I am not sure I understand your point here.
Are you saying their bishops are real bishops but the sacraments these people confect are not real sacraments?
As I explained above with a link to the canon law, being a “real” priest is not always enough by itself. For instance, the sacrament of penance requires, in addition to valid Holy Orders, the permission (“faculties”) of the proper canonical authority.
Take, for instance, a “defrocked” priest – maybe one who voluntarily left the priesthood to get married or join a cult, or maybe someone who was kicked out due to heresy and pedophilia or what have you. Because the priesthood is an indelible sacrament, he is, sacramentally, a priest forever. If he says the words of consecration over bread and wine with the proper intention, they become the Eucharist. It’s a very grave sin for him to do so in that condition, but the sacrament is valid nonetheless. Now suppose that he hears someone’s confession and gives them absolution. Valid? No, because he lacks canonical priestly faculties. It would be valid if the penitent were in danger of death, since that is a canonical exception to the requirement of faculties; there are also certain doctrines which govern the situation of a penitent who goes to a priest not
knowing that he lacks faculties to hear confessions. But as a general matter if you are a laicized, defrocked priest (a) you can validly though illicitly confect the Eucharist, and (b) not validly grant absolution. As I said above, I believe that marriages fall in the latter category.
I’m by no means well schooled in the situation of the Old Catholics, but, as a sect with zero canonical standing, what I have said, as far as I know, is as true of their situation as of any other priest with valid orders and no canonical faculties. (That’s not counting the womynpriests that the Old Catholics are ordaining these days, but that’s a whole 'nother story …
).
