It’s complicated.
I can’t answer your questions in full but I can make a few comments. I will try to give the skinny on this without getting too detailed, so naturally the story is simplified and that means anyone who wants to blow a hole in this explanation will have a nice opportunity to do so.
-1- The Anglican church was once under the authority of the Pope. They reject it now (perhaps for good reasons, perhaps not) but they owe much to that earlier relationship. In a sense it is a renegade province of the Roman Catholic church (sort of like Taiwan in relation to China and Ulster in relation to Eire).
While on the other hand the Pope never controlled the eastern churches, and therefore they have never ‘disobeyed’ the Pope nor had a reason to, since he was not their boss in the first place. Thus for Orthodox the position is that the Pope has no right of jurisdiction because it can be shown he never had any in the past, this is an entirely different argument.
Another way of putting it is that the Anglicans might say the Pope should not have had that kind of power over Catholic churches because it is an abuse of the Petrine office which they reject. For Orthodox the argument might be that the power and the abuse never existed for them in the past and they don’t want to start any of that now at this late date.
-2- Based on Roman Catholic theory of Apostolic succession, a church can have true bishops even if they are not in communion with Rome and even if they believe and teach heresy. (This is how the phenomena of vagante bishops has been propagated.) However Anglican orders (and therefore the confected Eucharist) are not considered valid because for a long time (
after the reign of Elizabeth I) the men who were appointed Anglican bishops did not believe they were passing on a sacramental order, thus their ordinations were not sacramental since they did not
intend to impart a sacrament and had no faith in it. Some later Anglican priests (and bishops) did want to believe in the sacramental nature of the Eucharist and their ordinations but they couldn’t get it from someone who hasn’t got it to give. Sort of like trying to get milk from a bull.
However the Orthodox do believe in the sacramental nature of Holy Orders and the Eucharist, and always intended to pass this along, so according to Roman Catholic theory they have never had a break in this practice and their bishops and priests and sacraments are continually valid.
-3- Orthodox do not have such a theory as the Roman Catholic church on Apostolic succession, in the strictest sense a bishop now outside of the church is deposed and not a bishop even if he thinks he is or would like to claim he is. That means that technically the Orthodox view Roman Catholic and Anglican orders in a similar (though not exactly the same) way.
