It seems to me that this apostolic succession, with which those schismatics are still accredited, arises from a misconception - in the same way as I believe the mark of priestly ordination, which I believe Thomas Aquinas identified, is also misunderstood.
Both, it seems to me are not official badges of rank, still less, personal accolades bestowed on the member of the hierarchy by God, but are personal commissions by Him to preside over the church and evangelise - as they do. Must we not admit that we are 'unprofitable servants?' What we are privileged to 'do', even, we do by the grace of God.
In any case, there are only twelve Apostles, who, the Apocaypse informs us, constitute the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem. (Please correct me on this, someone, if my memory is at fault.) So, it is the commission that is inherited, not the status.
Does Judas remain an apostle in hell? I don't think so, nor wicked priests, remain as priests there - offering praise and sacrifice. Let them keep the mark of their commission on their soul. It just serves to highlight their dereliction of that commission, and consequent ignominy.
It seems a shame when such a controversial teaching (to the world) as papal infallibility, speaking ex cathedra, has prevailed, that it should be hamstrung by yet another one of numerous impediments to the faith erected by an excessive clericalism; that mistaken perspective, prioritizing the personal status over the personal commission. Surely, God would be nothing, if not practical.
Thus popes should be viewed as successors to Peter, not in his person, but in terms of his Christ-given commission; the rock upon which Christ was to build his Church was Peter's fulfilment of that commission.
When someone is baptised, the intention of the minister baptising them is apparently pivotal. How could the intention of a schismatic 'minister' be bona fide?
This is not a 'dig' at mainstream Protestantism, which seems to have arisen as a deliberate part of God's providence at a time when our institutional church was, to put it mildly, disgraceful beyond belief. Nevertheless, I don't believe that, for all its merits, the Church of England is apostolic, for the reasons I adduced above. Well, in the customary narrow sense, it may be described as formally apostolic - which to me, makes no sense, since it is not actually 'apostolic', their own orders having been rendered invalid of their own volition.
Does not this narrow, aridly formal sense of the word, 'apostolic' represent a form of moral relativism. And we are denying them the dignity of opting for the indignity for which they do, in fact, opt. They can deny elementary truths of the faith, without the full consequences. But for the fact that, in this, it is they who are 'calling the shots', on the questionable basis of our traditional usage of the term, it seems rather akin to the denial of the elementary dignity of free choice by certain respondents to a Catholic forum to a young woman who, while baptised a Catholic did not believe in Roman Catholic Christianity, nor ever had done - much as she loved her parents, and was very anxious not to hurt them.
She wanted to marry a young man who was, I think, a Methodist, mainstream Protestant, anyway, and she had found that church very, very congenial, cordially welcoming and sociable. And for this she was repeatedly taunted and baited by one or two scandalously vindictive respondents, who insisted to her: 'once a Catholic, always a Catholic.' Catholic baptism was permanent and indelible.
So, in this case, the young woman was being denied the elementary dignity and respect due to her in the matter of her Christian belief - one character even quoting to her Canon Law 47, sub-section 6, paragraph 4, lines 7-21, inclusive ... if you get my drift.
