Does anyone here go to one of these Masses? We have one opening here soon and I am so glad.

They are A. Invalid B. Heretical
Avoid at all costs.

That's an easy answer for you. No explanation. Would you accept that from a stranger?

The Institute uses the old rite of ordination. 

That's an easy answer for you. No explanation. Would you accept that from a stranger?

Yes, I'm sorry; that response was incredibly unhelpful .. and rude.

Some Traditional Catholics (not just sedevacantists) consider the new Rite of Ordination and/or the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration to be at least positively doubtful.  I myself consider them doubtful but by no means certainly invalid.

I am not sure of any particular "heresy" that ICK hold.  Perhaps the poster said that because ICK accept Vatican II, but I imagine that they hold it by applying a certain "hermeneutic of continuity" to the Council.  When people try to apply such a hermeneutic, that's IMO prima facie evidence that they are not heretics, in that they are concerned with conforming to Church teaching.  Even if they are materially in error about some point, I seriously doubt that they are heretics.

Because I hold them to be doubtful, I would rather attend an SSPX Mass, if available, or an Eastern Rite Liturgy.  Now, the Eastern Rite is different, and it takes "some getting used to" for anyone from a Latin Rite background ... although I've known some people who took to it immediately and ended up preferring it to the Roman.

Not necessarily invalid, but positively doubtful.  Now, we are required to avoid doubtful Sacraments except in danger of death ... so in practice it reduces to the same thing, except for a danger of death scenario.  One cannot receive certainly invalid Sacraments even in danger of death, but one can receive doubtfully-valid ones in that situation, if no other options can be had.

In my experience MOST Sedes think they're certainly invalid, but I realize that's not part of the essence of sede ideology.  And yeah, I see what you mean.  

I've run across some sedes who say that they're positively doubtful, some that they are LIKELY invalid, and others that they are certainly invalid.  In particular, most of them are convinced that the episcopal rite of consecration is certainly invalid.  Interestingly, in the essential form of the new Rite of Ordination, a SINGLE LATIN WORD was omitted, for some unknown reason, the word "ut".  Some think that this could essentially change the meaning; others think that the Traditional meaning could still be understood as implied.  But it's very curious.  Why drop one seemingly-insignificant word while keeping nearly the entire formula?  One could speculate that this was done intentionally to invalidate the rite.

To my mind, that alone, removing ut”, is enough to give rise to a doubt. 

To my mind, that alone, removing ut”, is enough to give rise to a doubt.

I agree.  Does it make it certainly invalid?  I don't believe so.

Further, if that mass was indeed invalid, as some here have put forth, then greater than 99% of all masses on any given Sunday are also invalid, and greater than 99.99% of all Catholics are either deceived or have apostatized, leaving only a small number of apparent Catholic intelligenstia, wherein one needs a degree in theology to make head or tails out of anything, remaining.   This I refuse to believe as it would mean that Christ's Church has become a joke, and the gates of hell have prevailed thereover.

Uhm, but their OWN POLLS, 95%+ of the Novus Ordo pew-sitters don't have the faith, but are heretics ... on basic issues and not theological obscurities.