0:43 Small correction, there is a difference between being ordinated and being appointed as a Bishop. The Pope appoints someone Bishop of a diocese, but the one who celebrates the ritual to consecrate said person as a Bishop is his episcopal ancestor. So ordinate is would be the correct word, not appoint
9:55 Another correction. Official statements about church doctrine (Magisterium) can be erroneous. For the statement to be infallible the Pope must be clear he is being definitive on that issue.
It's a little known fact that the reason the coronation of King Charles III took so much longer than Queen Elizabeth IIs coronation, is because Westminster Abbey has a checker patterned tile floor.
Another interesting non-biological family tree I saw some years ago is an academic family tree that traces a line of doctoral advisors. You can see how Fermi is a distant descendant of Faraday, descended from Lavoisier, descended from Liebniz, descended from Kepler, who in turn is descended even from Martin Luther.
There's a website called the Mathematics Genealogy Project that does this for mathematicians, the ones for other scholars exist but I don't know if they're still up.
And before anyone asks: The earliest born person of whom an audio recording survives is Helmuth von Moltke the Elder (1800-1891), a German statesman who was commonly known as "der große Schweiger" (the great silent one), because he had a reputation for speaking very little. -- Which is ironic, because he is the only person born in the 18th century (which technically ended on 31 December 1800) whose voice can still be heard today.
I've been spending the last few years looking at the oldest pictures, films, recordings. I hadn't discovered the one from him yet. Can't wait to go look it up. It's amazing that we can visually see people from the mid 1700s.
@@ModernDayRenaissanceMan it really pushes the timeline back a lot… I’ve been fascinated by super early photos and recordings since I was a little kid. I’m talking like 2008 UA-cam LOL
Another fun fact about Leo XIII: google "Vin Mariani" and "Leo XIII" and you will find out that His Holiness not only did, but also advertised cocaine! He states that cocaine gives him extra energy while reading mass....I would love to see Leo XIII canonised
Correction: The Medici Popes were cousins, not uncle and nephew. Pope Clement VII was born as Giulio di Giuliano de' Medici and Pope Leo X was born as Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici. Giuliano and Lorenzo were brothers. Giuliano was assassinated on Eastern Sunday in 1478 by the Pazzi, a powerful family of Florence and major nemesis of the Medici. Following his father's death, Giulio was raised along side his cousins by his uncle Lorenzo the Magnificent.
We have no Christian faith, without Apostolic succession. It's one faith, passed down from the Apostles. Without Apostolic Succession we have no unity with our past and ancestors and more importantly, we would have no unity as a Church.
@@jd3jefferson556facts. Our faith relies on Apostolic Succession, without it there would be no sacraments. Heretics and their false "churches" will come and go, but Holy Mother Church will be here until the end.
@@jd3jefferson556 Apostolic succession isn't important and is broken. Most Christians are not descendants of the first Christian Jews or Gentiles either.
You forgot to mention that a bishop doesn't just have a single "parent"; in an episcopal consecration two pishops beyond the principal consecrator take part. In extreme circumstances their number may be reduced to one, but a consecration by a sole consecrator is deemed faulty (although still valid). It has been a custom in the Catholic Church to chose as co-consecrators bishops from diverse lineages, including oriental ones, exactly in order for the chain of cuccession not to be reliant on any single link.
Bishops don't just transmit episcopacy. They confer priesthood, which a simple priest can not do, and also perform confirmations. So priests and confirmed laity also take part in the episcopal succession.
@@faithlesshound5621 They may benefit from it, but they aren't links in a succession chain. And we have christian denominations that are devoid of priesthood simply because there were no bishops to propagate the episcopal succession - Bespopovtsy of the Russian Orthodox family.
@@M-CH_ So a bishop's touch is still required for confirmation, priest-making and bishop-making. The last ideally needs two or three bishops. Maybe the Pope will declare (infallibly) that these can all be done virtually.
You can probably do this with a lot of academics - as most professors generally got their education from a small number of elite universities. I'm an earth scientist and every so often I'll run into someone at a conference and find out we shared a 'grand-supervisor'.
Most notably, the concept of the "Erdos number," a kind of "degrees of Kevin Bacon"-type calculation of how many layers of coauthorship stand between a given mathematician and the legendarily productive Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdos. 1 would mean you coauthored a paper with Erdos, 2 would mean you coauthored with someone with an Erdos number of 1, and so on. Unrelated side note: Erdos was also known for the witticism that a mathematician is just a machine for turning coffee into theorems.
Fun fact. The guy who vetoed the election of cardinal Rampolla is also on this chart - it was cardinal Puzyna in the lineage of John Paul II. He was a bishop of Krakow in the part of Poland under Austrian rule, during the partition period.
@@MrSinclairn there was no single reason - he was partially convicted by Puzyna who didn't like Rampolla for his anti-Austrian and anti-Polish political stance - in addition Rampolla protested against having a funeral for FJz sons because he commited suicide because so it was personal
@@emkalina Thank you;that does make sense,as in both mainstream RC and Protestant churches at that time,suicide was still officially regarded as as both sinful and illegal,even as somebody as high-born as Crown-Prince Rudolf(1858-1889)
That's false gibberish. Austrian emperors didn't dare for centuries to claim a Veto for "anti austrian" reasons. Franz Josef called a Veto on Rampolla because a Franciscan monk convinced him that Rampolla was a hidden Francmason.
A lot of this info is really good, just one tiny ‘correction’ or additional thing. As a Roman Catholic, and as far my limited understanding goes, many consider the apostle Simon-Peter specifically as the ‘first pope’ because Jesus instructed him to lead the church after his resurrection and giving him his ‘papal name’ of Peter (or Petra in Latin which means rock I believe).
Almost correct with an understandable mistake! If you look at the Latin, the name given would have been “Petros” which is based off of the word for rock, which is Petra.
Yeah, this guy doesn't go back as far as he actually should because a fire destroyed some official documents, but that's nitpicking. The Catholic Church leads directly to St. Peter and the Apostles.
In french it's even more straight forward. The word for rock is "pierre" and the name is Pierre. Quite common name in France, not necessarily loaded with religious implication (not as much as Christian for example).
@@TomFromMars The best name of Peter, son of John (Bariona), is the original Aramaic *"Kepha"* (I've seen also Cepa/Kepa), translated in the English Bibles as Kephas or Cephas (Rock). That was the actual new name Jesus gave him when Peter was introduced by his brother Andrew the first time, in John 1: 42. Therefore, "You are Kepha/Rock, and on this Kepha/Rock I will build my Church" sounds pretty original. St. Paul mentions Kephas several times in his letters. I agree though that also the French "Pierre" avoids the feminine/masculine gender ambiguity. The list of all popes is to be found in a marble table on a wall of the Milan Cathedral. I think Wikipedia should have a photo of it.
@@glassfibersweater6063 Make that "Petrus" for Latin, "Petros" would indicate Greek, not Latin, but the Greek word for rock would be something like "Βράχος" (modern Greek, but many basic words haven't really changed).
In spite of there inevitably being fires, people still knew who laid hands on whom so traditional lineages are probably correct. I think some Orthodox branches trace their lineages back to St. Mark.
That would be a fun tree to map out the apostles and evangelists. Peter and paul had rome (catholics). St Andrew had greece (orthodoxi) St Mark had Alexandria (coptics). And etc
Antioch is a Petrine See. Antiochian Greek Orthodox are from St. Peter just like Rome. Smyrna was as well. Alexandria was too, but St. Mark reset the Apostolic Succession there.
Yes, the Coptic Egyptian Orthodox trace back to St. Mark. Unfortunately, the Copts became heretics and schismatics by joining the Arians in rejecting the Council of Chalcedon in 470, IIRC. The Copts had a similarly faulty misunderstanding of the nature of Christ. As a result, they became the very first schismatic group to leave the One, True, Holy, and Apostolic Church, becoming the very first so-called "Orthodox". They then went on to adopt most of the false beliefs of later Orthodox groups, which broke off from the Church during the Great Schism of the 11th Century.
@@Tsalagi978 Alexandria is still considered a Petrine See, because St Mark is the disciple of St Peter. Constantinople isn't linked to Peter outside of his brother, but unlike Alexandria, the lineage cannot be connected to Andrew at all.
OMG YOU DID IT! I asked you on Twitter for something like this and you did it. Thanks man. I liked this vid already. Would be cool to also show some other denominations like this. I'm sure it is difficult.
@@sam.mead__I'd say that's some parish, but I'd even more like to say - that's some bishop who would spend his retirement as a resident priest in a parish.
@@M-CH_ it certainly is some parish! There are 4 churches in it with 8 Sunday Masses each week. The retired bishop actually lives seperately to the two other priests and only usually celebrates 1 Mass (and sometimes 0) each Sunday, so he isn't as involved as the other two priests but he's a very lovely person. My neighbouring parish has 4 priests and 8 churches!
Matt, you are using incorrect terminology. A bishop is not merely appointed, he is consecrated / ordained, by the laying on of hands by three Bishops, and other ceremonies. This is a sacrament. The Apostolic Succession is a sacramental succession, not merely a succession of appointments. This point cannot be over stressed!
Also, a diocese CAN have more than one bishop. Many large dioceses and archdioceses have auxiliary (assistant) bishops, and occasionally a diocese may have a coadjutor bishop with the right of succession -- he serves alongside the incumbent bishop, exercises the same authority, and automatically succeeds the incumbent when he dies or retires. A coadjutor is usually appointed at the request of an incumbent bishop who is in failing health or getting close to retirement age and wants to have a successor in place ahead of time.
