I have  always understood FSSP to be indult. because FSSP is indult, in comes under the dioceses.  Therefore their Holy Orders are of the New Rite. That makes them invalid.

The indulterers, on paper, accept the Novus Ordo and the docuмents of Vatican II.  Rome makes sure that at least some of their members celebrate the Novus Ordo from time to time.  They accept to celebrate older liturgies as a "special permission" while accepting the "general rule" of the Novus Ordo.  The Tridentine Mass is used because "we like it"-- not because it is the law.  They're running a museum.

In exchange for this double treachery, the indulterers are given "approval" by the Roman authorities.

The longevity and high membership of this form of treason can be explained by ignorance and/or malice in various forms and combinations, different in each individual.  I personally believe many of these priests do not realize that what they are doing is criminal.  The situation in the Church is not easy to understand.

The indulterer priests are almost definitely valid.  Invalidation could be caused by the ordaining bishop improvising the form (that happens!) or by defect of intention.  So, their ordination is doubtful.  Who wants to play that game?!

Do not go to their Masses.  In their sermons they will tell you that Vatican II can be interpreted in a Catholic sense.  Also, they are sometimes not allowed to consecrate the small Hosts for the faithful, but must use the Hosts doubtfully consecrated in a Novus Ordo Mass and left in the tabernacle.

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've been attending the TLM at an FSSP church every week for about 18 months now.
There isn't a single picture of Bergoglio to be found of him nor has he ever been mentioned
by name. Three FSSP priests have been in rotation and they are all very serious, very devout men
that have never shown any compromise with traditional doctrine from the pulpit.
On the other hand I have a close friend in a different state that attends an SSPX church
and the priest there routinely refers to Bergoglio as pope, has a picture of him in the foyer,
and even advocated taking the jab.
I was always under the impression that the FSSP was the lite version of the SSPX but it
seems this may vary from church to church, priest to priest.
I am no theologian and one shouldn't need to be in order to have access to valid sacraments.
We have been in uncharted waters for nearly 60 years and there is no definitive and clear stance
on where to go.
As I see it there are roughly 3 positions.
1. The broad recognize and resist groups that span everyone from Bishop Williamson/Fr Chazal to Bishop Fellay and
the SSPX to the Taylor Marshall/Michael Matt crowd.
2. The sede position of Bishop Sanborn(which I am most aligned with) but few have access to because their churches are so spread out.
3. The Dimond brothers, where everyone is a heretic and 15 daily decades of the rosary is our only recourse.

One more thing, we typically have two separate collections at my church, the first is a general collection, a portion of which goes to the conciliar dioceses, and the second that goes exclusively to the FSSP.

I know that I have made great strides spiritually by attending this church compared to where I was just a few years ago. If however there was a sede church across the street I wouldn't hesitate to go there instead.
So, the indult is better than nothing at this point.

It really is as songbird alluded, their priests' validity is, at best, doubtful. Although I tend to agree with you that it may be better than nothing, there is always that nagging reality that it may not be better than nothing due to their doubtful validity.

We need the Mass and the sacraments - hence we must have priests that are certainly valid, which is something impossible to be certain of with FSSP. For whatever anyone wants to say about the SSPX, between them and FSSP, the FSSP loses every time in the validity department - excepting of course those relatively few NO priests who converted to SSPX but have not been conditionally ordained.

You need to get ahold of yourself. You are very confused and need to do some calm prayer and research.

Archbishop Lefebvre and his line of bishops/priests is 100% valid with no danger or doubt. That whole "Lienart was a Freemason" was a stupid argument when they trotted it out the 1st time, as well as the 1000th time. It's a false argument made up by sedevacantists and other enemies, with the aim of eliminating the competition. The SSPX was a huge organization, very Catholic, and blessed by God for decades, one of the primary bulwarks of Tradition (the Traditional Movement). Look at the fruits. A good tree can only bear good fruit.

There were co-consecrators at +ABL's consecration. And by going through the ceremony, the consecrator intends to "do what the Church does". You see, the problem with the Novus Ordo Mass is that the liturgy ITSELF is ambiguous, suggesting it's just a meal and/or the People are the ones who consecrate/offer the Sacrifice, so if the priest doesn't explicitly know and intend to consecrate the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus -- due to his seminary training -- then one can reasonably worry that it didn't happen. That's what's great about the Traditional Mass -- the ceremony itself is un-ambiguous.

As for why that providential, God-blessed SSPX "fell" -- I'll give you the same reason I'd give for how the Catholic Church  (a.k.a. Bride of Christ, the Church founded by God Himself) could have "problems" starting in the 1960's. God allows these crises in order to test the Faithful, to bring good out of evil, and allow his Elect to practice virtue. If the Bride of Christ could go into this kind of Crisis, you better believe the SSPX is fair game!

