Bishops and Apostolic Succession in the Early Church 

I'm convert from Roman to Lutheran Church in Poland and a fan of your videos, Dr. Cooper :) I got interested in Church Fathers on my way to Lutheranism, after reading Augsburg Confession.

Your critiques of Rome are among the best I've found, both on logical and historical grounds. Your comeback to "Where is Sola Scriptura in the Bible?" is so simple I'm kicking myself for not thinking about it. They have the burden to prove another divine source other than the Bible. I don't think it's a coincidence that you have a thorough knowledge of the fathers and can so easily dispatch of Roman claims. To be 'deep' in history is to cease to be Protestant. To be deepest in history is to cease being Roman.

I've listened to most of your videos and I'm a happy Anglican. Both Anglicanism and Lutheranism have the best balance. We need a high view of the authority of scripture, with a respect for how the church has traditionally handled it.

Well thanks to you I have been convinced of Sacramental Theology, now I attend an ACNA and my first son was baptized last month.

I became Anglican partly because of your videos on the Fathers and the sacraments. The placing of Tradition on the same plane with Scripture and medieval theological inventions dispel me from turning to Rome or Constantinople. I think Canterbury and Augsburg get it mostly right, although I do find Orthodox liturgy beautiful.

One of the single-most balanced presentations on the topic.

Dr. Jordan Cooper, congratulations on your honest teachings. It is for these and others things that I tend to say that the true apostolic succession is the succession of apostle's faith and doctrine wich are safe and objectively contained in the NT, as we can see it in Acts: "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." (Acts 2:42). This is the true and blessed Apostolic Succession. God bless you and carry on with your teachings here! Warm regards from your Presbyterian (almost Lutheran lol) brother

I don't want your channel to just become a counter-RC apologetical ministry, but I do appreciate your critique of Rome and always welcome it. I like your emphasis on Lutheran piety, confessionalism and sacramentalism. I have enjoyed learning more about Lutheranism, especially as so much of theological discussion in evangelicalism ends up revolving around Calvinism vs. Arminianism. I do think we need more nuanced information and pastoral application of historic, confessional Protestantism.

Lutheran will do me. Thank you for these insights.

You said we don't really know if they laid hands 6:57. It's mentioned in 1 Tim. 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Other translations say elders, council of elders, eldership. Other scriptures seem to use presbytery and bishop interchangeably.

Tertullian referenced churches in his day that were not founded by "apostles or apostolic men." See ANF: Vol. III, The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 32.

Why Apostolic Succession is NOT an option for the Church? It prevents heretics from accessing the pulpits, and from hurting the sheep with their apostate doctrines. “But the same writer (Clement of Rome), in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just (Half-brother of Jesus) and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the Seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.” Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, “Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.” ” ~Eusebius, Disciple of Pamphilus (influenced by Origen), Bishop of Caesarea 314 AD, Christian historian, polemicist, exegete. Ascension of Christ, Book II, 260-340 AD What Are Apostolic Traditions? 1. They are the interpretations of the Scriptures that Jesus taught His disciples and were passed on to faithful men. 2. They are teachings that protect the Church from heretical teachers. 3. They were preserved among the Ante-Nicene Fathers. 4. It must be held in high regard at the end of the age to protect the Church from the lawless one, Son of Perdition. Apostolic Tradition refers to the teachings, interpretations and revelations of scripture that were passed down from the first Apostles to the Early Church prior to 325 AD. The Apostles passed these down so that we might stay in alignment with the pattern and what Jesus taught to receive the same understanding and power of the Early Church. It is evident this is not the case in Christianity today with thousands of different denominations and interpretations. To truly follow the teachings of Jesus we need to follow the initial Apostolic understanding and teachings they received from Jesus himself.

We converted to Lutheranism (LCC) after watching almost all of your videos. Having done so, we have no idea how your teaching could lead anyone to Rome. Selectively?

