My (possibly flawed) understanding is that the Anglican church is still part of the Apostolic continuum: when they split from Rome they had duly consecrated bishops, who consecrated other bishops, &c. So their status is probably closer to “schismatic” than “heretic” (akin to the Eastern Catholic churches).
Or perhaps someone more in touch with the current RCC outlook will be along to give the foregoing the drubbing it deserves. Stay tuned.…
Yeah, that’s it. That specific division is recognized as being a matter of politics at its root; if Mary Tudor had been a Mark, perhaps there wouldn’t have been a CoE. There has been some further separation of doctrine and practice, but nothing terribly… radical, shocking, I’m not sure what would be the right word.
Wonder what happens when some of the Episcopal bishops in the line of apostolic succession are women. (I guess this must’ve already happened.) From the RCC POV, will that break the chain, or what?
No, the chain is unbroken. The ordaining of female priests is something that has been discussed since forever in the Church (well ok, for a couple thousand years); the Episcopalians decided to do it sooner than the RCC did but it’s not as if the idea came out of nowhere. There is no dogmatic reason not to ordain women; like the marriage of male priests it’s a matter of custom and tradition, not one of faith. Every Episcopal priest is part of the Apostolic line of succession.
Thanks for dispelling my ignorance on this topic. 
This reminds me of something that struck me as odd about the episode of Victoria which dealt with Ireland. Several times the Anglicans described themselves as “Protestants” — but I’ve read that Anglicans thought of themselves (and perhaps still do) as “Catholic” for the reasons stated above; “Protestant” meant Lutheran, Nonconformist/Methodist, Church of Scotland and the like. If further clarification were needed they might use “English Catholic” or “Church of England” to distinguish themselves from “Romans” or “Papists” (the former only slightly less pejorative than the latter).
Apologies for the digression, but it does touch on the subject, however tenuously.
I think a lot of it has to do with whether you see the Pope in Rome as the final authority or not.
The Orthodox churches are not, in any way, Protestant.
The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t allow Anglican/Episcopalian clergy who convert to “remain priests”; they’re ordinations aren’t actually recognized. They’re received into the Catholic Church as laymen and then fast-tracked through the ordination process (with Papal dispensation for married men, who can only go as high as priest while their wives are alive).
Apostolic succession perhaps means that some Orthodox or Eastern Catholic priests can “transfer in” – it’s like natural marriage: either you are a priest or you aren’t – but that doesn’t, in theory, prevent married Baptists from becoming priests. Ordination does not /require/ being a seminarian first. It is, I think, in theory just up to the Bishop.
The problem is that there is neither a demand for nor a supply of Baptist Ministers wanting to become RC priests. In this situation, the policies of (a) not admitting married men, and (b) requiring formal qualification, stand in the way.
Sections of the local (aus) liberal protestant church assert apostolic succession: they accept apostolic succession up to the point where the protestant church split from the heretical Roman church, apostolic succession in the protestant church since, and they also recognize RC apostolic succession after that point. (But not so liberal that they recognize apostolic succession in the conservative / evangelical protestant church, which they don’t regard as Christian)
There is no particular reason why a member might not go all “high church”, become a minister, then convert to Catholicism, and take their congregation with them. I think that in such a case, the local bishop might well see his way to making an exception on the marriage thing.