Great chart, but there’s one correction I would make with your terminology. What you call an “appointment” in the beginning should instead be an “ordination”. A bishop is only ordained once, by one principal bishop conferring the ordination to make a priest a bishop. However, the appointment of a bishop refers to where his assignment is after he is ordained. A bishop is only ordained once but can often get many assignments throughout his life
I’d then also correct your terminology. Priests are ordained. Bishops are consecrated. Shocking how many upvoted your comment, shows the sorry state of catechesis in 2024.
@@josephszijarto1170 Either term is acceptable, as ordination is the term regularly used for major orders (deacons, priests, bishops) and even sometimes minor orders. The term consecration can only be used for bishops but ordinations is acceptable for all levels of holy orders. Even the Catechism uses ordination to refer to bishops. “Yet Catholic doctrine teaches that the degrees of priestly participation (episcopate and presbyterate) and the degree of service (diaconate) are all three conferred by a sacramental act called ‘ordination’” - Catechism of the Catholic Church 1554 “In our day, the lawful ordination of a bishop requires a special intervention by the Bishop of Rome…” -CCC 1559
@@josephszijarto1170 Either term is acceptable, as ordination is the term regularly used for major orders (deacons, priests, bishops) and even sometimes minor orders. The term consecration can only be used for bishops but ordinations is acceptable for all levels of holy orders. “Yet Catholic doctrine teaches that the degrees of priestly participation (episcopate and presbyterate) and the degree of service (diaconate) are all three conferred by a sacramental act called ‘ordination’” - Catechism of the Catholic Church 1554 “In our day, the lawful ordination of a bishop requires a special intervention by the Bishop of Rome…” -CCC 1559
@@Hookly I accept your sources (appreciating that they are traditional and not based on V2 questionable theology) and that ordination could also be used. I think this is somewhat debated however -- from this source, the episcopate is not a sacrament because it is not an order; and it is not an order because it does not impress a character; and it does not impress a character because ‘through it the bishop is not ordinated directly to God, but to the Mystical Body of Christ’ (Comment. in Sententias, IV, d. 24, q. 3. a. 2; Summa Theologica, Suppl. q. 40, a. 5, ad 2) I lean towards the use of episcopal consecration as that is absolutely correct and differentiates from ordination which is sacramental. However I correct my correction as you're also correct.
Sorry, but I have to disagree when you talked about Pius XII. His role in WW2 was great, he saved 800,000 jews from the holocaust and even rome's rabbi converted to catholicism when he saw Pius XII effort in protecting his people. He thought it was better not to denounce publicly bc he could be crushed instead he chose to help the victims. He knew pens couldnt stop Hitler, only steel
Being crushed by the Nazis after a very public denunciation would have been a powerful statement to the occupied countries. He was not too scared of communists to denounce them, a few years later.
@@Spearca Firstly because communist allies wasn't ruling in Rome. Secondly, because communism was much worse than nazism, and thirdly - nazi biggest crimes wasn't widely known before end of the war - death camps were top secret and even german alies didn't really know what was happening to jews. And finally - what such statement would change? At the moment everybody already fought each other for total destruction. What more they could do after papal words?
If we wanna get deeper into the rabbit hole, there were the whole visions of Fatima, describing the Holy Papa getting gunned down by the Church’s enemies. People attribute it to the assassination attempt on JP2, but this here was clearly a possibility that couldve happened. If not for what, diplomacy? Cowardice? We all know now from records that he was acting as a Spymaster to the allies, but the lives lost and the scandal still stain the reputation.
Would be good to point out that diocese can have more than one bishop, with auxiliaries where needed, but there is only one bishop with a Cathedra at a Cathedral in each diocese
Technically, most auxiliary bishops are ordained as head of a titular see, which is a diocese that is no longer in active use - for example, auxiliary Bishop Lewandowski of Baltimore is technically the titular bishop of Croae, the modern Albanian city of Krujë. This is similar to how every cardinal is technically the head overseer of one of the churches in Rome, since the college of Cardinals is acting as the leaders of the church in Rome to select the new bishop, who becomes Pope.
Thank you for being one of the only people in Anglophone North America to get the Immaculate Conception right! _Everyone_ thinks it's the same thing as the Virgin Birth -- and like, I doubt anybody's _died_ or anything because of the mixup, but it drives me crazy.
Also, one minor mis-speech: the Pope Clement who wouldn't annul Henry VIII's marriage to Katharine of Aragon was Clement VII, the Seventh; the chart does have him numbered correctly, but the voiceover has "Twelfth" by mistake. (I don't know how easy that sort of thing is to fix, or if you'd sooner shrug it off, especially as it doesn't affect the chart -- just thought you'd want to know, unless of course you caught it already.)
It is incorrect that there is only one bishop per every diocese. Some dioceses have a main bishop but they could also have a coadjutor bishop or an auxiliary bishop which is like an assistant bishop. These are considered bishops because they are consecrated in the same way as the main bishop of a diocese.
An auxiliary bishop, in order to become a bishop, gets appointed to "lead" a defunct diocese. For example one auxiliary bishop in Baltimore is the titular bishop of a defunct diocese in Albania, the other is the titular bishop of a defunct diocese in (what is now) Algeria.
Can I ask the people watching this a question? If you're in your 20s or older did you ever imagine back when you were in school that one day you would be sitting watching a long video about a chart that explains the timelines of popes for no other reason than you choose to because you find it extremely interesting and entertaining? No, neither did I. Education is wasted on the young. It makes me so happy to know there are so many other people out there interested in this sort of thing.
Well I'm going to be 70 this year and I sure did. It would have been difficult to predict UA-cam but I did always like watching films with my projector. The local libraries I had access to fifty years ago already had reels available for checking out and there were a lot of educational ones. The best ones in my opinion showed various industrial processes, the How It's Made of yore if you like. Education is never wasted!
Well, yeah. I'm almost 53, but I have degrees in history and sociology/anthropology, so this crap has always been in my wheelhouse. Most though, prob not.
Fascinating chart! I remember back in my chemistry department (at UW-Madison) we had a chart like this for all of our professors, and nearly all of them could be traced back to Emil Fischer in mid 1800s Germany!
@@jackyexThe thing about Apostolic Succession is maintaining the faith is first, Office is second, and Grace is third. The lines are just fine. 👍 All ancient Apostolic Sees have unbroken lines of Succession. We have lineages kept in other places via the Fathers. We don't need a written account of all lines from day one.
The title is a bit misleading. Maybe if you add "by Apostolic Succession" at the end will be better. I first thought it was a blood related ancestry and I was almost not going to watch it. But when I saw that it was based on apostolic succession I saw it and it is great! Very interesting!
Small point at 3:35 - technically there are more than one bishop per diocese (auxillary/suffragan bishops) but only ever one Diocesan Bishop who holds the See.
Yor retelling of the short reign of Pope John Paul I, video reminded me of my experience when Pope John XXIII died. My husband at the time worked for the morning newspaper in our very Catholic hometown. After putting the paper “to bed” for the night, he, and his coworkers, when to the local pub. A few minutes later someone came in and shouted, “the pope died.” The crew returned to the office, stopped the presses, and added a new headline and photo of Pope John Paul I to the front page. When my husband came home late, he had to wake me up to tell me, “Honey, the pope died.” I wasn’t happy. When he came home with the same story a month later, I really wasn’t happy. But not because the pope died.
Actually he learned from people and those people learned from people and those people learned from people, all the way back to the apostles! So they have magical power now too!
All in all, this was a fantastic video that is super informative. I learned a few things and it was really cool to see all the connections, but I do have two minor complaints: 1. There are some dioceses that have multiple bishops. In most Archdioceses, you'll have the Archbishop and one or a few Auxiliary Bishops. That being said, what was said in the video wasn't necessarily wrong if you meant that each diocese is led by one bishop and that one bishop might have a support staff that includes other bishops. 2. Vatican II was more about completing Vatican I since Vatican I was cut short due to wars in Europe. If you read the documents, it had very little to do with what was said in the video. While the most visible and striking change after Vatican II was a change in the liturgy, that was not called for by Vatican II. This is where we get the distinction between the actual documents of Vatican II and the "Spirit" of Vatican II. But that's a rabbit-hole that non-Catholics wouldn't/shouldn't be interested in. Following the two minor complaints, I thought I'd point out two things I thought were done exceptionally well: 1. The way you handled the topic of Sedevacantism. I didn't think you'd even bring it up because it's a relatively obscure topic. But not only did you address it, but you were able to give a solid background without getting too deep into all the different forms of it. 2. This is the first video I've found that addresses Pius XII and gave an accurate overview of the controversy. Normally, I see him as presented as some villain that was a servant of you-know-who.
The Lutheran Church of Sweden also claims apostolic succession, and are a part of the D'Estouteville lineage. Splitting off via Julius II --> Cardinal Achille Grassi --> Bishop and Papal Master of Ceremonies Paris de Grassis --> Bishop Peder Månsson --> Laurentius Petri, the first Lutheran Archbishop of Sweden from who all Swedish bishops today are "descended" from.
@@johnm.4947that makes zero sense. The various rites are preceded by the apostolic practice of ordination. Additionally, bishops of Latin and Byzantine, and other rites have consecrated each other and switched between rites, without this having effect upon their apostolic succession. Additionally, Lutherans have not abolished the mass or anything, but have oftentimes, made only very minor changes (often in line with earlier examples). Where’s the logic? But the point is ultimately of little importance to Lutherans, even the Swedes, and those other particular churches that maintain the historical episcopal succession, because all Lutherans confess the unity of the apostolic office, teaching that the Presbytery preceded the Episcopate (which sprung from the former), thus all presbyters possess the fullness of the apostleship. Lutherans thereby place more value in Presbyterian succession and recognize that presbyters may ordain.
The first pope who's been a world traveler was actually Paul VI. John Paul II followed in his footsteps (in more ways than just this one), but on a larger scale.