Piepkorn participated in “Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue” - which yielded some surprising conclusions (see Volume IV on Eucharist and Ministry). One of the Roman participants (Fr. George Tavard) concluded that presbyterial successions are a matter of history, and said: I would be prepared to go further, and to admit that episcopal succession is not absolutely required for valid ordination…. The main problem, in our ecumenical context, does not lie in evaluating historical lines of succession, but in appreciating the catholicity of Protestantism today. Fellow participant Fr. Harry McSorley concluded, after a thorough study of the Council of Trent: We can say without qualification that there is nothing whatever in the Tridentine doctrine on sacrament of order concerning the reality of the eucharist celebrated by Christians of the Reformation churches. Catholic theologians who have maintained that there is no sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in Protestant churches because Protestant ministers are radically incapable of consecrating the eucharist are incorrect if they think this opinion is necessitated by the teaching of Trent.

@Dr. Cooper, if I wanted to dive deeper into a Lutheran understanding of ordination, do you have a favorite book you would recommend? I'm wrestling a lot with the question of whether or not my presbyterian, baptist, and penetecostal friends (among others) have valid churches with valid ministry leaders from the perspective of ordination. I realize that other doctrine is vitally important too in assessing that situation, but ordination seems like a logical starting point. Thank you for your ministry!

The Didache seems to admonish bodies of believers to choose Godly leaders - it doesn't preface it with anything like, "and now I'm speaking to your bishops," rather it's written to the general body. Would seem to indicate that at least when the Didache was written (somewhere between 60 and 150 AD), bishops were not expected to the choosing their own successors. If so, then apostolic sucession is not itself apostolic.

If one examine the question of the essential necessity of episcopacy ("esse") to the Church, from the essence of authority, vs. its desirability ("bene esse" or even "plene esse"), one has to wonder, given the crud that various episcopal systems "gone to seed" have reigned down upon the Church, why is episcopacy even needed? I think that the Lutheran answer, that episcopacy is desirable so long as it is uncorrupted and actually of use to the Church, rather than to be detrimental to it, but is not essential, is a good one. The episcopacy is desirable so long as it fulfils its fuction for good order and when it does not fulfil that need, one either deposes the current bishops, or one operates without them, placing authority in the ministerium that CAN maintain good order AND to promote right teaching.

I am actually currently reading City of God, and I can only imagine Augustine's reaction to stuff like the Treasury of Merit, modern Catholic marian doctrine, and purgatory. Yeahhhhhh. Augustine, of all people, wouldn't accept modern Catholicism. Not even close.

Ignatius' letters have been questioned as the product of someone in the middle or late 2nd century trying to establish greater legitimacy for the roles of bishops... Reading them, it seems that all he cares about is that people listen to their bishops, so that's an understandable point of question. The congregation electing elders seems quite wildly out of place in an ancient context, regardless. Not that I'm absolutely tied to a 1st or 2nd century church structure.

There are differing views within Presbyterianism about the role of the bishop. See the debates between two and three office church government.

There is the possibility that there was no bishop in Rome at the time of Ignatius's writing because the see was vacant at the time.

Good stuff as usual Dr. Cooper! Would be great if you can also think about doing the following: 1) How did marriage as a Sacrament in the Roman Church develop? Is there any basis for it in the early church fathers or is it just a later development due to other things? 2) Have a dialogue with Matt Fradd. He's been my favourite Roman Catholic on RU-vid, and although as a Protestant I disagree with him on some stuff, would be great if you both could dialogue with one another Anyways, God bless and I pray your ministry will continue to flourish!

Apostolic succession was probably a way to ensure that what was being taught by the Bishop was a valid apostolic teaching. After formalizing the canon, I see this as being unnecessary. Ironically, those who hold to apostolic succession, the institution designed to preserve truth, have deviated from the clear teaching of scripture.

