So that fella with the doggerel and rather dogmatic and self-righteous youtube video about religion - which is to say, about the religious institution known as the Catholic Church - and how Jesus apparently destroyed it on the cross...yee-aaaaawwwwwn.
One could get into the scriptural passages and everything (oh yeah, the Bible! which we wouldn't have were it not for institutional religion), you know, do not think I came to abolish the law and all that jazz with Him being the New Covenant and to do this in memory of Me...
But really, getting down to the gnitty, what is his rant but Gnosticism? Heresies come in pairs. Like in the way holding forth an opposing division between nature and grace can lead one not to becoming a Manichean but to becoming a pantheist - if only a closet pantheist (watch The Tree of Life to see this in operation). One heresy gives birth to its opposite. So it goes: saying that Christ destroyed institutional religion on the cross and that the reality of doctrines, creeds, dogmas etc. are abolished as man-centered codes, leads not to the free and steady application of God's salvation of man, openly received (indeed, in such a world there would ultimately not be any "application" or "receiving"), but rather it leads to the reduction of Christ's manifestation and of His wide open grace to secret, self-applied - you might say, Pharisaical - coded knowledge: to Gnosticism.
It is precisely an institution founded by Christ (with its religious practices and observations) that preserves His operative grace (indeed, makes operative) being freely open to all men from becoming Gnosticism - Gnosticism, which is sundered from the saving action of Christ's sacrifice on the cross; the self-righteous knowledge of the Pharisees.
Funny how it works like that, no? As they say, truth is stranger than fiction. That fella is rather self-righteous in his little video too, is he not?
If Christ's singular acts of death and resurrection have no formation of a Church, of a singular, concrete religious institution, then why the bother with even becoming incarnate and dying? Did God simply don a man's body in order to get the sacrifice done? If instituting a church, instituting an institutional body, was not His plan, then why not? Why not just say He was God who only donned a man's body but wasn't truly fully man? That all those Jewish religious customs He observed was just make-believe, was all pretend - Him just sort of faking it? Why didn't He just wave a magical Harry Potter wand from the clouds and go zap, your sins are destroyed?
God seeking man? What do you think Sacred Doctrine is? Where do you think your very notion of God seeking man comes from? A spontaneous magical Harry Potter thought? It comes from Sacred Doctrine you fool. Given from the martyrdom of the minds of countless fathers and doctors of the Institutional Church who conformed their minds to Revelation which in turn flowers to us as Sacred Doctrine whose one subject is God - Who became man, was crucified, died, and was buried and rose from the dead, ascended into Heaven and sent forth His Holy Spirit to institute His Church that flowered, and continues to flower, with said Sacred Doctrine making manifest to us the truth of His mysteries in Jesus Christ.
Update: Owen has a related post worth reading: Confession: I am not a 'follower of Jesus'