I don’t see anything new about what he is saying.
He points out the Catholic teaching that Church teaching is authoritative alongside Scripture. He then says that if we are to accept this, it must be proved from Scripture. Well, in doing so he’s taking his position sola scriptura for granted. If he were being consistent, he would need to establish the authority of Scripture first which cannot be established on the testimony of Scripture alone, but also external historical evidence. However, I’m guessing that he would not admit any extra-scriptural evidence to establish apostolic succession or the authority of the Church. Then, of course there are the usual difficulties with the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura, especially for someone such as him who believes that the Catholic Church was a Church in total apostasy (since to deny the Protestant dogma of justification by faith alone is in his words a “damnable heresy,” akin to denying the divinity of Christ), because the canon of Scripture was determined by the Church’s authority and they accepted as inspired books that Protestants reject.
He says that the Apostles didn’t have any “power” to pass on at the time of Matthias’ election, which is inconsistent with the Catholic view. For example, the Council of Trent links the ordination of the Twelve to the priesthood with the Last Supper. So he cannot take it for granted that even Catholics say that the Apostles did not posses any holy orders prior to Pentecost, when that is not actually what Catholics say.
He points out that Matthias was not appointed as a successor to the Apostles, but as one of the Twelve Apostles proper. That may be so, but at least it demonstrates the principle at work that the Apostles were endowed with divine authority and that they had a definite office, and that this office was not personal, i.e. that it was bigger than them as individuals (otherwise Matthias could not succeed to Judas’ office). Moreover, it shows their replacement was at least necessary at this time of the book of Acts. I think if anything, he would need to prove explicitly from Scripture that the Apostles did not have any successors to their offices, since the usual pattern in Scripture is that offices have successors. Why should Catholics always have to bear the burden of demonstrating everything they believe unambiguously (an impossible criterion) from Scripture when we’re not even the ones that believe that everything must be demonstrated from Scripture alone in the first place?
He says that the image of the Church being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets is in fact an evidence against the view of Apostolic succession. He does this by extrapolating from the qualities of a foundation in a way he feels is consistent with his views. However, it must be admitted that images can be read in multiple ways. They are not unambiguous. Secondly, his interpretation is not a satisfactory reading of the image of a foundation because he says that foundations are laid and then are not ever touched or added to after the building is already built on top of it. However, the foundation must be maintained and repaired if it is damaged. And if the foundation is pulled out from underneath it, the building collapses. This is the case with his own “church” which is not built on any divinely instituted foundation, but personal whimsy.
I’m sure he goes on to deal with other passages in the following two videos, but nothing he says is “new.” The New Testament clearly speaks about appointing pastors over the Church beyond the Apostles.