I love your videos, though I mainly watch in order to hear the smarts of an alternative perspective, my being a Catholic. You say that apostolic succession shows up with Irenaeus, but it is actually a bit earlier, even before the whole of the bible was written. Clement (96 AD) speaks of it pretty clearly (albeit, without a mono-episcopacy) and Ignatius of Antioch implies sacramental authority residing in the bishop (with a mono-episcopal structure). In both Clement and Ignatius, predating Irenaeus (177 AD), you have church leadership as being primarily priestly and sacramental. Clement, for example, writes to the Corinthians specifically to urge church unity based on apostolic authority residing in the episcopal leadership. The schismatic element of the Corinthian church is urged to submit to their leaders (the leadership being modeled largely on their priestly function, echoing the Old Testament priesthood). "And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons…. Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, since they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." - Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5; 44:1-2 (96 A.D). I won't quote Ignatius, but peppered throughout his letters, he speaks of no one doing anything pertaining to the church apart from the bishop, including "love feasts" which are clearly sacramental.

I've considered Roman Catholicism as a possibility for a Protestant, but the more I study it, the less attractive it seems to me. I find it so untenable that I can't understand why anyone Protestant (especially a Reformed Presbyterian or Lutheran) would want to join Roman Catholicism. It is clear that the RCC (and Orthodox Church) is full of innovations, a mixture of paganism and extra biblical practices that crept into the church through the centuries. One has to set the Bible aside or put it in secondary "suggestion" category to become an RC or Orthodox. That's a LOT worse than the modern charismatic neo Pentecostal movements who at least tries to find or base their claims and practices in the Biblical record. That's not the case with the RCC or OC which contain not only extra biblical, but contra biblical practices and doctrines. Thanks.

You seem to be stuck in a place between the Bible and tradition. If there is no evidence of the apostles handing down their apostolic office then to believe in it is just faith. Your accept that elder, overseer and pastor are really all the same thing yet when the word overseer is used in 1 Tim 3:1 you want to make out that it means something more. To provide a means of giving religious authority without Biblical warrant, even to the extent of being mediators between men and God! I can easily understand why your teaching on this issue may encourage people to join the RC or even orthodox churches because you are supporting a mystical sacerdotalism, and the RC churches are more conservative generally than Anglicans or Lutherans. The mess in the evangelical world surely gives a big push too. I have learned such a lot from your videos, and I appreciate your learning and teaching. I will continue to watch when interesting things pop up. Thanks.

I think there is a mistake in the understanding of the roman catholic position. They consider the anglican successions invalid because they lack in form and intention according to Pope Leo XIII who decided about it. Other groups, who are considered excommunicated or schismatic, for example eastern orthodoxy or FSSPX are considered to have valid ordinations.

Why claim, “by the MID 2nd century, according to St Ignatius” there seems to be bishops in major Christian cities? If Ignatius is dated to about 110ad, it seems likely that Bishops were in place at latest the end of the 1st century.

Even in the New Testament, there were three levels of clergy: Apostles, elders/bishops, and deacons. When the Apostles passed on, they were replaced by people, and that position came to be known as "bishop."

share to blow lds familys’ minds.

This doctrine is the main reason I see absolutely no reason to be a Catholic or orthodox. Even if I wanted to I just don't have any reason to think I need to so I simply don't care. Being a protestant allows me to be open to Catholic and orthodox theology without buying into any of them.

I think that is the point It’s the validity of the teaching that is the issue for non Catholics/orthodox Claiming “unbroken succession” doesn’t convince people of the validity of your teaching Claiming “unbroken succession” doesn’t somehow convince me that Peter or Paul were instructing people to ask for intercession from the dead or about indulgences

Listening to you brought me out of the reformed tradition, but ultimately pushed me to Orthodoxy.

