The more I read the more I cannot understand the case made by Leo XIII against Anglican Orders. There were disagreements against Leo by Catholic Theologians at the time.
i) Anglicans can with solid clarity trace their Bishops back to the Apostles (through Catholic Bishops).
ii) Argument that due to the Edwardian Ordinal the consecrations are invalid really seems odd. The argument is that the sacrificial role of the priest is not mentioned. As was pointed out that argument manages to invalidate Roman Catholic clergy since many rites did not contain the language. Also, none of the Eastern Orthodox rites do either (but are considered valid).
iii) Staley effectively deal with the issues of titles and the Edwardian Ordinal.
Frankly, the argumentation that the orders are invalid seem rather flimsy?? That does not even touch upon the introduction of Old Catholic lines into the Anglican Communion for decades and the long ago corrected ordinal.
Plus…using Leo’s logic would not the earliest of Bishop’s likely not have valid orders due to language, rites , etc meaning under that system no one has valid orders (especially since, as noted in Saepius Officio, many Catholic rites did not use “correct language”).