What does Historic Episcopate mean?

[gtsecc]

I have always thought it meant Apostolic Succesion.
Is there any doubt what this means for Anglicans?
Is that NOT what we mean?

[AngCath]

In my book:
Historic Episcopate = Apostolic Succession

[gitlance]

his·tor·ic
adj.


Having importance in or influence on history.
Historical.
e·pis·co·pate
n.

The position, term, or office of a bishop.
The area of jurisdiction of a bishop; a diocese.
Bishops considered as a group. Also called episcopacy.
"The episcopate is the status of a bishop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop) or the collective body of all bishops of a church. In the Roman Catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church), Anglican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglicanism) (including what in the USA is called the Episcopal Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Church_in_the_United_States_of_America)), Eastern Orthodox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodoxy), Oriental Orthodox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy), and Assyrian/"Nestorian" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Church_of_the_East) churches, and in a few Protestant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism) churches (but not in most), it is held that only a person in a line of succession of bishops dating back to the Apostles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle) can be a Christian bishop, and only such a person can validly ordain Christian clergy. The succession must be transmitted from each bishop to a successor by the rite of Holy Orders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Orders). Bishops in such a succession compose the historic episcopate. This is also called the apostolic succession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession), but that term is also used in a variety of other ways. The Roman Catholic Church holds that a bishop's consecration is valid if the sacrament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament) of Holy Orders is validly done and the consecrating bishop's orders are valid, regardless of whether this takes place within or outside of the Catholic Church. Thus, Catholics recognize the validity of the episcopacy of Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox bishops. They do not recognize Anglican bishops, because of changes in the rite of Holy Orders in the Anglican churches.

The Eastern Orthodox Church holds that a bishop's consecration is less than fully valid if it is not within the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Holy_Catholic_and_Apostolic_Church)", i.e., one of the canonical Eastern Orthodox churches. In many cases, the doctrine of ekonomia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_%28Eastern_Orthodoxy%29) is applied to such bishops if they convert to Orthodoxy."

[Fish and Bread]

I've always understood the historic episcopate to be the laying on of hands in the consecration of bishops linking back in a direct line to the Apostles, the same definition that is commonly used for apostolic succession. Since some view apostolic succession as being something else, though, I always thought the reason that a lot of modern documents use the term historic episcopate was to make absolutely clear that we're talking about the chain of bishops going back to the Apostles.

John

[gitlance]

If Anglicans did not believe that the Apostolic Succession is necessary, then I don't think our bishops would have bothered to write Saepius Officio... and in LATIN!

Why defend our orders against Rome if they are not necessary?