Do you believe Bishop Fellay is a successor of the Apostles?

Quote from: Bellator Dei
Do you believe Bishop Fellay is a successor of the Apostles?

The apostolic succession can be defined as: the public, legitimate, solemn and never interrupted elevation [suffectio] of persons in the place of the Apostles to govern and nourish the Church. (Cercia, I, p. 223) Succession may be material or formal. Material succession consists in the fact that there have never been lacking persons who have continuously been substituted for the Apostles ; formal succession consists in the fact that these substituted persons truly enjoy authority derived from the Apostles and received from him who is able to communicate it. (Herrmann, Theologiæ Dogmaticæ Institutiones, n. 282.)

Obviously a man does not become a genuine successor to the apostles merely by arrogating to himself the title of “bishop,” or by carrying on in some fashion a function once performed by the apostles. Neither is it enough for a man merely to possess some one, individual power, say for example, the power of orders. - The power of orders can be acquired even illicitly, and once acquired can never be lost. - What is required for genuine apostolic succession is that a man enjoy the complete powers (i.e., ordinary powers, not extraordinary) of an apostle. He must, then, in addition to the power of orders, possess also the power of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means the power to teach and govern. - This power is conferred only by a legitimate authorization and, even though once received, can be lost again by being revoked. [Christ's Church, Monsignor G Van Noort]

Same question, a simple yes or no will suffice...

Do you believe Bishop Fellay is a successor to the Apostles?

Bishop Fellay either is, or is not a successor to the Apostles.  No need for distinctions, it's really that simple.

  

…the coming into play of epikeia is subordinate to the existence of a right. In fact, in certain cases, the law loses its power to bind – as where its application would be contrary to the common good or to natural law – and in such a case it is not in the power of the legislator to bind or to oblige.¹⁹..There is a place for epikeia because the will of the legislator either is not able or is not bound to impose the application of the law to the case in question.²⁰

that in such a case the authority of the superior cannot have any effect; indeed, even if he were to will that the subject, after having had recourse to him, should observe the law, the latter would not be able to obey him because he must obey God rather than man and hence in such a case its is out of place (“impertinens”) to ask for permission.²⁹

…one does not presume in the lawmaker that he has the will to bind in such case and even if he had, it would be without effect. On this point all doctors are agreed who treat of obedience and of laws.³⁰
For the reason, when it is established for certain that the law in a particular circuмstance has become unjust or contrary to another command or virtue which is more binding, then the law ceases to oblige and on his own initiative he can disregard the law without having recourse to the superior,³¹given that the law in that case could not be observed without sin nor could the superior bind his subject to respect it without sin.³²

Moralists have sought to fix the criteria to be laid down for the application of epikeia. In substance, these criteria come down to the three following cases: a) when in a particular situation, the prescriptions of the positive law are in opposition to a superior law which binds one to regard higher interests [i.e., epikeia in the proper sense]; b) when, for reason of exceptional circuмstances, submission to the positive law would be too burdensome, without there resulting a good proportionate to the sacrifice being demanded; c) when, without becoming evil as in the first case and without imposing an unjustified heroism as in the second case, the observance of the positive law runs into special and unforeseen difficulties which render it, as it turns out, harder than it should have been according to the intention of the legislator.³⁵

A place is given to epikeia whenever the law makes itself harmful or too burdensome. In the first case [i.e., harmful], the superior really could not oblige and hence epikeia is necessary [(§174) which is the case as it concerns us here - Ed.].

It is said that the purpose of the law ceases "contraire" [through contrary custom - Ed.] when its observation is harmful. If the purpose of the law in a particular case ceases "contraire," the law ceases [to oblige]. The reason is that if the purpose of the law ceases "contraire," then one has the right to use epikeia.

Thus in the 4th century St. Eusebius of Samosata is seen passing through the Oriental Church devastated by the Arians and ordaining Catholic Bishops for them without having any special jurisdiction over them" (op. cit. p.218).

...today jurisdiction [over a diocese] is conferred [upon bishops] directly and expressly by the Pope…Formerly, however, it used to derive more indirectly from the Vicar of Christ as if from itself it flowed from the Pope onto those bishops, who were in union and peace with the Roman Church, mother and head of all churches [emphasis added].⁴⁰

...no principle of law and no sense of equity stands when that which has been salutarily instituted for the advantage of men is turned to their harm [Digesto, cit. in ST; II-I, Q.96, A.6; II-II, Q.60, A.5, ad.2].

...[H]e who has universal power [i.e., the Pope - Ed.] can exercise upon all the power of the keys. Those, [i.e., the bishops - Ed.], on the other hand, who under him have received a distinct power, are not able to use the power of the keys on just anyone, but only on those who have fallen to them by lot, save the cases of necessity (Supplement, Q.20, A.1).

Thus he who does not have water for baptizing is not able to baptize the dying child with orange juice [and] he who is not a priest is not able to give absolution to one dying even if he would have need (ibid., p.57).

Baptism owes its efficacy to the consecration of the sacramental matter [and therefore no one will ever be able to baptize with orange juice - Ed.]...On the other hand, the efficacy of the sacrament of Penance [just as of the sacrament of Holy Orders - Ed.] derives from the consecration of the minister (Supplement, Q8, A.6, ad.3).

By the 11th century..., because of the abuses that arose on the part of the Metropolitans at times, the consecration of bishops gradually began to be reserved in some places to the Supreme Pontiff, and then by the 15th century reservation became universal [and only in the Latin Church].⁵¹

...for the common good and the salvation of souls prudently examined in a particular and extraordinary case; [a clause which] being universal and arising from the nature of things through force of reason, is omitted from die particular determination of law, without, however, really ceasing to prescribe the matter and obligation determined by every human law.⁵²

You can find it very near the beginning of the article you found “interesting,” and which you  had “read a few times:”

“Apostolicity of mission is a guarantee of Apostolicity of doctrine. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haeres, IV, xxvi, n. 2) says: "Wherefore we must obey the priests of the Church who have succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who, together with succession in the episcopate, have received the certain mark of truthaccording to the will of the Father; all others, however, are to be suspected, who separated themselves from the principal succession", etc.

In explaining the concept of Apostolicity, then, special attention must be given to Apostolicity of mission, or Apostolic succession.

Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth.

This authoritative transmission of power in the Churchconstitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power.”

And a bit later in the same article:

“Mazella (De Relig. et Eccl., 359), after speaking of Apostolic succession as an uninterrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles, insists upon the necessity of jurisdiction or authoritative transmission...”

If you start from the correct premise that a 61 (or 1,610) year interregnum is impossible, I'm sure you will be able eto correct yourself in time.