Am I the only one who thinks its misleading that you say in the title that all popes share a common ancestor, but then go on to tell us about two? And might I add, neither of which is mentioned in the intro... (since neither of them is either Jesus or Peter??)
Please do a chart of mythology (gods, creatures, etc) region/date. as in when did these creatures/mythology started to appear. Like how superman came out during/after the nuke. to see the conjunction of what was happening during that time period
There's other lineages which we can go back further, and just because there's a missing link somewhere it doesn't mean that we don't often have records of who came before the missing link.
00:08:39 Matt Baker says that episcopal lineage cannot be traced back to Jesus using historical sources. I think this is an *extremely misleading statement* , especially because *papal lineage* -in fact- *can* be traced back to Jesus. Research indicates that Clement of Rome (c. 35-99) was bishop of Rome from 88 to 99. And historical documents from Irenaeus and Tertullian list him as the fourth bishop after Peter, Linus and Anacletus. He was said to have been consecrated by Peter the Apostle, and he is known to have been a leading member of the Church in Rome in the late 1st century. I am confused by Matt Bakers omissions and am concerned that he may have a potential bias, as so many do who provide inaccurate or misleading historical information about important figures of religious significance.
A slight nitpick: cardinals properly have their title placed before their surname, and the title should be italicized in print. Thus, for instance, the bishop who consecrated the current pope as a bishop is properly "Antonio /Cardinal/ Quarrancino", not "Cardinal Antonio Quarrancino", as printed on this chart.
So for an interesting fact Edward Henry Howard is from the family of the Dukes of Norfolk who are catholic dukes within Britain and are also the only surviving non royal dukedom from the wars of the roses. The family is also catholic and had the practice of recusancy
For a second I thought you were going to somehow link them genealogically with Saint Peter, until I realised the premise of the video. It reminds me of a "Western Composers" chart that was on the subreddit a long time ago.
A recommendation: How about doing a video of the lineage of the Archbishops of Utrecht, which eventually would split of the roman-catholic Church and become the primus inter pares of the Old Catholic Church, formed after schism following the Vatican I Council?
there's a non zero chance that a warlord in the dark ages (edit : illegally) promotes one of their men into a bishop and that bishop becomes this lineage today
Not really. More probable would be if he would made some bishop to consecrate his candidate. People back then very seriously treated consecration. If someone didn't have proper consecration he wouldn't be consider bishop, similarilly as a man wouldn't be consider a king if he wouldn't be crowned. Sometimes even, when there were schisms and some popes were announced illegal, all bishops consecrated by them were consecrated once again by legit pope, to ensure the lineage. We know bishops from medieval times, we only do not know by whom they were consecrated. If theirs legality would be questioned in theirs times, chronicles would mention this. The actuall problem is the beggining of Christianity, when traditions were forming, so if someone looking for potential break in lineage I sugest searching there.
@@Macion-sm2ui It's very difficult that anyone would have accepted a bishop being ordained by someone who they knew isn't a bishop. But it's possible that in ancient times someone may have impersonated and supplanted a valid bishop. Though bishops are almost always ordained by more than one bishop from different lineages, so apostolic succession can be restored as long as one of the ordainants has valid succession. Aditionally, even if some early Christians appointed a bishop without an ordination by another bishop, that person had to be ordained priest before, and that is done by a bishop too.
@@a2falcone There needn't be any "invalid" ordinations in that sense. All the temporal rulers needed was a bishop who would take their orders on who to ordain next. I'm sure it happened many times. We know that several popes (and "antipopes") were only elevated with the approval of a Roman or Frankish emperor.
@@Spearca This is true, but this was legal back then. It was common practice, in most centuries accepted by the popes, that rulers chose a bishop, and then he is consecrated by other bishop.
Hello Matt, another great video - thanks! Only one question though, I would have thought that Queen Elizabeth II would have been seen by more people worldwide in all her travels over 70 years than the great work St John-Paul II in his time as the Bishop of Rome?
I don't know if anyone has actually crunched the numbers but my guess would still be that Pope John Paul II was seen by more. He generally drew larger crowds and he visited about a dozen more countries.
@@UsefulCharts Papal visits are also arranged in a way that maximizes the chances of the crowds to directly see the pope. Even the popemobiles are designed to allow maximum visibility. It's not the same with monarchs. Aditionally, crowds in St. Peter's Square (one of the most visited places on Earth) get to see the pope regularly. Queen Elizabeth II simply didn't appear in front of massive crowds as aften as a pope.
@@UsefulCharts thanks for the reply 👍 It sounds like it would be an interesting challenge to crunch the numbers - but he certainly filled the meeting venues where he travelled.
I am a Catholic and back in the 90's I was very fortunate to have met and been blessed by Saint Pope John Paul 2nd. It was in Denver at World Youth Day. Also a Priest I have known for 35 years that I grew up with since teens had multiple audiences with him. I would love to meet Pope Francis but I doubt that will happen but meeting and being blessed by one who became a Saint is something I cherish very much.
probably not a good place to ask this but, apparently there are 400,000 priests, while there are 1,375,000,000 catholics, which means there are 3400 catholics per priest and thus per church. churches don't contain anywhere close to that number of people, so where is everybody?
There are multiple Sunday Mass celebrations and Saturday vigil Mass (which covers your Sunday obligation) At my Church we have Mass at 9am and 11am on Sunday and 6pm on Saturdays. Super Majorities of Catholics in Europe, North America, South America and Oceania are not observant meaning they dont Attend Mass on Sunday (including Saturday vigil) Attend Mass on Holy Days of Obligation Attending Confession at least once a year The Catholic Church is on a steep decline overall outside of Africa and Asia
My home parish covers half of my county and is what I guess you could call a rural-suburban parish in the Dallas Diocese. Attendance for Dec. 1, 2024 per the weekly church bulletin was 1,952 people for one Sat. Mass and two Sunday Masses in English plus one Sun. Mass in Spanish (four total weekend services, so avg. almost 500 per each by the math).
Apostolic Succession doesn't refer to bishops appointing other men to be bishops, but to a bishop consecrating a priest as bishop (the distinction is important).
The Orthodox churches got their apostolic succession form the Catholic bishops. The Anglican organization has no apostolic succession due to an absence of both form and intention.
7 місяців тому+1
Franz Joseph II could place a veto not because he was Austrian emperor, but because he was the king of Hungary Hungarian kings were apostolic kings, so they had the power of vetoing the election of the pope
I’d like to see something similar for doctoral advisors. I’ve traced a few in Wikipedia about 5 “generations” deep. It’s interesting to see the progression from, say, a theologian to a physicist.
For example, it will tell you that the most common "academic" ancestor of Richard Feynman and Richard Dawkins is Pieter Camper (1722-1789), a Dutch anatomist who is most remembered for inventing the term "extinct" in relation to species that no longer exist.
14:42 Pope John XXIII is the 23rd Pope to have the name John. The scribal errors caused there to be two doubles and one skipped, so the correct amount is 23 Johns. I believe St John XXIII addressed this during his tenure.
I would highly encourage you to do another video about Apostolic Succession but having the starting point be Jesus and the 12 apostles and see how far historical records or even theories will allows us to trace it. It could even include the schisms between Catholics, Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopal, (Some) Lutheran, Moravian, "Old Catholics" and Sedavacantists
→ 0:40 I think "appointed" is not the right word here. It's not that any bishop has the power to just appoint any other bishop, it's more of a bureaucratic decision nowadays, with multiple people having input (varying depending on the exact position - but usually the pope has some veto right). "Consecrated" (as used at 5:10 and later) is the better word, as this is the liturgical action which makes someone a bishop, and it only happens once, even if they later switch to a different diocese.
4:45 The last two times non-cardinals were elected Popes were in 1990 and in 2023. Michael I and Michael II. They do have an episcopal lineage, even if many "faithful" to "Francis" have tried to obfuscate the fact.
The video is very correct, the records that mention the video were in the wake of the Sack of Rome, where many ancient documents were lost, also the few ancient documents were destroyed with the theft of the Vatican archives by Napoleon, leaving only few records. . Even so, there are consecrations of Eastern bishops, of Orthodox apostolic succession, who consecrated and even consecrated Roman bishops, tracing that succession to the Byzantine church, the same thing happens with the Anglicans, who also have a valid succession not so much because of the character in the video, but by the Orthodox and Old Catholic bishops who consecrated them, that is the Anglican argument for apostolic succession. The Eastern churches also have very ancient successions.
The Anglican Church and iirc Old Catholic Church however allows female bishops therefore the legitimacy of the future Anglican succession is questionable
3:43 Actually, one diocese may have more than one bishop, though only one of them is the *diocesan* bishop. This diocesan bishop may have one *coadjutor* bishop and one or more *auxiliary* bishops. (The difference between these is that the coadjutor is the "heir-apparent" to the diocesan bishop, while the auxiliary bishops are not.) *Fun fact:* all non-diocesan bishops (i.e. coadjutors and auxiliary), called *"titular bishops",* are, in theory, bishops of a "non-territorial" diocese. That is a diocese that is "dormant" (the Catholic Church prefers that to "extinct") because either its territory was attributed to a different diocese, or the territory is now part of a Muslim country (Middle East and North Africa) and it is not safe to have actual diocesan bishops there or there are not enough followers to have a diocese. For example, my diocese's bishop was, before becoming a diocesan bishop, an auxiliary bishop of Porto; as such, he was the titular bishop of Cemerinianus, some town that existed in North Africa (more specifically, modern Algeria) during the Roman empire; I could not find what name the modern town has (assuming there was a successor town to the Roman one).
