Talk:Historical episcopate

message: Charles Bransom has published several works where this was discussed. I cited one that I have read. His personal website, while not usable as a citation, gives more details:
http://mysite.verizon.net/res7gdmc/aposccs/
Best, -- SECisek (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I'll update this article and/or Scipione Rebiba who refers to 91% different bishops, this one "western", that one "roman catholic"; one of them have to be wrong. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 22:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't. The 91% source given is unavailable to me, and Bransom's site only mentions 95% in a place, claiming that 95% of the 5,100 RCC bishops derive their lines from Rebiba. Interestingly the lines stop there, so that the historical episcopate cannot be tracked back to Jesus, making the concept a sacred fiction. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 23:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard to episcopal succession, a bishop is usually ordained by several bishops. The lines of succession are generally only traced through the most senior bishop, even though the apostolic succession passes through all the ordaining bishops equally. With regard to Rebiba's succession, it is highly likely he was legitimately ordained. However, from an internet search, it appears that there is no surviving documentation of his episcopal lineage. --Blkgardner (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebiban Succession

message: At the moment, "Historic Episcopate" is a redirect to this article.  My experience within the English-speaking Anglican world is that "Historic Episcopate" is always used and is an established technical term.  My ecumenical experience does not contradict this in any way. I have checked out the talk pages but nothing seems to have been said about this problem.  Before taking the first official steps to propose a move, I'd like to ask if the Roman Catholic usage in English is the same.  My impression is that they tend to talk simply of "the episcopate".  Comments welcome.  Jpacobb (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to take your word about Anglican diocese having it as an established technical term. Regarding Catholic diocese, from what I can see at the Catholic Hierarchy website here, it uses the term "historical", but the bishops who hold the titles for the formerly extant dioceses which still exist only by title are generally referred to as the "titular bishop of" whatever, so my own impression is that based on what you said about the Anglicans, that usage is probably a better indicator of name as per WP:NAME than the Catholic position. Maybe. I would welcome additional comments from others of course, particularly from people who work a bit more closely with not only Catholic diocese, but also Orthodox and others which might come into play as well. John Carter (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your reply, John.  Having had time to digest it and to think hard about the main point I had in mind which is the fact that although Anglicanism has preserved its ministry within the Historic(al) Episcopate (at least in its own eyes, if not the Curia's), large sections of the Church have and still do refuse to "unchurch" those Christian groups which have not done so.  I now incline to leave the redirects as they stand and create a new article under a title such as "Historic episcopate (Anglican views)" with appropriate reciprocal links to and from "Historical E
episcopate" and "Apostolic succession". Jpacobb (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible move to "Historic Episcopate" 

message: I'm a bit confused about the Orthodox versus Anglican consecrations. As I understand it, the Anglican church split off from the Roman Catholic Church, and hence would have a similar line of apostolic succession, simply forking off at a different point than the other churches. —Booch 19:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Anglican church was started by Henry VIII of England rather than any cleric. At times he used as bishops men who were previously ordained validly, but at times he elevated and had consecrated as bishops men who were outside the apostolic succession; these men were not valid bishops according to Catholic thought, nor were their successors ordained by them, which includes much existing Anglican clergy. Therefore most Catholic authorities do not regard most Anglican ordinations and consecrations as valid. —Rlquall 19:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Henry VIII broke away from the Holy See but he didn't mess with liturgy including ordinations of priests and consecration of bishops. When Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican orders null and void he referred to changes under Henry's teenage son Edward VI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.71.88 (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, this whole discussion might be more appropriate at Talk:Historical episcopate. Second, the whole thing is kind of strange in terms of recognition. We're all hopefully aware here that a consecration can be ecclesiastically illegal but still theologically valid. As far as the latter goes, it should be noted that neither Henry VIII nor Edward VI (nor any British monarch) consecrated bishops himself (which would have been theologically invalid), but rather, bishops working for them consecrated bishops (bishop consecrating another bishop, theologically valid). The only thing Edward VI changed from what I read at his Article and other places, was the details of the rites, that is to say the exact words a bishop says while consecrating another bishop. Still a bishop consecrating another bishop, which makes Leo XIII's statement seem a little weird to me even though I'm a Roman Catholic myself as it happens, but anyway, back to my original point: This whole conversation would probably be more appropriate at Talk:Historical episcopate than here. —The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 10:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Orthodox versus Anglican consecrations