Pope Leo XIII, in his 1896 bull Apostolicae Curae, ruled that the Church of England had lost its apostolic succession due to the changes in the rite of episcopal consecration which invalidated the sacrament. However, since the 1930s Old Catholic bishops (whom Rome recognizes as valid) have acted as co-consecrators in the ordination of Anglican bishops. By 1969, all Anglican bishops had acquired Old Catholic lines of apostolic succession fully recognized by Rome, according to Timothy Dufort.[25] Nevertheless, the ordination of women and active homosexuals to the Anglican priesthood and episcopacy have often been seen as evidence by some Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians that Anglican orders are invalid, on the basis that such actions allegedly constitute a break with apostolic tradition and this allegedly nullifies ordinations taking place in such an ecclesial communion.[citation needed]
The materials you cite are RC apologia. Dufort never met a piece of ecclesiastical history he didn't try to rewrite for the sake of ecumenism. He was papering over a "dispute" that on the Anglican side of the aisle had been forgotten by one and all except for perhaps a half-dozen in the bowels of the Canterbury archives. When the bull was issued, it was met with a collective yawn over here, but some in England actually got their knickers in a twist until they finally figured out that Leo had merely taken a very sad pot-shot at what was already a 350-year-old dispute. That the Anglicans treated the sacraments differently than the Romans was not exactly news, whether it was the rejection of transubstantiation, offering both the host and the wine at eucharist, or the rejection of salvation by works.