Roman Catholic Dioceses can have a bishop and auxiliary bishops as well, who have all the ecclesiastical powers of the main bishop (called the "ordinary".) Auxiliary bishops are usually appointed as full bishop of a diocese that doesn't exist anymore, but actually have no geographically-based powers in that area. For example, the Diocese of Brooklyn, NY, has a Bishop who serves as the Ordinary, and two Auxiliary Bishops subordinate to him.
It's not "Roman" Catholic but Catholic The pope is the bishop of Rome There are 22 rites within the Catholic Church eg Maronite, Syriac, etc The Orthodox Churches, as parts of the Catholic Church in schism have valid apostolic succession. Luther was excommunicated and started his own religion - his successors have no apostolic succession Neither have the Anglicans apostolic succession. As a member of the Anglican church, John Henry Newman was tasked to prove their apostolic succession. As he was unable to do so, he left and became Catholic
Yes, but Anglicans began to consecrate themselves with Old Catholics and Orthodox Bishops, with bribery included, and now all Anglican bishops have apostolic succession
@EmilioDAlbertis If you use that definition, then the Roman Catholic/Latin Catholic Church is a subset of the Catholic Church along with the Eastern rites/Churches
0:48 Sorry, but you confuse appoint with consecrate. The Saint and future pope Pius V was appointed bishop of Sutri by Pope Paul IV, and he was consecrated by cardinal Giovanni Michele Saraceni.
Did you comment before watching? Because it doesn't mention Adam or Eve anywhere in the video 🙄. In case you still haven't watched it, it's not about biological ancestry. It's about Episcopal Genealogy / Apostolic Succession. The chart attempts to "trace a line directly from bishop to bishop, all the way back to one of the original apostles, and then of course, to Jesus himself." But no further. And that's not a spoiler, that's literally how Matt introduces the video in its first couple of minutes.
This is super cool! I would buy several copies if you made this and honestly know a TON of Catholics who would. Heck Catholic book stores might even sell it for you.
_Universi Dominici Gregis_ allows the election of any male catholic until today. in such a case the new pope will be ordained deacon, then priest and finally consecrated bishop ASAP and cannot give blessings until it is done.
- Archbishop André Sana (1920-2013) - Patriarch Yousef VII Ghanima (1881-1958) - Patriarch Yousef VI Emmanuel II Thomas (1852-1947) - Patriarch Pierre Élie XII Abbolyonan (abt.1840-1894) - Patriarch Joseph VI Audu (abt.1790-1878) - Archbishop Augustin Hindi (abt.1750-1828) - Bishop Isaie Jesu-Yab-Jean Guriel (1758-1833) - Archbishop Youhanan VIII Hormez (abt.1760-1838) That's as far as it goes. Youhanan VIII was *probably* consecrated by Eliya XI (but that is uncertain, according to Heleen Murre-van den Berg). Eliya XI was the first patriarch of a united Chaldean Church.
It's be interesting to see you cover Baptist Baptismal Genealogy in a similar way. Like for example people love to talk about Roger Williams and John Clarke founding the first Baptist Churches in NA when they founded Rhode Island. But I think the genealogy of American Baptist Churches more predominately goes back to John Myles. First he spread the Particular Baptist Faith in Southern Wales then came to Massachusetts to found a Baptist City named after one of his Welsh cities, then served as Pastor of the First Baptist Church in Boston for awhile where he Baptized the guy who founded the first Baptist Church in the South. Then other Migrations of Particular Baptists from Southern Wales migrated to the Colonies to found Churches in Pennsylvania and Delaware and more in the South. Also the Free Will Baptist Denominations that exist in the US do not have any continuity with 17th Century English General Baptists, they started as American Particular Baptists who became Arminians then started new Churches. The 17th Century English General Baptists did impact the early US via the Quakers.
Paul Palmer was first Baptist as part of Welsh Tract Baptist Church. Benjamin Randall was first baptized as a Baptist in Main probably via a lineage that goes back to Hezekiah Smith who was probably Baptized by John Gano who was Baptized by Isaac Eaton who came from those Pennsylvania Welsh Baptists. The Baptists of Appalachia probably also almost certainly originated with those Pennsylvania Welsh Baptists.
The Mormons also claim a similar thing. Every Priesthood holder (every male older than 12) can trace his „Priesthood line“ back to Joseph Smith Jr. and, by claims of him being appointed by angelic resurrections of a number of apostles and Old Testament prophets, back to God.
I would be interesting if you could do a similar work (albeit I measure how difficult or even impossible it would be) for the head(s) of the Armenian Apostolic Church. According to tradition, the church traces its roots to the apostles St. Barthelemy and St. Thadeus (also called Jude). However, the Curch separated from the main branch only in 451.
*Fun Fact:* The word "pope" means "Father," a common title used for priests by their partitioners. However, "daddy" (another synonymus word), is generally used by alter boys during summer camp.
Sign up for a 14-day free trial and enjoy all the amazing features MyHeritage has to offer bit.ly/UsefulChartsMay2024
Can you make a caliph version of this video?
My family goes further. I find your email and send you email. But not this weekend.
0:43 Small correction, there is a difference between being ordinated and being appointed as a Bishop. The Pope appoints someone Bishop of a diocese, but the one who celebrates the ritual to consecrate said person as a Bishop is his episcopal ancestor. So ordinate is would be the correct word, not appoint
9:55 Another correction. Official statements about church doctrine (Magisterium) can be erroneous. For the statement to be infallible the Pope must be clear he is being definitive on that issue.
No 👎
Shouldn't a line of bishops always be diagonal?
Lol!!
It's a little known fact that the reason the coronation of King Charles III took so much longer than Queen Elizabeth IIs coronation, is because Westminster Abbey has a checker patterned tile floor.
@@DorgpoopPrecisely. Remembering that the castle towers and the royal cavalry are always well positioned.
Based comment
Bwahaha!
Another interesting non-biological family tree I saw some years ago is an academic family tree that traces a line of doctoral advisors. You can see how Fermi is a distant descendant of Faraday, descended from Lavoisier, descended from Liebniz, descended from Kepler, who in turn is descended even from Martin Luther.
Do you have a link for it?
@@OscarGonzalez-fc4hdi think yt does not allow u to post comments with links anymore
@@Ruiseal It does
There's a website called the Mathematics Genealogy Project that does this for mathematicians, the ones for other scholars exist but I don't know if they're still up.
@@felixw19it must be manually approved by the creator if it has a link
11:06 FUN fact about Pope Leo XIII: he is the earliest (verifiably) born person to be filmed in a motion picture. Born in 1810!
Leo XIII is also the first pope whose voice was recorded (in February 1903, seven years after the first "motion picture" of him).
And before anyone asks: The earliest born person of whom an audio recording survives is Helmuth von Moltke the Elder (1800-1891), a German statesman who was commonly known as "der große Schweiger" (the great silent one), because he had a reputation for speaking very little. -- Which is ironic, because he is the only person born in the 18th century (which technically ended on 31 December 1800) whose voice can still be heard today.
I've been spending the last few years looking at the oldest pictures, films, recordings. I hadn't discovered the one from him yet. Can't wait to go look it up. It's amazing that we can visually see people from the mid 1700s.
@@ModernDayRenaissanceMan it really pushes the timeline back a lot… I’ve been fascinated by super early photos and recordings since I was a little kid. I’m talking like 2008 UA-cam LOL
Another fun fact about Leo XIII: google "Vin Mariani" and "Leo XIII" and you will find out that His Holiness not only did, but also advertised cocaine! He states that cocaine gives him extra energy while reading mass....I would love to see Leo XIII canonised
Correction: The Medici Popes were cousins, not uncle and nephew. Pope Clement VII was born as Giulio di Giuliano de' Medici and Pope Leo X was born as Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici. Giuliano and Lorenzo were brothers. Giuliano was assassinated on Eastern Sunday in 1478 by the Pazzi, a powerful family of Florence and major nemesis of the Medici. Following his father's death, Giulio was raised along side his cousins by his uncle Lorenzo the Magnificent.
for a free Interpretation of the Pazzi events the fictional Ezio Auditore is your guide :)
@@rivenoak Abstergo disapproves of this message
Aren't the Medici's ethnic Jews?
That was fascinating. I knew of the concept of apostolic succession but never seen it laid out like this.
We have no Christian faith, without Apostolic succession. It's one faith, passed down from the Apostles. Without Apostolic Succession we have no unity with our past and ancestors and more importantly, we would have no unity as a Church.
@@jd3jefferson556facts. Our faith relies on Apostolic Succession, without it there would be no sacraments. Heretics and their false "churches" will come and go, but Holy Mother Church will be here until the end.
@@mikejames303 Your god isn't real.
@@jd3jefferson556 Apostolic succession isn't important and is broken. Most Christians are not descendants of the first Christian Jews or Gentiles either.
@@scripturequest Christianity is dead without Apostolic succession and we're mostly all gentiles one way or another so I'm bit sure what your point is
You forgot to mention that a bishop doesn't just have a single "parent"; in an episcopal consecration two pishops beyond the principal consecrator take part. In extreme circumstances their number may be reduced to one, but a consecration by a sole consecrator is deemed faulty (although still valid). It has been a custom in the Catholic Church to chose as co-consecrators bishops from diverse lineages, including oriental ones, exactly in order for the chain of cuccession not to be reliant on any single link.
In ya head! 😂
Bishops don't just transmit episcopacy. They confer priesthood, which a simple priest can not do, and also perform confirmations. So priests and confirmed laity also take part in the episcopal succession.
@@faithlesshound5621 nah!
@@faithlesshound5621 They may benefit from it, but they aren't links in a succession chain. And we have christian denominations that are devoid of priesthood simply because there were no bishops to propagate the episcopal succession - Bespopovtsy of the Russian Orthodox family.
