[Hermann the Cherusker]

If Anglican orders were "absolutely null and utterly void" 100 years ago, then how could Rome recongnize TAC orders as valid? The clergy who left for TAC were ordained by the same bishops as the clergy who stayed. Therefore, if those bishops and the clergy who stayed are invalid, then the initial TAC priests were invalid as well. Were all TAC clergy re-ordained by Polish bishops? What rite was used?

From the 1930's to the 1970's, Polish National Catholic Church Bishops in the US and Old Catholic Bishops in England were involved in many ECUSA and CofE episcopal consecrations with the explicit purpose of rectifying the false lineage of Matthew Parker. Therefore, in many cases the situation today is quite different than that in 1896.

[bobjam]

I hadn't heard Catholics say Matthew Parker's lineage was false. He was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury by Bishop William Barlow of Chichester in 1559. William Barlow had been consecrated Bishop of St David's by Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer in 1536.

The usual line of reasoning I've heard is that the Anglican Succession was broken when Oliver Cromwell overthrew Charles I and ousted the bishops. Fortunately for the Anglicans, the Restoration occurred in time for them to be restored and continue the succession. The ECUSA lineage goes through Scotland and ties into the Church of England before Cromwell, thus avoiding that problem altogether.

It's my understanding that PNCC and Old Catholic bishops are the ones who refused to recognize the Pope as infallible after Vat-1. They were summarrily ex-communicated. Wouldn't a hard-core Catholic hold that their succession is therefore null and void?