Your article raises serious questions I had not really considered. Like you, I also am not party to the dispute. Personally I lack an opinion as to whether this or that Anglican bishop, all or none of them, stands in proper apostolic succession (the question is indeed important but I am unqualified to judge it). I would not presume to advise Anglicans as to how orthodox they should be, though it is sad to watch so many of their bishops promoting weird practices that, far from being orthodox, do not fall even within the broad historical range of Protestant conventionality. One does not however deny the importance of such questions to millions of Anglican faithful.

May I ask how the article’s last paragraph follows from its first? Or is it meant to follow? I cannot quite make the connection.

Howard