@@M-CH_ So a bishop's touch is still required for confirmation, priest-making and bishop-making. The last ideally needs two or three bishops. Maybe the Pope will declare (infallibly) that these can all be done virtually.
Vaguely similar is the genealogy of mathematicians and their supervisors, there's already a lot of data out ther
Not just mathematicians, lots of data out there for scientists.
You can probably do this with a lot of academics - as most professors generally got their education from a small number of elite universities. I'm an earth scientist and every so often I'll run into someone at a conference and find out we shared a 'grand-supervisor'.
Out there*
Lots of classical composers and their teachers as well
Most notably, the concept of the "Erdos number," a kind of "degrees of Kevin Bacon"-type calculation of how many layers of coauthorship stand between a given mathematician and the legendarily productive Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdos. 1 would mean you coauthored a paper with Erdos, 2 would mean you coauthored with someone with an Erdos number of 1, and so on.
Unrelated side note: Erdos was also known for the witticism that a mathematician is just a machine for turning coffee into theorems.
Fun fact. The guy who vetoed the election of cardinal Rampolla is also on this chart - it was cardinal Puzyna in the lineage of John Paul II. He was a bishop of Krakow in the part of Poland under Austrian rule, during the partition period.
Very interesting to find out the exact reason(s),why Franz Joseph's Austro-Hungarian contingent vetoed Cardinal Rampolla ! 😐
@@MrSinclairn there was no single reason
- he was partially convicted by Puzyna who didn't like Rampolla for his anti-Austrian and anti-Polish political stance
- in addition Rampolla protested against having a funeral for FJz sons because he commited suicide because so it was personal
@@emkalina Thank you;that does make sense,as in both mainstream RC and Protestant churches at that time,suicide was still officially regarded as as both sinful and illegal,even as somebody as high-born as Crown-Prince Rudolf(1858-1889)
That's false gibberish. Austrian emperors didn't dare for centuries to claim a Veto for "anti austrian" reasons.
Franz Josef called a Veto on Rampolla because a Franciscan monk convinced him that Rampolla was a hidden Francmason.
I suppose Matt didn't say much about JP2's lineage, because he wanted to avoid having to pronounce all these Polish names!
A lot of this info is really good, just one tiny ‘correction’ or additional thing. As a Roman Catholic, and as far my limited understanding goes, many consider the apostle Simon-Peter specifically as the ‘first pope’ because Jesus instructed him to lead the church after his resurrection and giving him his ‘papal name’ of Peter (or Petra in Latin which means rock I believe).
Almost correct with an understandable mistake! If you look at the Latin, the name given would have been “Petros” which is based off of the word for rock, which is Petra.
Yeah, this guy doesn't go back as far as he actually should because a fire destroyed some official documents, but that's nitpicking. The Catholic Church leads directly to St. Peter and the Apostles.
In french it's even more straight forward. The word for rock is "pierre" and the name is Pierre. Quite common name in France, not necessarily loaded with religious implication (not as much as Christian for example).
@@TomFromMars
The best name of Peter, son of John (Bariona), is the original Aramaic *"Kepha"* (I've seen also Cepa/Kepa), translated in the English Bibles as Kephas or Cephas (Rock). That was the actual new name Jesus gave him when Peter was introduced by his brother Andrew the first time, in John 1: 42. Therefore, "You are Kepha/Rock, and on this Kepha/Rock I will build my Church" sounds pretty original. St. Paul mentions Kephas several times in his letters.
I agree though that also the French "Pierre" avoids the feminine/masculine gender ambiguity.
The list of all popes is to be found in a marble table on a wall of the Milan Cathedral. I think Wikipedia should have a photo of it.
@@glassfibersweater6063 Make that "Petrus" for Latin, "Petros" would indicate Greek, not Latin, but the Greek word for rock would be something like "Βράχος" (modern Greek, but many basic words haven't really changed).
In spite of there inevitably being fires, people still knew who laid hands on whom so traditional lineages are probably correct. I think some Orthodox branches trace their lineages back to St. Mark.
That would be a fun tree to map out the apostles and evangelists. Peter and paul had rome (catholics). St Andrew had greece (orthodoxi) St Mark had Alexandria (coptics). And etc
Well, can be correct and are probably more correct than not but still has a lower chance than the documented ones.
Antioch is a Petrine See. Antiochian Greek Orthodox are from St. Peter just like Rome. Smyrna was as well. Alexandria was too, but St. Mark reset the Apostolic Succession there.
Yes, the Coptic Egyptian Orthodox trace back to St. Mark. Unfortunately, the Copts became heretics and schismatics by joining the Arians in rejecting the Council of Chalcedon in 470, IIRC. The Copts had a similarly faulty misunderstanding of the nature of Christ. As a result, they became the very first schismatic group to leave the One, True, Holy, and Apostolic Church, becoming the very first so-called "Orthodox". They then went on to adopt most of the false beliefs of later Orthodox groups, which broke off from the Church during the Great Schism of the 11th Century.
@@Tsalagi978 Alexandria is still considered a Petrine See, because St Mark is the disciple of St Peter. Constantinople isn't linked to Peter outside of his brother, but unlike Alexandria, the lineage cannot be connected to Andrew at all.
OMG YOU DID IT! I asked you on Twitter for something like this and you did it. Thanks man. I liked this vid already.
Would be cool to also show some other denominations like this. I'm sure it is difficult.
In large dioceses, there are also auxiliary bishops. When I was a child, my parish’s pastor was also an auxiliary bishop of Brooklyn, NY
True, but all auxiliary bishops have nominal historical seats they don't reside in, "in partibus infidelium".
Same here. The Archdiocese of Davao in the Philippines has both an archbishop and an auxiliary bishop.
My current parish has two priests (one senior priest and one junior priest who was ordained just last year) as well as a retired bishop!
@@sam.mead__I'd say that's some parish, but I'd even more like to say - that's some bishop who would spend his retirement as a resident priest in a parish.
@@M-CH_ it certainly is some parish! There are 4 churches in it with 8 Sunday Masses each week. The retired bishop actually lives seperately to the two other priests and only usually celebrates 1 Mass (and sometimes 0) each Sunday, so he isn't as involved as the other two priests but he's a very lovely person. My neighbouring parish has 4 priests and 8 churches!
17:30
Correction: we never had two popes. From 2013-now there has only been one pope, Francis. After 2013 Pope Benedict was pope emeritus not pope.
Yep. Pope Benedict relinquished the office
"we never had two popes"
After the Papal Schism, you mean.
@@florian8599 one of those was the antipope. WE HAVE NEVER HAD TWO POPES.
Matt, you are using incorrect terminology. A bishop is not merely appointed, he is consecrated / ordained, by the laying on of hands by three Bishops, and other ceremonies. This is a sacrament. The Apostolic Succession is a sacramental succession, not merely a succession of appointments. This point cannot be over stressed!
Also, a diocese CAN have more than one bishop. Many large dioceses and archdioceses have auxiliary (assistant) bishops, and occasionally a diocese may have a coadjutor bishop with the right of succession -- he serves alongside the incumbent bishop, exercises the same authority, and automatically succeeds the incumbent when he dies or retires. A coadjutor is usually appointed at the request of an incumbent bishop who is in failing health or getting close to retirement age and wants to have a successor in place ahead of time.
More importantly, a bishop is sent!! An Apostle, that is!
Great chart, but there’s one correction I would make with your terminology. What you call an “appointment” in the beginning should instead be an “ordination”. A bishop is only ordained once, by one principal bishop conferring the ordination to make a priest a bishop. However, the appointment of a bishop refers to where his assignment is after he is ordained. A bishop is only ordained once but can often get many assignments throughout his life
I’d then also correct your terminology. Priests are ordained. Bishops are consecrated. Shocking how many upvoted your comment, shows the sorry state of catechesis in 2024.
@@josephszijarto1170 Either term is acceptable, as ordination is the term regularly used for major orders (deacons, priests, bishops) and even sometimes minor orders. The term consecration can only be used for bishops but ordinations is acceptable for all levels of holy orders.
Even the Catechism uses ordination to refer to bishops.
“Yet Catholic doctrine teaches that the degrees of priestly participation (episcopate and presbyterate) and the degree of service (diaconate) are all three conferred by a sacramental act called ‘ordination’” - Catechism of the Catholic Church 1554
“In our day, the lawful ordination of a bishop requires a special intervention by the Bishop of Rome…” -CCC 1559
@@josephszijarto1170 Either term is acceptable, as ordination is the term regularly used for major orders (deacons, priests, bishops) and even sometimes minor orders. The term consecration can only be used for bishops but ordinations is acceptable for all levels of holy orders.
“Yet Catholic doctrine teaches that the degrees of priestly participation (episcopate and presbyterate) and the degree of service (diaconate) are all three conferred by a sacramental act called ‘ordination’” - Catechism of the Catholic Church 1554
“In our day, the lawful ordination of a bishop requires a special intervention by the Bishop of Rome…” -CCC 1559
@@Hookly I accept your sources (appreciating that they are traditional and not based on V2 questionable theology) and that ordination could also be used. I think this is somewhat debated however -- from this source, the episcopate is not a sacrament because it is not an order; and it is not an order because it does not impress a character; and it does not impress a character because ‘through it the bishop is not ordinated directly to God, but to the Mystical Body of Christ’ (Comment. in Sententias, IV, d. 24, q. 3. a. 2; Summa Theologica, Suppl. q. 40, a. 5, ad 2) I lean towards the use of episcopal consecration as that is absolutely correct and differentiates from ordination which is sacramental. However I correct my correction as you're also correct.