There is some doubt about the new Rite of Ordination and Consecration. No, there were not any such doubts before Vatican II. Nothing substantial was done to the Ordination Rite, just like nothing was done to the Faith or the Mass which affected its fundamental dogmas or premises. You need to read some books on the Crisis, what happened at Vatican II, what they systematically changed. That will enlighten you immensely.

Don't give up the Faith. The devil is playing with your mind right now. Go read some *books* on the Crisis in the Church that started at Vatican II. Angelus Press had several good books on the topic, and they still do.

I suppose my point is we have no conclusive idea who is a valid priest anymore.

.

This is not true. If a priest is descended from an unbroken line of bishops ordained and consecrated in the true rite, who had the knowledge to perform the ceremony correctly, then there is conclusive proof that he is a valid priest.

I've even seen arguments that Archbishop Lefebrve's ordination may be in question due to it being performed by an alleged freemason. Doesn't the fact that Fellay has accepted most of Vatican II place them in the same boat as the FSSP?

The argument against Abp. Lefebvre has been debunked numerous times, but without getting into the details, I think you need to make more distinctions between pre-Vatican 2 and post-Vatican 2 Catholicism. So, Abp. Lefebvre was ordained and consecrated during the normal times of the Church, and no one raised any doubt about his holy orders. Therefore, it is implausible for anyone to do so today, apart from the other reasons their arguments are absurd.

On the other hand, before Vatican 2 Pope Pius XII definitively settled the question of the matter and form of holy orders. He said what words needed to be said for a bishop to be consecrated validly, and what it had to contain. He used his supreme authority as pope to bind everyone to this. Then, not even 30 years later Paul VI comes along and throws that completely in the garbage, and rewrites the form entirely, in a formula that doesn't even contain the elements Pope Pius XII said it needed to have for validity.

Obviously such a travesty can have no presumption of validity. Besides, if you don't trust Paul VI for your Mass or other sacraments, why would you trust him for holy orders?

As far as the fruits of holiness, that is not evidence of the validity of a sacrament. The Church teaches what is necessary for the validity of a sacrament, and they are matter, form, intention, and (for most of them) a priest or bishop as the minister. If a sacrament doesn't meet those criteria correctly, as laid down by the Church, then it is doubtful or invalid. You can't argue that a sacrament lacking the proper matter, form, intention or minister must be valid because it appears to make people holy. Besides, you are not God and cannot read those people's hearts, so you really are not in a position to say how holy they are. If people there truly have have piety, it must be due to some other cause, such as praying the rosary, devotion to Our Lady, mortification, or other things.

.

This is not true. If a priest is descended from an unbroken line of bishops ordained and consecrated in the true rite, who had the knowledge to perform the ceremony correctly, then there is conclusive proof that he is a valid priest.

The argument against Abp. Lefebvre has been debunked numerous times, but without getting into the details, I think you need to make more distinctions between pre-Vatican 2 and post-Vatican 2 Catholicism. So, Abp. Lefebvre was ordained and consecrated during the normal times of the Church, and no one raised any doubt about his holy orders. Therefore, it is implausible for anyone to do so today, apart from the other reasons their arguments are absurd.

On the other hand, before Vatican 2 Pope Pius XII definitively settled the question of the matter and form of holy orders. He said what words needed to be said for a bishop to be consecrated validly, and what it had to contain. He used his supreme authority as pope to bind everyone to this. Then, not even 30 years later Paul VI comes along and throws that completely in the garbage, and rewrites the form entirely, in a formula that doesn't even contain the elements Pope Pius XII said it needed to have for validity.

Obviously such a travesty can have no presumption of validity. Besides, if you don't trust Paul VI for your Mass or other sacraments, why would you trust him for holy orders?

As far as the fruits of holiness, that is not evidence of the validity of a sacrament. The Church teaches what is necessary for the validity of a sacrament, and they are matter, form, intention, and (for most of them) a priest or bishop as the minister. If a sacrament doesn't meet those criteria correctly, as laid down by the Church, then it is doubtful or invalid. You can't argue that a sacrament lacking the proper matter, form, intention or minister must be valid because it appears to make people holy. Besides, you are not God and cannot read those people's hearts, so you really are not in a position to say how holy they are. If people there truly have have piety, it must be due to some other cause, such as praying the rosary, devotion to Our Lady, mortification, or other things.

Thank you Yeti and everyone else for your responses. They have helped to give me some clarity and hopefully the person who began this thread as well.
It greatly saddens me if for the past 18 months I've simply been participating in a charade.