It is simply not possible for the Pope to grant a power to someone who does not have it by power of Orders.  Never could a pope grant permission for a Deacon to offer Mass, or for a layman to absolve someone from their sins.  As these theological sources from your own link amply demonstrate, the power must be there in the priestly character, albeit in a latent manner.

It is simply not possible for the Pope to grant a power to someone who does not have it by power of Orders.  Never could a pope grant permission for a Deacon to offer Mass, or for a layman to absolve someone from their sins.  As these theological sources from your own link amply demonstrate, the power must be there in the priestly character, albeit in a latent manner.

.
Yeah, exactly-- literally what I've been saying from the beginning.  And given that priests who confirm outside of papal approval 'have no power' to do so (as Prummer puts it) or confect 'null' confirmations (as another of the sources puts it) or 'confirm invalidly' as even more sources put it, it is obviously the case that the pope's approval is not affecting a jurisdictional change in the priest but a change of order.  
.
If you wish to take issue with my use of the word 'activate,' then so be it, but the latent power (to confirm) is simply inaccessible to priests unless the pope approves them to confirm.  'Activate' is the only word that I can come up with that describes that change's occurence.  If you have a better word, propose it.  
.
I strikes me as unjust for you to (in this order) 1) ignore my research and just boldly claim I've got it wrong, 2) give the research a superficial view and then use it to claim it obviously debunks my argument 3) upon further review, use it to agree with what I've been saying (in part) while still using it to impugn my view.  
.
I really wish you were a more competent conversant, because you have a mind for these things but a disposition that leads you to look for fights instead of understanding.  
.
ETA: for the inquisitive, (I was curious myself), this research was first published almost eight years ago on Bellarmine Forums: http://sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1668&start=0

So would my husband's Confirmation be valid? Licit?

.
If you're asking me, I would say probably not (to both questions).  Setting aside the theological nuances, 'at the end of the day' one thing is abundantly certain: priests confirm invalidly except and unless they fall under the indult of Pius XII which only allows parish priests to confirm actively dying parishioners.  Of course, depending on your view of the crisis-- maybe you think that Novus Ordo priests are all validly ordained and that all of the laws put in place by the conciliar popes are valid and legitimate, in which case you would have no reason to doubt that the confirmation was valid and licit (because N.O. priests have permission from N.O. popes to confirm).  But if you are approaching the question with skepticism over the validity of N.O. orders, laws, etc., then probably best to seek a conditional or absolute confirmation from a traditional bishop.

ETA: my wife was in this exact same situation (confirmed by a TLM indult priest), and we sought a conditional confirmation.

ETA: my wife was in this exact same situation (confirmed by a TLM indult priest), and we sought a conditional confirmation.

I would think that an Indult priest would only do it if he had the proper authorization.  You know, there are some bishops out there who freely give authority to priests and pastors.  I know of one priest in the Cleveland diocese, who, I kid you not, was given the authority to issue annulments.  He was just a pastor of a suburban church with no special training that would make him qualified.

I thought Roman rite priests could confirm converts at the time of conversion.

The Roman code of canon law, 883.2 :

Is this the New Code?  Nevertheless, it specifies that the priest has to be baptizing with the official mandate of the diocesan bishop, which most Traditional priests lack.

Is this the New Code?  Nevertheless, it specifies that the priest has to be baptizing with the official mandate of the diocesan bishop, which most Traditional priests lack.

“Consolidate & Control the goy herds”

Presumably Fr. Pfeiffer has valid holy oils now. After Easter 2021 he will probably use oils consecrated by himself. These will be doubtful. Now, he probably gives validly the sacrament of Extreme Unction. After Easter it will be doubtful, also for the priests associated with him.

Oh yes, the Cardinal priests... all two* of them.

It's much less restricted in the eastern rites.

(*I can only think of two: Vanhoye and Simoni)

Well, it's not about the quantity ... just reinforcing the notion in principle that priests can validly confirm with the proper authorization.