Could you give me some church fathers that don’t portray Peter as the rock because from what I’ve seen they all affirm the papacy that Peter is the rock

We do have evidence of Apostolic Succession and authority since the apostolic times and of course this authority (doctrinal and Sacramental) are together part of the apostolic ordination. All we have to look at is the writings of the Church fathers: “Our Apostles, too, were given to understand by our own Lord Jesus Christ the office of the bishop would give rise to intrigues. For this reason, they appointed the men mentioned before, and afterwards laid down a rule once for all to this effect: when these men die, other approved men shall succeed to their sacred ministry”. - Clement of Rome (a disciple of Peter and Paul), “Epistle to the Corinthians”, 96 AD. Part of their sacred ministry involved celebrating the sacraments. The Church fathers indeed recognized the authority of the Bishop of Rome as the one who holds the keys to the kingdom. In fact, not one Church father renounced the Papacy. Irenaeaus clearly taught the primacy of the Church at Rome and to affirm the primacy, he named the successors of Peter up to Irenaeaus' time: “…by indicating that tradition derived from the Apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached by men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere (Ireneaus [180 AD], “Against Heresies”, 3,3,2). And of course other Church fathers affirm that Peter is rock and has preeminent authority because he and his successors possess the keys to the kingdom: "[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys." - Tertullian, Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220] "Peter, the Rock of the faith, whom Christ our Lord called blessed, the teacher of the Church, the first disciple, he who has the keys of the kingdom." - Hippolytus, Exfabrico. n.9, 225AD. "In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head - that is why he is also called Cephas [Rock] - of all the Apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the Apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would presume to set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner.... Recall then the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church." - Optatus, The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2, 367AD

Mr. Cooper, you seem to not even be able to make a proper distinction between _valid_ and _licit._ I will have more time tomorrow to write a proper response, but anyone who cannot properly use these basic terms should not be espousing a position.

How and where is Sacramentalism taught in scripture? TY

"We don't know if the apostles laid their hands" That doesn't mean you can pull the Atheist card and say they didn't.

When Papists talk about Succession and valid Sacraments, I always give them the following: So who has the correct Ordination? The Eastern Orthodox is not the same as Roman Catholic, which is different from Anglican. If the gift given in Ordination happens because of the ceremony ex opere operato, who has the correct form? Even the RC admit that EO have valid Sacraments. If Apostolic Succession is lost due to heresy, what of the Great Schism of 1054? Who has it? Again, if the RC admits that the EO have valid Sacraments, then this is a double standard against Protestants. In terms of Ordination, Luther was ordained a priest, and Lutherans kept Ordination. Therefore, Lutherans have a Presbyteral form of succession rather than an Episcopal one. Some Lutherans also maintained the episcopate. If Apostolicae Curae condemned the Anglican rite of Ordination, how would that criterion apply to the Novus Ordo Ordination? It removes the words regarding Sacrifice, so one could argue that the intent is not the same either, namely the intent to perform the Sacrifice of the Mass. In the end, looking for Apostolic Succession is just a cope for the fact that the Pope is an apostate heretic and idolater.

Catholics generally do recognize schismatic ordimation as "valid but illicit" the highest profile example of this is the SSPX, but there are other (including some "old Catholic" groups). They stopped recognizing Anglican ordinations because of a change in the form ordination during the 1700's

Theology was always an issue from Arius and the Gnostics. What was never Challenged until the 16th century? The liturgy and the Sacraments. If the Bible is inspired and inerrant in the face of all the controversy how could the non controversial Traditions of the Church not be similarly inspired? It defies logic especially when you know the Bible is a Product of the Church. There is no unanimous Consent in Eastern Orthodoxy the Church Fathers didn’t always agree with each other they didn’t even agree with themselves. Chrysostom’s views of marriage turned 180 degrees over his ministry does that invalidate his contributions, of course not. The Apostles didn’t agree in the first Century and had to confront the teaching that you had to become Jewish before you Could become Christian and it’s precisely how they dealt with that that established the fundamental organizational principles of the Church, enduring Consensus that was held to until Pope Leo IX turned his back on it.

