I find it interesting that a Bishop must come through the sacred vehicle of consecration, He must be consecrated by Bishops with Apostolic Succession, and He must govern an assigned diocese but an Apostle (some of whom were never consecrated Bishops) does not. The fact is that there is more than one line of succession (for those who claim that succession was broken); I refer to both the Eastern and Western streams. Prelates who were granted Apostolic Succession are the only clerics who can create another Prelate in spite of what heresy is being taught. I have friends who are Apostles but they are also duly consecrated Bishops in good standing within the Episcopal community. These mighty men of God boldly speak out against those who want Prelateship without proper Episcopal dispensation. By defintion a consecration is in fact official permission to enter into the Episcopacy; this being true how can one claim the office of Bishop without a consecration? One can not be a Prelate without being consecrated into an order of Prelature. 5 of those orders are Episcopal and 1 is Potentiary. The truth is simple, one can not claim to be a Prelate if they were not properly consecrated by Prelates with Apostolic Succession. A side note: exactly how does an Apostle, who was never consecrated by Prelates with Apostolic Succecsion, see himself comparatively to a properly consecrated Bishop? Does he believe himself equal to, superior to, or subject to that Bishop?