I am not quite sure what Bp. Sanborn means when he says "If you add anything to the rosary, then you lose the indulgence." Is there some "liturgical and legal" way to say the rosary as passed down from Rome?  If I add a St. Joseph prayer on Our Father beads during the month of March, I therefore lose the indulgence? This seems to be a private opinion.  I am not sure why the bishop would change the way he says his rosary based upon something he read in the pages of William Thomas Walsh. Saying the rosary in Latin would be the best method if one were striving for liturgical exactitude.  But even then people will argue, "What Latin is to be said?"

On the subject of jurisdiction, I remember in Winona years ago.  Bp. Williamson and the rest of us went to some orchestral concert in town.  I remember it was quite warm outside and the bishop wore a sweater vest which covered up his pectoral cross. He later told us that he covered up the pectoral cross because he knew that he did not have any jurisdiction in the diocese of Winona, and by covering up the cross he was avoiding any potential conversations which might arise among the laypeople in Winona.   

Thank you! If this were true, I’d have to notify the nearest “resistance” bishop that I am now under his authority, but he needn’t bother himself with me. There are two small sub-details of his stand with which I disagree and cannot, in charity and for the good of souls, strictly obey. I understand his opinions and even concede he may be correct, but until these are confirmed by a real Pope and Catholic Magisterium, I must hold mental reservation for both myself and for others identifying themselves as Catholic.
That is regrettable, because I otherwise believe he is closest to correct. I regularly listen to and am subscribed to his organization’s websites and streaming channels from which I have derived much benefit. But for as long as I am not permitted a modicuм of doubt, which I purposefully keep to myself, he must deny me the Sacraments and possibly, depending upon the correct interpretation of his list of requirements, admission to his chapels to hear Mass.
As you say, absurdity if enforced by geographical location, but worse than absurd because of the potential harm to souls. If I were traveling and my only Mass option were his chapel and priests, or, God forbid, I had to live in his area, he’d deprive me of the very Sacraments necessary to save my soul. Waiting until in danger of death will likely be insufficient.

And what’s mystifying to me is how an otherwise holy cleric can be blinded by the veil of Jansenism, Pharisaism, or simple pride, whatever it is, is beyond me. To me, it is straining at two fairy wasps and swallowing a great blue whale!

So true!  This is such a Crisis.  Hopefully it will not last another 70 years.  May God have mercy on us all.

So true!  This is such a Crisis.  Hopefully it will not last another 70 years.  May God have mercy on us all.

For this reason, plus others of much greater significance, Bp. W.’s wake and funeral Mass were in a building that resembled a corner of a parking garage at Costco. His grave is in a secret location far from that of his mentor and those he faithfully served most of his life. (No offense to the owner of the facility. I write on the basis of the few photos here on CI.) It will be no surprise to me if H.E.’s grave is in a privately owned, locked cemetery, inaccessible to the public or his many supporters. 

Back to the original topic, whether indulgences are lost by praying a few “wrong” words in the TRANSLATED to English Fatima Prayer. Unless the meaning of the prayer is substantially changed, no translation is perfect. Unless prayed entirely in Latin, the Latin used by Our Lady to St. Simon Stock, and the Aramaic of St. Matthew for the Pater Noster, the majority of prayers uttered by Catholics throughout the world are without indulgences, even those in the Raccolta. 
If the first utterance of the Fatima Prayer was in Portuguese, surely we must switch to Portuguese.
I think, again, for what little that’s worth, that allowances are made for the difficulty and scholarly disagreements as to best translations, and to fervent added prayers of the faithful, provided they do not doctrinally change the meaning of the prayer.
That is why it is wrong to pray the so-called “illuminative mysteries” as part of the Rosary. There are 15 Mysteries, not 20. Prove it? Sure! The Rosary is based upon Our Lady’s meditation of all 150 psalms. (Not 151 as in Protestant Bibles or 200 as promulgated by JP II.) Addition to the Rosary deviates from the original intent. However, if one wants to meditate on the Scriptures of the added five, there is nothing amiss, just not part of the Rosary.) Adding the Fatima prayer originates with revelations to a canonized, pre-VII Saint. Determining the best translation can be accomplished perfectly by Divine Revelation, slightly imperfectly by a Catholic linguist who is an expert in Latin, Portuguese, English, and every other vernacular language used by the faithful. As for losing Indulgences for any other than deliberate corruption of a prayer, if there is anything linking this idea to Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterial ruling, please enlighten me!
I sometimes hear Mass at a chapel that uses +Bp. Sanborn’s St. Michael and Fatima prayers. So what? Even in SSPX circles in the USA, I’ve heard slightly different wording of the St. Michael prayer. Does the devil “prowl” or “wander” seeking the ruin of souls? Which is the best  Latin translation of the words actually heard by Pope Leo XIII? You’re asking me when scholars don’t agree? I taught myself Latin at age 48 on up by studying the Mass in the Fr. Lasance and St. Andrew missals, then later by sitting silently in the back of Classical Latin, first half of year one along with a class of eighth graders.
On days for The Sorrowful (or should we say Dolorous) Mysteries, if praying privately, I do a brief examine of conscience pertaining to the associated virtues attached to each mystery, include my sins or weaknesses in the meditations, and make an Act of Contrition after the Gloria. I also add a Confiteor at the conclusion of the five decades. Have I, by this practice, forfeited all attached indulgences? 
When it comes down to it, since so many of us are in abnormal situations due to the crisis, I resist the temptation to allow my mind to be overtaken by such matters to focus on Jesus Christ. Getting obsessed with polemics and minutiae is a tool Satan uses on well-intentioned trads. It’s a trap I’ve fallen into from time to time, and a trap much in evidence on trad websites, including CathInfo.  Unless deliberate, it’s not a mortal sin. If we find ourselves ensnared or being drawn, we must stop and ask Christ to take our thoughts (and feelings, ladies especially) captive to Himself. Pray to Mary whose gentle, motherly demeanor guides us to her Son.
All Blessings,
Seraphina

Further, even in normal circuмstances, a priest is never to deny sacraments to any faithful who present themselves unless that the faithful are notorious public sinners,

Exactly.  This is obvious.  And that’s the question asked by Trento…he said public, unrepentant sinner, as you describe above.  The answer is obvious.  That’s why the question was silly.  

Trento meant it as a “gotcha” question, as he often does.  

This is bordering on denying the church has formal apostolicity

Thuc line bishops have ordinary delegated jurisdiction

... it just doesn't stop.  Ignorami should just shut up, stop posting, pray the Rosary, and try to save their souls.