Just came across this. Very interesting, but. It's very "if", "seems like", "possibly", etc: very speculative. I don't mean to criticise but you cut lost of slack towards your preferred interpretation and scepticism/doubt to alternatives. Understandable, as I do the same, but sadly unconvincing. Church structure as it happened does not in anyway even begin to justify what we have. The church was quite corrupted during the apostolic period, so give a hundred years and of history and there's no way we can have any confidence. I mostly like what you say 😀

I heard a ELCA Pastor say Lutheran Church is the Catholic prior to the Heresy of Vatican 2 😂

After the Apostles die, is there another role that takes that place. No. That’s why a Restoration was needed.

Be encouraged, Dr. Cooper...this ex-Catholic finds your research on the early church fathers very useful in my work with Catholics who find my reformed theology "heretical," according to the RCC. Thank you, and the RCC is much better at salesmanship than they are actual systematic theology. It's not you... :P

Succession of the position/office (Acts 1) of the apostle, special powers like forgive sins (John 20:23), Primacy of Peter (everywhere) = single dude at the top. "Bishop of Rome" is a red herring

I have been tempted many times to cross the Tiber or the Bosphorous, but I just have to keep reminding myself that I can’t work for my own salvation. I did that before in American Evangelicalism, and my soul was starved of the true Law and Gospel. Their liturgies are beautiful (and much is scriptural), and certainly their traditions and claims to antiquity may have weight, but I can’t accept the many doctrines that don’t align with Holy Scripture. Semper Virgo, sure. Co-mediatrix, no way. (Since the Eastern Church hasn’t dealt with the same conflicts that the Western Church has, I can’t speak much to their traditions/dogma. They largely seem like Calvinists in that everyone you ask will give a different answer. I’m definitely painting with a broad brush, though.)

At 1:36 he puts his hand on his glasses. Psychologists know that this is a typical sign of when someone is not telling the truth. People need to become Catholic.

Apostolic succession exists only in the CATHOLIC church? Succession is not in the bible.

Problems arise immediately when people fail to pay attention to Jesus. Jesus said we are all equal. Call each other brothers. That's what JESUS said. Even his very own closes disciples didn't pay attention. The Sons of Thunder and their mom, Peter get behind me satan, he who is not against us is for us... We have one leader the Christ. So it is no surprise that people are grabbing for power in their false churches. The closest 12 were doing the same thing but Jesus always rebuked them.. Because we are all brethren on one level, with one leader. This is why I follow Jesus and not Paul, Peter, James whoever and certainly no pope or "church father" who exalt themselves over me.

Apostolic Succession does NOT start with the St. Irenaeus and his explanations as it can be found in the Bible. I do not know who gave you "dr" title...

*APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE* 1. In the Bible, Joseph and Eliakim were given symbols of their unique authority and stewardship in their respective kingdoms (cf. Genesis 41:40-44, Isaiah 22:20-22). 2. The symbols of authority given to Joseph and Eliakim were a signet ring and a key, respectively. 3. The office of steward passed from Shebna to Eliakim, indicating that while the person holding this office may be replaced or die, the office itself continues under the authority of the king, even if the individual officeholder changes. 4. Jesus is the King of kings (cf. 1 Timothy 6:15, Revelation 17:14). 5. Jesus alluded to Isaiah 22:20-22 when speaking to Peter in Matthew 16:18-19, indicating a parallel between Eliakim's role and Peter's role. 6. Jesus gave Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16:19) as a symbol of his unique authority and stewardship. 7. Therefore, Jesus established the office of steward in His kingdom, the Church. 8. Therefore, Peter holds a unique authority and stewardship role within the kingdom of heaven, analogous to Eliakim's role in the kingdom of Israel. 9. Jesus' kingdom, the Church, is eternal and will never end (cf. Daniel 7:14, Luke 1:33). 10. The office of steward within the Church has continued and will continue until Christ's return. 11. The office of steward passed from Peter to his successors sequentially, as evidenced by the early Church's recognition of the bishops of Rome as Peter's successors. 12. Therefore, Peter's successors, the Popes of the Catholic Church, have continued serving in this office, ensuring continuity in leadership and the preservation of Christ's authority within the Church.

