Indult is dioceses.  There is no valid priest. 

But in theory, if the priests were valid.

But in theory, if the priests were valid.

.

In practice, the priests are not valid. The Novus Ordo church, which offers the Masses you are wanting to attend, is not only a heretical sect, but it also has not permitted priests to be ordained in the traditional manner since the late sixties. All indult priests have been ordained using the modernist, Paul VI-invented rite of holy orders since the beginning. The Novus Ordo sect (by which I mean the sect whose main rite of worship is the Novus Ordo Mass, even if they permit a few people to use the tridentine rite) has never allowed any group to use the traditional rite of episcopal consecration, which means that even priests "ordained" using the old rite have been "ordained" using bishops consecrated in the new rite. The old rite of holy orders has been allowed in some cases, but as far as I know the old rite of episcopal consecration has never been allowed since 1969.

.

First of all, there is always a traditional chapel available. You just have to re-define your definition of "available" and re-evaluate how far you are willing to drive to get to Sunday Mass. (Hint: Given that it's only your eternal salvation that is dependent on your attendance at Mass and reception of valid sacraments, you should probably interpret that concept generously.)


And, just out of curiosity, how do you know that the priest was validly ordained?

I live 20 minutes from an SSPX chapel so I’m not concerned about availability. It was merely a hypothetical question, I was simply trying to learn what people would do in a situation like britpapist described.

If it were the only option available and no other option was within travel distance, and if you knew for certain that the priest was valid, would you attend an Indult Mass? If so, why do you think it would be okay to do so?

If it were the only option, I still would not attend it, but IMO, if I for some reason I ever did and for those who would attend it, they should attend it as they would a streaming Mass on Youtube.   

Fr. Wathen:
People should know that attending the Indult Mass represents a very serious compromise of their faith. Before a bishop allows the Traditional Latin Mass in one of his Novus Ordo churches, according to papal direction, he exacts this commitment: Those to whom the Mass is made available must give a verbal acceptance to the Second Vatican Council and to the new mass. Whether they know it or not, everyone who attends the Indult Mass makes the same implicit commitment. In the days of the Rome persecutions, a Catholic could escape martyrdom if he would burn the tiniest pinch of incense before one of the countless Roman gods. The commitment which the pope and bishops require is that pinch of incense.

I believe there are still FSSP priests who were originally ordained by SSPX bishops so the idea that there could be an FSSP priest that is "certainly valid" from the standpoint of Trad Catholicism is comprehensible.  It seems like the debate comes down to whether attending a mass offered by a priest that endorses Vatican II/in an organization that theoretically accepts the NO, it itself a dealbreaker or not.

I believe there are still FSSP priests who were originally ordained by SSPX bishops so the idea that there could be an FSSP priest that is "certainly valid" from the standpoint of Trad Catholicism is comprehensible.  It seems like the debate comes down to whether attending a mass offered by a priest that endorses Vatican II/in an organization that theoretically accepts the NO, it itself a dealbreaker or not.

Also, since the new mass is a sacrilege (at worst) or a heretical, anti-Trent liturgy (at best), then you have to analyze the effect of such a non-catholic rite on the indult church itself, per canon law.  Or, it's illicit (because it's contrary to Quo Primum).  Or it's invalid (because the priests are invalid).

a.  the new mass as a sacrilege -- canon law says that a sacrilege (especially repeated ones) desecrates the church and catholic worship (TLM) isn't allowed there.
b.  the new mass as a heretical liturgy -- canon law says that you can't attend masses where the priest publicly adheres to heresy, so any "indult" priest who accepts V2/new mass (which ALL indult communities do) is thereby off-limits to attend/support.
c.  the new mass is illicit -- Quo Primum disallows ANY rites besides the 1962 missal.  Any priest who openly accepts the new mass/V2 is an illicit-supporting priest, and canon law disallows attendance/support of such.
d.  the new mass is invalid -- priest of indult communities are doubtfully valid.
e.  All of the above.  ??  Quite possible.

The indult mass is either a sacrilege (i.e. protestant/lutheran service pretending to be catholic) or it's a heretical liturgy (i.e. Arianism or early Anglicanism).

Canon Law has rules for either situation.  People act like the "indult" is some "new situation" that the Church has never dealt with before.  They act like there's no rules in place, so therefore they can make their own decision.  Wrong.

The indult is quite possibly wrong for all 4 reasons above.  Canon Law has rules against all 4 situations.  You cannot attend, except in emergencies.