Veronica,
1.) The eastern rite bishops never adopted the Paul VI ordination and consecration rite. They still use their own ancient eastern rites. Their orders are beyond any doubt valid. The only affected group is the Roman rite bishops who adopted the Paul VI rites. With that said, apostolic succession has two components, orders and mission, in my opinion, the eastern rites generally have both.
2.) The Arian heretical bishops lost their jurisdiction by embracing heresy. Heresy causes the loss of membership in the Church, and for clerics, an immediate loss of office. Non-members of the Church cannot hold an office, so if a Catholic publicly professes heresy, he immediately resigns from his office simultaneously with losing his membership in the Church.
Pacelli - You stated that the apostolic succession has two components, "orders and mission". Can you please explain what each means?
What I am trying to understand is why there are some traditionalists who accept the New Rite of Ordinations while they don't accept the Novus Ordo and Vatican II. The only conclusion I can come up with is because of the Apostolic Succession issue. Can you explain why some persons accept the New Rites of Ordinations while not accepting the Novus Ordo and Vatican II? (Thanks for being patient with me as I am fairly new to all of this).
Veronica,
I am happy to discuss these matters with you, it does not bother me that you are asking a lot of questions, so do not fear that I am lacking patience or in any way getting annoyed. These matters we are discussing are complex. The catechisms do not cover it in depth, as the laity of the times the catechisms were written never really had to deal with the kind of problems we are confronted with today.
1.) Regarding apostolic succession: In the same manner as you would not go to a primary care doctor for a very complex medical problem requing a specialist, to grasp the problems in the Church today, we must look to the Church's specialists to guide us through them so we can understand how to correctly react to this crisis without being led astray.
I will post a good and easy to read section on apostolic succession in the resourse section which explains it brilliantly and succinctly. But, to quickly distill it, holy orders are the sacrament imprinted on a man's soul which makes him a deacon, a priest, or in the case of a bishop, the fullness of holy orders. The mission goes right back to Our Lord who gave the apostles their mission to teach, govern and sanctify. This mission is transmitted to all of the successors of the apostles, and is their commission to have and use their authority over their flocks to teach, govern, sanctify, and lawfully use their holy orders.
I will give you an analogy, a medical doctor is trained for years and years, and as a medical student, he might already have the knowledge to be a doctor and treat people, but until the state commissions him by giving him a license, he cannot legally use that knowledge to conduct himself as doctor, he cannot legally diagnose a condition, order tests, or prescribe medications or treatment plan. In the same manner, a man cannot receive holy orders or take authority in the Church over Christ's flock without this commission.
2.) We need to separate the "traditionalist" response to the
Novus Ordo Missae from the response to the Pauline rites of holy orders, and lastly to the response to Vatican II. They are all separate matters.
2a.)
the Novus Ordo: the common argument to justify rejecting the
Novus Ordo in favor of the 1962 missal is based on a legal technicality, the wording that Paul VI used in promulgating the rite was defective. Catholics believed that they were free to not obey him on this matter due to his not directly ordering them to obey.
While I concede that Paul VI's law was defective, there are still problems with this position. He still ordered this missal to be published to be used for the universal Church, therefore, if Paul VI was pope, the Novus Ordo must by definition be good, holy, and pleasing to God, and there would be no reason to refuse to use it. Secondly, the bishops of the Roman Rite, implemented the change of missals, so again, if Paul VI was Pope, and the rite by that fact was safe, there would be no lawful ground in refusing obedience to one's local bishop. Lastly, once the
Novus Ordo reached its 40th birthday in 2009, even with the defective promulgation, it, as a custom would have been a universal custom of the Church, meaning that it would by law have become the Roman rite.
The only way around these problems, and justify disobedience to one's local ordinary is to recognize that the rite of mass as approved by the Paul VI is against the Faith or impious, but that is impossible, if Paul VI were pope, as rites approved by the pope cannot be evil or an incentive to impiety.
2b). Regarding the
Paul VI ordinations and consecration rite of bishops, again, if Paul VI were pope, there could be no legitimate rejection of these rites. In the past, when the SSPX conditionally ordained priests that were ordained through the Paul VI rite, they justified it by having a doubt about the intention of the ordaining bishop, rather than the rite itself.
This is not a legitimate procedure, as the church teaching is clear that when the Catholic rite is used, that requisite intention is presumed. The only way to reject the Paul VI rites is to reject his claim to the papacy. If he was not Pope, the rites came from outside the Church, removing their protection as to validity, and since the rites significantly deviated from the Catholic rites, they are suspect as to validity. If Paul VI were pope, and the rites approved by him were used, there is a presumption of a valid intention.
2c). Regarding
Vatican II: "traditionalists" refuse to obey because the think Paul VI did not bind them, therefore they are free in their mind to reject what was taught by Vatican II. Secondly, many traditionalists incorrectly think that Catholics are free to reject the ordinary non-infallible teaching of a pope, as long as they deem it contrary to the previous Catholic teaching.
The trouble with this position is that Vatican II was in fact promulgated as the teaching of the Church by Paul VI, therefore, if he was pope it was binding. Secondly, non-infallible authoritative papal teaching is always safe, and therefore, Catholics cannot reject it. If a Catholic does reject it, because it is not safe, and is against the teaching of the Church, then the only way out of the trap is to look at the legitimacy of the pope giving the teaching. Catholics are never justified in rejecting the authoritative teaching of a Pope. They must hear and believe with a full internal assent to this teaching, and to reject it is a mortal sin.