Sorry, but I have to disagree when you talked about Pius XII. His role in WW2 was great, he saved 800,000 jews from the holocaust and even rome's rabbi converted to catholicism when he saw Pius XII effort in protecting his people. He thought it was better not to denounce publicly bc he could be crushed instead he chose to help the victims. He knew pens couldnt stop Hitler, only steel
That goes against the anti Catholic narrative so it’s all brushed aside
Being crushed by the Nazis after a very public denunciation would have been a powerful statement to the occupied countries.
He was not too scared of communists to denounce them, a few years later.
@@Spearca Firstly because communist allies wasn't ruling in Rome. Secondly, because communism was much worse than nazism, and thirdly - nazi biggest crimes wasn't widely known before end of the war - death camps were top secret and even german alies didn't really know what was happening to jews. And finally - what such statement would change? At the moment everybody already fought each other for total destruction. What more they could do after papal words?
@@Spearca he wasn’t occupied by Communists. Also Communists immediately killed priests, there was no negotiations to be had with them
If we wanna get deeper into the rabbit hole, there were the whole visions of Fatima, describing the Holy Papa getting gunned down by the Church’s enemies.
People attribute it to the assassination attempt on JP2, but this here was clearly a possibility that couldve happened. If not for what, diplomacy? Cowardice?
We all know now from records that he was acting as a Spymaster to the allies, but the lives lost and the scandal still stain the reputation.
Catholic and this is actually very comprehensive. Thank you!
Would be good to point out that diocese can have more than one bishop, with auxiliaries where needed, but there is only one bishop with a Cathedra at a Cathedral in each diocese
Technically, most auxiliary bishops are ordained as head of a titular see, which is a diocese that is no longer in active use - for example, auxiliary Bishop Lewandowski of Baltimore is technically the titular bishop of Croae, the modern Albanian city of Krujë. This is similar to how every cardinal is technically the head overseer of one of the churches in Rome, since the college of Cardinals is acting as the leaders of the church in Rome to select the new bishop, who becomes Pope.
This is correct. The bishop who heads a diocese is known as the "local ordinary."
Man, Matt Parker finds his way into every UA-cam video
It's a bit of a Parker Matt Parker though
@@Jothamvw true
We should call a lineage where someone might not have been consecrated properly, a "Parker Lineage".
Thank you for being one of the only people in Anglophone North America to get the Immaculate Conception right! _Everyone_ thinks it's the same thing as the Virgin Birth -- and like, I doubt anybody's _died_ or anything because of the mixup, but it drives me crazy.
Also, one minor mis-speech: the Pope Clement who wouldn't annul Henry VIII's marriage to Katharine of Aragon was Clement VII, the Seventh; the chart does have him numbered correctly, but the voiceover has "Twelfth" by mistake. (I don't know how easy that sort of thing is to fix, or if you'd sooner shrug it off, especially as it doesn't affect the chart -- just thought you'd want to know, unless of course you caught it already.)
It is incorrect that there is only one bishop per every diocese. Some dioceses have a main bishop but they could also have a coadjutor bishop or an auxiliary bishop which is like an assistant bishop. These are considered bishops because they are consecrated in the same way as the main bishop of a diocese.
An auxiliary bishop, in order to become a bishop, gets appointed to "lead" a defunct diocese. For example one auxiliary bishop in Baltimore is the titular bishop of a defunct diocese in Albania, the other is the titular bishop of a defunct diocese in (what is now) Algeria.
Can I ask the people watching this a question? If you're in your 20s or older did you ever imagine back when you were in school that one day you would be sitting watching a long video about a chart that explains the timelines of popes for no other reason than you choose to because you find it extremely interesting and entertaining? No, neither did I. Education is wasted on the young. It makes me so happy to know there are so many other people out there interested in this sort of thing.
Well I'm going to be 70 this year and I sure did. It would have been difficult to predict UA-cam but I did always like watching films with my projector. The local libraries I had access to fifty years ago already had reels available for checking out and there were a lot of educational ones. The best ones in my opinion showed various industrial processes, the How It's Made of yore if you like.
Education is never wasted!
Well, yeah. I'm almost 53, but I have degrees in history and sociology/anthropology, so this crap has always been in my wheelhouse. Most though, prob not.
I absolutely imagined myself doing similar. I did the same as a kid.
Hi. I am Catholic. This definitely interested me. I am still in my "WOW" mentality. This was really interesting to me.
When I was a teenager I was interested in smoking hash and lassies
Vatican I Council is said "First Vatican Council" and not "Vatican one council". Great video btw!
Fascinating chart! I remember back in my chemistry department (at UW-Madison) we had a chart like this for all of our professors, and nearly all of them could be traced back to Emil Fischer in mid 1800s Germany!
I wonder how far back do orthodox and oriental patriarchs trace
To the beginning. I'm Antiochian Greek Orthodox and we trace back to St. Peter at Antioch.
@@Tsalagi978that claim is as solid as the catholic ones, the documentation is lost. Therefore it's unknown if that's true.
@@jackyexThe thing about Apostolic Succession is maintaining the faith is first, Office is second, and Grace is third. The lines are just fine. 👍 All ancient Apostolic Sees have unbroken lines of Succession. We have lineages kept in other places via the Fathers. We don't need a written account of all lines from day one.
@@jackyexMy question is do you deny the New Testament? We have only fragments from the first 400 years too.
@@Tsalagi978I think he means with known names. I have no doubt they go back that far, buts it’s really cool to see how.
Learned of the Rebiba lineage a few years back and it fascinated me. Appreciate seeing it charted out like this, thanks
The title is a bit misleading. Maybe if you add "by Apostolic Succession" at the end will be better. I first thought it was a blood related ancestry and I was almost not going to watch it. But when I saw that it was based on apostolic succession I saw it and it is great! Very interesting!
As a Catholic, I very much appreciate this video. This is super awesome and it’s cool to see the apostolic lineage.
Small point at 3:35 - technically there are more than one bishop per diocese (auxillary/suffragan bishops) but only ever one Diocesan Bishop who holds the See.
And how many altar boys under his garments? 😂
@@chrise-ih4ixCareful. Sin is just around the corner.
@@atgred Surely! We all are nothing but dirty sinners in need of forgiveness.
But not everyone is into altar boys!
TECHNICALLY they have their own dioceses that are now landless (mostly due to the spread of Islam)
Yor retelling of the short reign of Pope John Paul I, video reminded me of my experience when Pope John XXIII died. My husband at the time worked for the morning newspaper in our very Catholic hometown. After putting the paper “to bed” for the night, he, and his coworkers, when to the local pub. A few minutes later someone came in and shouted, “the pope died.” The crew returned to the office, stopped the presses, and added a new headline and photo of Pope John Paul I to the front page. When my husband came home late, he had to wake me up to tell me, “Honey, the pope died.” I wasn’t happy. When he came home with the same story a month later, I really wasn’t happy. But not because the pope died.
I see I used the wrong pope name for the first newspaper headline. Should read Pope John XXIII
No se referirá a Saint Paul VI, dead in 1978?
Non denominationals be like my dad is a pastor he planted his church in 1994! lol
Bruh
Lol facts.
Abd he collects tithing every Sunday and Wednesday and in between!!
Actually he learned from people and those people learned from people and those people learned from people, all the way back to the apostles! So they have magical power now too!
@@vigilantezack nobody spoke about magic, blud
All in all, this was a fantastic video that is super informative. I learned a few things and it was really cool to see all the connections, but I do have two minor complaints:
1. There are some dioceses that have multiple bishops. In most Archdioceses, you'll have the Archbishop and one or a few Auxiliary Bishops. That being said, what was said in the video wasn't necessarily wrong if you meant that each diocese is led by one bishop and that one bishop might have a support staff that includes other bishops.
2. Vatican II was more about completing Vatican I since Vatican I was cut short due to wars in Europe. If you read the documents, it had very little to do with what was said in the video. While the most visible and striking change after Vatican II was a change in the liturgy, that was not called for by Vatican II. This is where we get the distinction between the actual documents of Vatican II and the "Spirit" of Vatican II. But that's a rabbit-hole that non-Catholics wouldn't/shouldn't be interested in.
Following the two minor complaints, I thought I'd point out two things I thought were done exceptionally well:
1. The way you handled the topic of Sedevacantism. I didn't think you'd even bring it up because it's a relatively obscure topic. But not only did you address it, but you were able to give a solid background without getting too deep into all the different forms of it.
2. This is the first video I've found that addresses Pius XII and gave an accurate overview of the controversy. Normally, I see him as presented as some villain that was a servant of you-know-who.
Lotsa good research. I'm probably gonna be looking at this again and again.
I appreciate the detail of using green, the actual ecclesial color of the office of Bishop, to represent bishops
The Lutheran Church of Sweden also claims apostolic succession, and are a part of the D'Estouteville lineage. Splitting off via Julius II --> Cardinal Achille Grassi --> Bishop and Papal Master of Ceremonies Paris de Grassis --> Bishop Peder Månsson --> Laurentius Petri, the first Lutheran Archbishop of Sweden from who all Swedish bishops today are "descended" from.
They may have had it at one time, but like Angelica s, once the Rite is abandoned in favor of another one, the line ends.
@@johnm.4947that makes zero sense. The various rites are preceded by the apostolic practice of ordination. Additionally, bishops of Latin and Byzantine, and other rites have consecrated each other and switched between rites, without this having effect upon their apostolic succession. Additionally, Lutherans have not abolished the mass or anything, but have oftentimes, made only very minor changes (often in line with earlier examples). Where’s the logic?
But the point is ultimately of little importance to Lutherans, even the Swedes, and those other particular churches that maintain the historical episcopal succession, because all Lutherans confess the unity of the apostolic office, teaching that the Presbytery preceded the Episcopate (which sprung from the former), thus all presbyters possess the fullness of the apostleship. Lutherans thereby place more value in Presbyterian succession and recognize that presbyters may ordain.
