[quote="runningdude, post:17, topic:313839"]
What I've read, (unfortunately I can't remember the exact source, but likely from this site) was that defective Anglican rite of ordination was used, and thus even with a valid bishop co-consecrating, no Holy Orders were imparted.
It was a case of the Old Catholic bishops merely participating as an ecumenical gesture, with no intent to correct the deficiencies as perceived by Rome. Even so, in a similar time frame as the Episcopalians, many Old Catholic churches began attempting to ordain women, so is even more doubtful that either party understood the proper intent for celebrating Holy Orders.
(For the record, the Polish National Catholic Church actually broke away from the Union of Utrect over this matter is now closely aligned with Rome on most subjects.)
Apostolicae Curae (a hobby of mine) states the issue was a intertwined one of defective form, in the Edwardine ordinal, and defective intent, on the part of the those who used the form. The precise point is usually given as at the consecration of Archbishop Parker in 1559, though AC does not spell that out.
To the contrary, the intent of the participating OCs, beginning at the 1932 consecrations, was to confer fully the apostolic orders which they possessed. As stated. One can refer to Appendix II of Fr. J.J.Hughes STEWARDS OF THE LORD, note 3, pp. 340-341, for detail. The assumption that the nature of the intent issue was not understood is a mistaken one. What the OCs have become is not related to the infusion of Orders, in 1932 and after, until the issue of the proper subject became evident around 40 years later. As was certainly the case, by that time, with the Episcopalians
The PNCC began joint Anglican consecrations in 1946, under the same understanding.