King Henry VIII was wrong. Elisabeth 1st was wrong. Queen Mary was wrong while we are at it. But they were never part of the apostolic sucession.

True, but Henry made himself head of the Church and this continues to this day in the English Church, a thing foreign to Christian faith and sensibilities.

Elizabeth 1st by stealth forced the state Church to be a conformist church to her polity and beliefs. Again a thing foreign to Church's phronomena.

Queen Mary was mad.

Just interesting, flawed heads of a weird ecclesiastical polity...

Apostolic succession was quite clear and defined within Anglican circles up to and including the era of King Henry VIII. After that the waters start to murky somewhat. Rome declared they were too murky by stating in 1897 Anglican orders were not valid, Eastern Orthodoxy generally held its peace (apart from the EP in 1921 who I believe decreed they were valid). Orthodoxy today is generally totally within Rome's views now, due to the ordination of women and practicing and known homosexuals as well as that sex change operation priest in England.

Anglicanism will most likely never recover in the eyes of the Orthodox and Catholics again. Mores the pity.

Once again, is our _episcopal_ succession valid?

Personally I have no idea. Eastern Orthodoxy, Orientals Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism seem to me today to unite and say a resounding no! Whether this affects those traditional Bishops and continuing Anglicans who are actively trying to steer their churches and congregations back into the stream of Orthodox Doctrine I cannot say until the time comes when any of them approach one of those above Churches for re-admittance or inter-communion. Then the matter would be decided.

Bishops who have willingly ordained women to the holy Priesthood have by their action seperated themselves from their apostolic heritage. They are like priests who presume to ordain laymen to the priesthood when they know completely that they act contrary to what they received at their own consecration. For the Church never did such a thing. Bishops who actively teach against the received doctrines of the Church have shamed themselves and confused the laity whether by that they have destroyed their succession is not for me to judge. The merciful God I am sure has done all to work through even such evilness as this in the past for the sake of the elect.

If not, why not? It seems to have just as much physical contact and liturgical fullness as episcopal ordinations in other places...

Indeed it has. The canons of the Church declare that Bishops may not do certain things. Anglican bishops by and large do the things they are commanded not to do in the Christian Church canons. That is -some- ordain practicing homosexuals and commune them. Some ordain women and lesbian women. Some teach against some of the greatest truths of Christian Faith. Some wish to allow lay presidency. Some divorce and remarry willy nilly. etc etc. All this is in direct disobedience to the canons of Nicea and the other ecumenical Church councils. You argued somewhere else that you best thought of the church as geographically described. We are talking about the Church of England and also the Anglican Church of Australia... are these valid church entities that minister in these locations or do they lack something.

They are certainly valid church entities and serve their communites well in very many areas. They also have amongst their ranks some very fine men and women of faith. They lack a knowledge and practice of their former catholicity/orthodoxy. For example you have said that you are a seminary student soon to be ordained (which I acept of course and wish you the very best of God's bblessings in your future ministry), However, your Book of Common Prayer, under the section, "Churching of Women" refers to "After the appropriate time has expired, the mother shall enter the Church and attend the front before the altar for prayer." Now please explain to me the meaning of the words...."After the appropriate time has expired." :-) Please also explain exactly 'what' is the Churching of women, why it was done, what it taught and why it is no longer done in todays Anglican churches.

To carry the point I know of a whole Protestant Seminary staff who refused to discourse on the words of the Apostles Creed "he descended into hades." because they no longer retained knowledge or faith of what this referred to and how Christ could have gone to hell.

I have scores of examples such as the above.

The Anglican Church of Australia recently changed the wording of their ordinations from "Take ye authority as a priest in the Universal Church of God."...to "take ye authority as a Minister of the Anglican Church of Australia." I would guess the seperation from its apostolic heritage will be focussed on those words as a sort of litmus test by future Orthodox. I realise continuing traditional Anglicans still use the orthodox/catholic form of "take ye authority as a priest in the Universal Church of God." Indeed I believe someone could make quite a good case (as was done in India recently) to sue the Anglican Church of Australia as not a true successor to the Anglican Church and have the properties legally turned over to the Continuing Anglican Church movement. :-) Not for me to decide or institute, but I just note the High Court apparently agreed with the case in India and ruled against the Anglican Church and ordered the surrender of Churches and Church properties to the Traditional Anglican Community. I would be very careful in the future with major changes if I was an Archbishop of the Anglican Communion. :-)

And why should the _Eastern_ Orthodox have authority over the church of God ministering in an entirely different location?

Indeed I agree with you and my own personal actions have stood up for that fact. I am one of the most vehement denouncers of cultural ethnicity being forced on another culture. Orthodoxy historically has allowed eachy culture to become sanctified. She has failed to do this with the west for various reasons.

Peace and grace.

an Orthodox friend