Sorry, my Catholic history isn’t that good. All I remember was reading something about it.
“Every validly consecrated bishop, including heretical, schismatic, simonistic or excommunicated bishops, can validly dispense the Sacrament of Order, provided that he has the requisite intention, and follows the essential external rite (set. Certa). Cf. D 855, 860; CIC 2372.” 1952 Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott, pp. 456.
Maybe that was what I was thinking of.
The difference, of course, is that the Anglican bishops during the reign of Edward VI were never properly consecrated, due to the alteration in the words. The radical protestant regents, believing in "every man his own priest," removed from the words any indication that the bishop or priest received any special powers via the Holy Spirit. Since that intention was allied to the removal of the necessary words, the effect was to invalidate the consecrations.
But that's pretty complicated and technical. I actually read Apostolicae Curae because of course I was interested in the question. That (the validity of Anglican orders) was one of the two beliefs I had to consciously give up in becoming Catholic. The other was the supremacy of the Pope. But, as my husband told our new rector, it was obvious from the way events had played out that we had been grievously in error! As he so elegantly put it, "We can deal!"