done. He did not say scripture, he said Church!
It is fascinating that even reformationists / protestants dont agree with sola scriptura even though they say they do. Martin Luther recognised that "all milkmaids now had their own doctrine" so gradually "articles" and "confessions" and similar documents were added to scripture for reformationists to resolve ambiguities. Yet in doing so, they were adding the very "tradition" they sought to destroy! Except - in the case of reformationists - these traditions were definitely man made in the years after 1500! Somewhat hypocritical. The ones who belong to no denomination , blast the pope and magisterium for "infallible interpretation" , yet all claim the very same power for themseleves to discern truth from scripture: they all make themselves pope!
So why is it reformationists/ protestants disagree on all doctrine? What is the missing piece? The answer is two fold.
First Authority - that is of the apostolic succession to bind and loose, ie interprete doctrinal matters, as done at councils without which we would not even have the present bible, yet protestants dont seem to acknowledge how they rely on that very authority!
Second is tradition. As St Paul tells us the faith was "handed down" (which is the meaning of tradition) by "word of mouth and letter" indeed that was an inevitable fact, because there was no NT for early christians!" So sola scriptura is historically false as the basis of christianity. Jesus gave us apostles, not a book. The book came later.
So what it is that the early christians taught and handed down?
Easily visible in the early writings. eg read ignatius of antioch letter to smyrneans (polycarps church, disciple of john the apostle) and speaking in the decades after Christ (he lived AD 35-108.
You see clearly in the writings of that generation. A liturgical, sacramental church that believed in real presence, with a clergy of bishops in apostolic succession and that only they or their appointees could perform the eucharist, that believed in sacraments and infant baptism (see ireanus). In short the catholic church. There was no other. Until the easterns decided to schism, the only other sects got their names because of heresies eg "aryans" "gnostics" "donatists". There were no denominations. There was just one catholic church! It got the name Roman, only when easterns decided to do their own thing.
Sure it grew. It was an acorn that became a flourishing Oak.
The acorn sapling and oak tree dont look the same, but they are the same species! For sure bad people have done many bad things, and since RCC is so big, many catholics, indeed bishops, indeed popes have done bad things. Thats why we need saving! But the doctrine has barely changed in all that time. Whilst all others have descended in to moral and sexual populism, RCC has alone held on to the beliefs all shared less than a century ago!
So all need to consider two or three things.
1/ When jesus said his church would be one and the "gates of hell would not prevail" against it. Is that really consistent with total apostasyin year.. (pick a random number between year 0 and 1500). Do you really think Jesus cared so little for his church he would let it go off the rails for a millenium? Of course an apostasy needs a "bad guy" . Many vote for Constantine. Yet read the "life of anthony" by st anathasius (of aryan, creed council fame) whose ministry spanned constantines reign and you see nothing actually changed!. So it was the apostasy that never was!
2/ When the "pillar and foundation of truth is the church" which church did Jesus mean (and by the way it is a physical church, that is the meaning of "household of God"
3/ Jesus made Peter the rock of the church with an inheritied Davidic office (see the time of Hezekiah) similar to prime minister "keys of the kingdom" referred in OT. None of the exegetic cart wheels used to deny that make any grammatical or logical sense. Reformationists are obliged to find a way around Peters authority, but they have yet to come up with any interpretation that denies it, other than ignoring hermeneutic rules!
Jesus asked Peter to "tend his sheep". RCC can clearly say how that scripture is fulfilled in the church. How can others say that about theirs?
It was arguments such as those, that in the end brought me back to Rome.
I think all protestants should read "suprised by truth" Madrid. It is just a collection of anecdotes, by fundamentalists and others who came back to Rome. It presents The questions they could not find answers in reformationism, and how catholicism solves them. And they discovered that most of "anticatholic" stuff, is either deliberate or accidental misunderstanding. And in almost all cases takes the literal meaning of scripture.
