Bingo!

1) Form

2) Matter

3) Intention

4) Valid Minister

In the conversation in which the SSPX priest mentioned the first three criteria, he was responding to a question as to whether or not the faithful could attend an FSSP Mass, and whether it would be valid.

Seems like the 4th criteria is no longer in the SSPX' s radar.

Seems to me that this hasn't been on their radar since they changed their position on the validity of the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration in 2005 when Ratzinger became "pope".

Here are a couple arguments in favor of the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration:

1) http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=print_article&article_id=2551

2) http://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations (Note: This is actually the study of Fr. Pierre Marie, O.P. - Avrille)


Here are a few against the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration:

1) http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpCelierWeb.pdf

2) http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf

3) http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NotTruBps1.pdf

4) http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/06/21/saved-by-context-the-68-rite-of-episcopal-consecration-2/

Or, if you are not a reader:

5) http://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/06/1968-rite-of-episcopal-consecration-valid-or-no/

Note: Fr. Cekada is a sedevacantist, and (as most know) I do not endorse his position on the issue of the Pope.  But the determination of the validity or invalidity of the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration is a separate issue, and one which need not be confined to sedevacantist circles.

I don't think you can separate out those issues.  The pope is the Bishop of Rome.  Therefore, if the NREC is invalid or at least doubtful, then the papacy of a man consecrated by it is logically called into question...which is why the SSPX changed its tune in 2005.

Many would make that very argument.

For myself, the whole matter is so complex and beyond my own comprehension and abilities, that any decision would be rash.

Consequently, I choose to presume the legitimacy of the current/recent Popes until the Church says otherwise, which seems the safest course.

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

I would back away from my previous statement (i.e., That the validity or invalidity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration is not strictly a sedevacantist issue) before I would back away from this one.

Many would make that very argument.

For myself, the whole matter is so complex and beyond my own comprehension and abilities, that any decision would be rash.

Consequently, I choose to presume the legitimacy of the current/recent Popes until the Church says otherwise, which seems the safest course.

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

I would back away from my previous statement (i.e., That the validity or invalidity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration is not strictly a sedevacantist issue) before I would back away from this one.

But even if you entertain the possibility that it may be invalid, then you no longer have certainty of faith regarding the legitimacy of these papal claimants ... and certainty of faith is necessary regarding the dogmatic fact of who the pope is.  Presumption of legitimacy doesn't suffice.  In normal times, Catholics have absolute certainty of faith.

Bingo!

1) Form

2) Matter

3) Intention

4) Valid Minister

In the conversation in which the SSPX priest mentioned the first three criteria, he was responding to a question as to whether or not the faithful could attend an FSSP Mass, and whether it would be valid.

Seems like the 4th criteria is no longer in the SSPX' s radar.

In the good old days, SSPX generally subjected NO priests to conditional ordination (with one or two notable exceptions from those who refused to submit).  Now they take validity for granted and in the interests of not rubbing Rome the wrong way will not even hint that there's any doubt.  So they have to drop this piece.

All I know is that there's enough doubt here where I would not go to Confession to a priest who was ordained by a bishop consecrated in this rite ... except in extremely dire circuмstances.

Exactly my position.

Bingo!

1) Form

2) Matter

3) Intention

4) Valid Minister

In the conversation in which the SSPX priest mentioned the first three criteria, he was responding to a question as to whether or not the faithful could attend an FSSP Mass, and whether it would be valid.

Seems like the 4th criteria is no longer in the SSPX' s radar.

If you want to call "valid minister" #4, which is generally assumed, you also need to have a #5 "recipient must be in the right state"  which is also assumed.

correction