How do you respond to the argument that current Anglicans do not have holy orders, because the original apostolic line merged with Rome during it's claim to supremacy/universal jurisdiction, before they broke away, so therefore all that came after were bound in agreement to let the Pope have authority to invalidate their orders if he wanted, and thus the ones who came after were not from an apostolic branch?
A curious argument, haven't heard this one before I would argue that ordinations even in the Roman Catholic sense do not depend on the Papacy, but on the regular series of ordinations, from bishop to bishop, down through the ages... Thus even for Roman Catholics if an ordination takes place which the Pope will officially reject, it becomes "illicit", not invalid
May I recommend Archdeacon Fr. McKinnon? He convinced me of the validity of Anglican orders and has caused me to reconsider apostolic succession. http://www.htacfeeds.org/astudies.php
It's just plain historically untrue. The claims to papal supremacy are hardly ancient. The best response is the Anglican document Saepius Officio responding to Pope Leo XIII's absurd claim that Anglican orders are null and void. http://anglicanhistory.org/orders/saepius.pdf
On a purely political level, this is my thought on the issue, and I've stated this before somewhere. The Synod of Whitby is often looked at as the seminal event where the English Church comes under Roman authority. King Oswiu's capitulation to "St Peter" on the date of Easter and the method of tonsure is often taken as his willingness to submit to the Papacy on all eccliastical matters of debate. Regardless of the historiocity of the event or accuracy of the quote, what one can clearly see is that the king exercised his royal discretion to place the Church of his realm under Roman jurisdiction. Therefore, if a king has the power to delegate such authority to a party, it stands that a king equally has the power take back that authority at his pleasure, which is exactly what King Henry VIII did. Oswiu's refusal to disobey "St Peter" did not bind Henry since no king has the power to bind future kings. St Paul put the hierarchy like this: "Fear God, honor the king". The pope is noticeably absent. Therefore, a priest's allegiance should follow suit. If Anglican orders are defunct it must be for a reason other than because the Pope invalidated their ordinations since the king clearly did not recognize the Pope's authority to do so at that point.
There are many Roman theologians who are admitting behind closed doors -and even openly in a few cases- that the late 19th century position of the RCC on Anglican orders is indefensible for any number of reasons. But at the heart of the question is a debate on ecclesiology, wherein the Uniate churches prove that autocephaly is grudgingly accepted even by Rome. If all of these other churches have valid orders: Orthodox, Eastern Catholic, SSPX/sedevacantists, and even many Old Catholics; why not Anglicans? Then the usual tactic is to claim a deficiency in the Anglican Ordinal. That is a precarious place to make one's stand.
Simple, Rome's claim of Papal supremacy is flawed an unbiblical. Rome's claim of exclusivity as the "One True Church" is flawed and unbiblical. Therefore, Rome's clam to be the only organisation that can validly confer Holy Orders is flawed and unbiblical.