Maybe the laying on of hands was just a misunderstanding when Greco/Romans invented Christianity to separate their religion from the Messianic Jews. The Jews used laying on of hands when blessing someone so they would quite naturally lay hands on someone when sending them on a mission or appointing them to an office. One must understand the way of the Apostolic ekklesia prior to its being hijacked for Greco/Roman purposes.

The word-concept fallacy is often committed when denying basic tenets of the Catholic faith, using the quip: "this is not clearly stated in the New Testament." This is, first of all, an abuse of the scriptures. No Protestant will be willing to give up all of his _own_ developments simply because the scriptural support is either scant or non-existent. To expect this of Rome is an absurdity. The assertion that the office of Bishop is not clearly defined in scripture is another absurdity. The concept is present, even if proper terminology is not given encyclopedic coverage. Both Timothy and Titus were ordained by Paul for the purpose of ordaining other local priests. It does not follow that those second tier priests could in turn ordain their own clergy. The multi-tiered structure of clerical ordination is discernible in scripture, and is consistent with the developments which _actually_ occurred in history, and not some Protestant's fantasy about the "church that might have been." The idea that the episcopal model adopted by _the entire Apostolic Church_ is not binding on all Christians is not worth my time or energy to consider. Ignatius of Antioch says as much: "See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." That a Church does not even have "proper" sacraments without an apostolic bishop is an _extremely_ early idea; Ignatius died in 140 at the latest. We cannot be expected to believe that he invented the idea during his travel to martyrdom. The concept of sacramental validity being inextricably linked to Apostolic succession appears either in the apostolic age or the generation immediately following _at the very latest._ The difference between _valid_ and _licit_ also needs to be discussed. It has happened that heretical and schismatic bishops with real and true apostolic succession have broken off from the Church Catholic. They possess the ability to consecrate a host (validity), but their doing so is not permitted (licitness), and the receiving of such a sacrament is frowned upon and only permissible in emergencies. It should be obvious to anyone that for this system to work, there needs to be a singular, final arbiter who can say with authority who is and is not in communion with the other bishops: a "super bishop" if you will. The developments of history provide us with that bishop; we call him "pope." Even the Greeks will admit to a pride of place for the Roman bishop. That the Corinthians deferred to the bishop of Rome in their controversies as evidenced in Clement only underlines the fact that Rome, contrary to political developments at the time, emerged as the head of the body of Christ. This is also present more explicitly in the fathers, Leo and Gregory to be precise. This is also consistent with Peter being the "rock" upon which the Church is founded. Mr. Cooper, if you are reading: this is why you lose so many followers to Rome. You may call the above outline "unscriptural" or "inconsistent with the fathers," but full consistency with all extant writing from the fathers will never be attained by any communion, and precisely what the scriptures mean and who decides what they mean, is at the heart of the contention; they cannot be appealed to as a sole authority in this debate without the argument becoming self-referential. You set up a standard that you yourself, within your communion, fail far more miserably than Rome ever has. Rome is the oak, fully grown from the acorn of the Early Church; Lutheranism is a creeping vine, newly sprung up and clinging to the oak, whose foliage is often confused for the genuine article. When your listeners identify the difference, they swim the Tiber. Turning your channel into an "anti-Rome" venue will exacerbate the problem; many of your listeners are adept in the use of logic. The question remains: "Why do you continue to justify your schism?"

sorry, not very clear, not very concise, convoluted, no definition of terms, no clarification of Greek terms, the roles of such positions, no historical context, and spoken very rapidly.