The Catholic Church sees it differently
The first pope who's been a world traveler was actually Paul VI. John Paul II followed in his footsteps (in more ways than just this one), but on a larger scale.
And how many altar boys did he take with him? Or did he warm up quickly to the local ones?😂
@@chrise-ih4ixwhy are you projecting your twisted desires on men of God?
@@vincenttt8289 because these are definitely neither my desires nor are these at all men of God!
@@vincenttt8289
There can NEVER be >= 1 "God"!
Am I the only one who thinks its misleading that you say in the title that all popes share a common ancestor, but then go on to tell us about two? And might I add, neither of which is mentioned in the intro... (since neither of them is either Jesus or Peter??)
Please do a chart of mythology (gods, creatures, etc) region/date. as in when did these creatures/mythology started to appear.
Like how superman came out during/after the nuke. to see the conjunction of what was happening during that time period
I'm a bit disappointed we can't go back further than 700 years
There's other lineages which we can go back further, and just because there's a missing link somewhere it doesn't mean that we don't often have records of who came before the missing link.
@@Suth1172 from what I understand there are entire generations missing between links
00:08:39 Matt Baker says that episcopal lineage cannot be traced back to Jesus using historical sources. I think this is an *extremely misleading statement* , especially because *papal lineage* -in fact- *can* be traced back to Jesus. Research indicates that Clement of Rome (c. 35-99) was bishop of Rome from 88 to 99. And historical documents from Irenaeus and Tertullian list him as the fourth bishop after Peter, Linus and Anacletus. He was said to have been consecrated by Peter the Apostle, and he is known to have been a leading member of the Church in Rome in the late 1st century.
I am confused by Matt Bakers omissions and am concerned that he may have a potential bias, as so many do who provide inaccurate or misleading historical information about important figures of religious significance.
A slight nitpick: cardinals properly have their title placed before their surname, and the title should be italicized in print. Thus, for instance, the bishop who consecrated the current pope as a bishop is properly "Antonio /Cardinal/ Quarrancino", not "Cardinal Antonio Quarrancino", as printed on this chart.
In case anyone is confused, it's like the English Lord styling.
Think Alfred Lord Tennyson
So for an interesting fact Edward Henry Howard is from the family of the Dukes of Norfolk who are catholic dukes within Britain and are also the only surviving non royal dukedom from the wars of the roses. The family is also catholic and had the practice of recusancy
For a second I thought you were going to somehow link them genealogically with Saint Peter, until I realised the premise of the video. It reminds me of a "Western Composers" chart that was on the subreddit a long time ago.
Kinda crazy that we can only go back to the 1500s. It feels like the Vatican should be able to trace further back.
It'd be awesome if you can also do a Tree for all the Sufi Tariqas and their Silsilas. Like they all also have chains going from student to teacher.
A recommendation: How about doing a video of the lineage of the Archbishops of Utrecht, which eventually would split of the roman-catholic Church and become the primus inter pares of the Old Catholic Church, formed after schism following the Vatican I Council?
there's a non zero chance that a warlord in the dark ages (edit : illegally) promotes one of their men into a bishop and that bishop becomes this lineage today
Not really. More probable would be if he would made some bishop to consecrate his candidate. People back then very seriously treated consecration. If someone didn't have proper consecration he wouldn't be consider bishop, similarilly as a man wouldn't be consider a king if he wouldn't be crowned. Sometimes even, when there were schisms and some popes were announced illegal, all bishops consecrated by them were consecrated once again by legit pope, to ensure the lineage. We know bishops from medieval times, we only do not know by whom they were consecrated. If theirs legality would be questioned in theirs times, chronicles would mention this. The actuall problem is the beggining of Christianity, when traditions were forming, so if someone looking for potential break in lineage I sugest searching there.
@@Macion-sm2ui It's very difficult that anyone would have accepted a bishop being ordained by someone who they knew isn't a bishop. But it's possible that in ancient times someone may have impersonated and supplanted a valid bishop. Though bishops are almost always ordained by more than one bishop from different lineages, so apostolic succession can be restored as long as one of the ordainants has valid succession. Aditionally, even if some early Christians appointed a bishop without an ordination by another bishop, that person had to be ordained priest before, and that is done by a bishop too.
Roman Emperors and local monarchs already been doing that in the early church.
@@a2falcone There needn't be any "invalid" ordinations in that sense. All the temporal rulers needed was a bishop who would take their orders on who to ordain next. I'm sure it happened many times. We know that several popes (and "antipopes") were only elevated with the approval of a Roman or Frankish emperor.
@@Spearca This is true, but this was legal back then. It was common practice, in most centuries accepted by the popes, that rulers chose a bishop, and then he is consecrated by other bishop.
You are so inspirational to me. Wish I knew how to do this. In detail. Fascinating.
Thank you for the video that was really interesting
Thanks to the fan that created the chart and to you as well for sharing it with us 👍🏻
Hello Matt, another great video - thanks! Only one question though, I would have thought that Queen Elizabeth II would have been seen by more people worldwide in all her travels over 70 years than the great work St John-Paul II in his time as the Bishop of Rome?
I don't know if anyone has actually crunched the numbers but my guess would still be that Pope John Paul II was seen by more. He generally drew larger crowds and he visited about a dozen more countries.
@@UsefulCharts Papal visits are also arranged in a way that maximizes the chances of the crowds to directly see the pope. Even the popemobiles are designed to allow maximum visibility. It's not the same with monarchs. Aditionally, crowds in St. Peter's Square (one of the most visited places on Earth) get to see the pope regularly. Queen Elizabeth II simply didn't appear in front of massive crowds as aften as a pope.
@@UsefulCharts thanks for the reply 👍 It sounds like it would be an interesting challenge to crunch the numbers - but he certainly filled the meeting venues where he travelled.
I've heard that Elizabeth II is the most photographed person of all-time. Not sure how official these things are, though.
I am a Catholic and back in the 90's I was very fortunate to have met and been blessed by Saint Pope John Paul 2nd. It was in Denver at World Youth Day. Also a Priest I have known for 35 years that I grew up with since teens had multiple audiences with him. I would love to meet Pope Francis but I doubt that will happen but meeting and being blessed by one who became a Saint is something I cherish very much.
probably not a good place to ask this but, apparently there are 400,000 priests, while there are 1,375,000,000 catholics, which means there are 3400 catholics per priest and thus per church. churches don't contain anywhere close to that number of people, so where is everybody?
There are multiple Sunday Mass celebrations and Saturday vigil Mass (which covers your Sunday obligation)
At my Church we have Mass at 9am and 11am on Sunday and 6pm on Saturdays.
Super Majorities of Catholics in Europe, North America, South America and Oceania are not observant meaning they dont
Attend Mass on Sunday (including Saturday vigil)
Attend Mass on Holy Days of Obligation
Attending Confession at least once a year
The Catholic Church is on a steep decline overall outside of Africa and Asia
My home parish covers half of my county and is what I guess you could call a rural-suburban parish in the Dallas Diocese. Attendance for Dec. 1, 2024 per the weekly church bulletin was 1,952 people for one Sat. Mass and two Sunday Masses in English plus one Sun. Mass in Spanish (four total weekend services, so avg. almost 500 per each by the math).
Apostolic Succession doesn't refer to bishops appointing other men to be bishops, but to a bishop consecrating a priest as bishop (the distinction is important).
The Orthodox churches got their apostolic succession form the Catholic bishops. The Anglican organization has no apostolic succession due to an absence of both form and intention.
Franz Joseph II could place a veto not because he was Austrian emperor, but because he was the king of Hungary
Hungarian kings were apostolic kings, so they had the power of vetoing the election of the pope
Very informative, first class video. THANKS
POPE PIUS XI ('22-'39) seems SO intriguing.
I’d like to see something similar for doctoral advisors. I’ve traced a few in Wikipedia about 5 “generations” deep. It’s interesting to see the progression from, say, a theologian to a physicist.
Have you looked into "The Academic Family Tree"? Wonderful website, connecting hundreds of thousands of scientists from numerous disciplines.
For example, it will tell you that the most common "academic" ancestor of Richard Feynman and Richard Dawkins is Pieter Camper (1722-1789), a Dutch anatomist who is most remembered for inventing the term "extinct" in relation to species that no longer exist.
3:38 In fact, there is only one _ordinary_ bishop per diocese. He can have auxiliary bishops under him in the same diocese.
Are you able to do the same just for Orthodox Church Patriarchs?
14:42 Pope John XXIII is the 23rd Pope to have the name John. The scribal errors caused there to be two doubles and one skipped, so the correct amount is 23 Johns. I believe St John XXIII addressed this during his tenure.
Shouldn't it be who appointed whom?
Yeah
All western Bishops are appointed by the Pope, the correct would be saying who comsecrated/ordained whom
I would highly encourage you to do another video about Apostolic Succession but having the starting point be Jesus and the 12 apostles and see how far historical records or even theories will allows us to trace it. It could even include the schisms between Catholics, Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopal, (Some) Lutheran, Moravian, "Old Catholics" and Sedavacantists
"saved thousands" - "could have done more" smh
Yeah, what did they want him to do, try to have Hitler assassinated?
Oh, wait... *HE DID THAT!!!*
→ 0:40 I think "appointed" is not the right word here. It's not that any bishop has the power to just appoint any other bishop, it's more of a bureaucratic decision nowadays, with multiple people having input (varying depending on the exact position - but usually the pope has some veto right). "Consecrated" (as used at 5:10 and later) is the better word, as this is the liturgical action which makes someone a bishop, and it only happens once, even if they later switch to a different diocese.
4:45 The last two times non-cardinals were elected Popes were in 1990 and in 2023.
Michael I and Michael II.
They do have an episcopal lineage, even if many "faithful" to "Francis" have tried to obfuscate the fact.
The video is very correct, the records that mention the video were in the wake of the Sack of Rome, where many ancient documents were lost, also the few ancient documents were destroyed with the theft of the Vatican archives by Napoleon, leaving only few records. .
Even so, there are consecrations of Eastern bishops, of Orthodox apostolic succession, who consecrated and even consecrated Roman bishops, tracing that succession to the Byzantine church, the same thing happens with the Anglicans, who also have a valid succession not so much because of the character in the video, but by the Orthodox and Old Catholic bishops who consecrated them, that is the Anglican argument for apostolic succession. The Eastern churches also have very ancient successions.
The Anglican Church and iirc Old Catholic Church however allows female bishops therefore the legitimacy of the future Anglican succession is questionable
@@deutschermichel5807They're invalid at this point hence no EO, OO, nor Catholics receiving them as clergy. They're always ordained.
Funny how the photo of Pope Pius IX looks like it could be a contemporary black and white photo of a pope. The clothing is just the same today.
Amazing ! I never imagined this type of chart! Would a dog breed chart be possible?
3:43 Actually, one diocese may have more than one bishop, though only one of them is the *diocesan* bishop. This diocesan bishop may have one *coadjutor* bishop and one or more *auxiliary* bishops. (The difference between these is that the coadjutor is the "heir-apparent" to the diocesan bishop, while the auxiliary bishops are not.)
*Fun fact:* all non-diocesan bishops (i.e. coadjutors and auxiliary), called *"titular bishops",* are, in theory, bishops of a "non-territorial" diocese. That is a diocese that is "dormant" (the Catholic Church prefers that to "extinct") because either its territory was attributed to a different diocese, or the territory is now part of a Muslim country (Middle East and North Africa) and it is not safe to have actual diocesan bishops there or there are not enough followers to have a diocese.
For example, my diocese's bishop was, before becoming a diocesan bishop, an auxiliary bishop of Porto; as such, he was the titular bishop of Cemerinianus, some town that existed in North Africa (more specifically, modern Algeria) during the Roman empire; I could not find what name the modern town has (assuming there was a successor town to the Roman one).
That was cool! Can you do one for Orthodox bishops?
They dont have apostolic succession
Very very interesting as always !
1:20 Jesus was the originator of the MLM Pyramid scam.
I think he stole it from Egypt…
Roman Catholic Dioceses can have a bishop and auxiliary bishops as well, who have all the ecclesiastical powers of the main bishop (called the "ordinary".) Auxiliary bishops are usually appointed as full bishop of a diocese that doesn't exist anymore, but actually have no geographically-based powers in that area. For example, the Diocese of Brooklyn, NY, has a Bishop who serves as the Ordinary, and two Auxiliary Bishops subordinate to him.
It's not "Roman" Catholic but Catholic
The pope is the bishop of Rome
There are 22 rites within the Catholic Church eg Maronite, Syriac, etc
The Orthodox Churches, as parts of the Catholic Church in schism have valid apostolic succession.
Luther was excommunicated and started his own religion - his successors have no apostolic succession
Neither have the Anglicans apostolic succession.
As a member of the Anglican church, John Henry Newman was tasked to prove their apostolic succession.
As he was unable to do so, he left and became Catholic
Yes, but Anglicans began to consecrate themselves with Old Catholics and Orthodox Bishops, with bribery included, and now all Anglican bishops have apostolic succession
@@ignaciogrial1872the video just tells you that any catholic bishop cant trace back their ligneage older than the 1400s
@@lad6524 That is a matter of (lost) documentation, absence of proof isn't proof of absence.
@EmilioDAlbertis If you use that definition, then the Roman Catholic/Latin Catholic Church is a subset of the Catholic Church along with the Eastern rites/Churches
@EmilioDAlbertis interpret my post as dismissing your "correction" are an error
0:48 Sorry, but you confuse appoint with consecrate.
The Saint and future pope Pius V was appointed bishop of Sutri by Pope Paul IV, and he was consecrated by cardinal Giovanni Michele Saraceni.
Could we get the Orthodox version of this with the head of Constantinople?
Always love your content!
Spoiler alert: It's Adam and Eve.
Haha great to find you here
Did you comment before watching? Because it doesn't mention Adam or Eve anywhere in the video 🙄.
In case you still haven't watched it, it's not about biological ancestry. It's about Episcopal Genealogy / Apostolic Succession. The chart attempts to "trace a line directly from bishop to bishop, all the way back to one of the original apostles, and then of course, to Jesus himself." But no further. And that's not a spoiler, that's literally how Matt introduces the video in its first couple of minutes.
This is super cool! I would buy several copies if you made this and honestly know a TON of Catholics who would. Heck Catholic book stores might even sell it for you.
That non cardinal elected Pope 600 years ago was a based giga-chad
_Universi Dominici Gregis_ allows the election of any male catholic until today. in such a case the new pope will be ordained deacon, then priest and finally consecrated bishop ASAP and cannot give blessings until it is done.
0:45 Not who *appointed* whom as bishop, but who *ordained* (or *consecrated* ) whom as bishop.
Proudly Catholic
✝️
Outside the Church there is no salvation. Sadly a doctrine that isn't preached as much as it should be, especially NO priests.
Amen!
Same
What lineage does the chaldean catholic cardinal, Luis Sako fall under?
Chaldeans are part of the Catholic Church and have apostolic succession.
I would guess the chaldeans don't have historical records enough to be able to reconstruct their lineages. But that's just my guess
- Archbishop André Sana (1920-2013)
- Patriarch Yousef VII Ghanima (1881-1958)
- Patriarch Yousef VI Emmanuel II Thomas (1852-1947)
- Patriarch Pierre Élie XII Abbolyonan (abt.1840-1894)
- Patriarch Joseph VI Audu (abt.1790-1878)
- Archbishop Augustin Hindi (abt.1750-1828)
- Bishop Isaie Jesu-Yab-Jean Guriel (1758-1833)
- Archbishop Youhanan VIII Hormez (abt.1760-1838)
That's as far as it goes. Youhanan VIII was *probably* consecrated by Eliya XI (but that is uncertain, according to Heleen Murre-van den Berg). Eliya XI was the first patriarch of a united Chaldean Church.
@@renerpho Thank you for taking the time to do the research and for your reply.
@@danialxx You're welcome
How about a family tree of popes that lead back to the apostles and Jesus
There is nothing stopping you from making it up and arguing to make it cannon… that’s how this nonsense got started in the first place.
@@magicpigfpv6989 who told you to reply in the first place?
Saint Ireneaus 180 AD “Against the Heresies” Book 4 chapter 4 lists the first 12 Popes to his present day.
It's be interesting to see you cover Baptist Baptismal Genealogy in a similar way.
Like for example people love to talk about Roger Williams and John Clarke founding the first Baptist Churches in NA when they founded Rhode Island. But I think the genealogy of American Baptist Churches more predominately goes back to John Myles.
First he spread the Particular Baptist Faith in Southern Wales then came to Massachusetts to found a Baptist City named after one of his Welsh cities, then served as Pastor of the First Baptist Church in Boston for awhile where he Baptized the guy who founded the first Baptist Church in the South. Then other Migrations of Particular Baptists from Southern Wales migrated to the Colonies to found Churches in Pennsylvania and Delaware and more in the South.
Also the Free Will Baptist Denominations that exist in the US do not have any continuity with 17th Century English General Baptists, they started as American Particular Baptists who became Arminians then started new Churches. The 17th Century English General Baptists did impact the early US via the Quakers.
Paul Palmer was first Baptist as part of Welsh Tract Baptist Church. Benjamin Randall was first baptized as a Baptist in Main probably via a lineage that goes back to Hezekiah Smith who was probably Baptized by John Gano who was Baptized by Isaac Eaton who came from those Pennsylvania Welsh Baptists. The Baptists of Appalachia probably also almost certainly originated with those Pennsylvania Welsh Baptists.
One of my Dad's cousins just got appointed as a Bishop
Sweet. Do you get to address him as Your Uncle Excellence?
Very nice presentation as usual. Sadly enough one teeny weeny mistake: pope Clement VII was not the nephew but the cousin of Leo X.
It would be cool if you did this for other pope (like the Coptic pope)
The Mormons also claim a similar thing. Every Priesthood holder (every male older than 12) can trace his „Priesthood line“ back to Joseph Smith Jr. and, by claims of him being appointed by angelic resurrections of a number of apostles and Old Testament prophets, back to God.
Yeah, that goes back to the 1800s.
Excited to watch this
What is the story behind the fire that destroyed previous records?
I'm also interested in why we don't know the lineage beyond Cardinal D'Estouteville. Another fire? *The same fire?*
never been this early
Same 👍🏼
me neither
+1 for the advert with the Chicago Tribune headline on it. lol
I love how
Chart and nation by jewish person
Animation by muslim
Audio by muslim.
Teamwork. (I wish hes not zionist)
Definitely not a Zionist.
I would be interesting if you could do a similar work (albeit I measure how difficult or even impossible it would be) for the head(s) of the Armenian Apostolic Church. According to tradition, the church traces its roots to the apostles St. Barthelemy and St. Thadeus (also called Jude). However, the Curch separated from the main branch only in 451.
*Fun Fact:* The word "pope" means "Father," a common title used for priests by their partitioners.
However, "daddy" (another synonymus word), is generally used by alter boys during summer camp.
Sounds like you've had no experience using any of those words
I do, but I'm not supposed to tell anybody.
Since the internet daddy should be banned from saying ever again
The fact that there are thousands of bishops yet the popes are so closely linked seems to quite a concentration of power.