No.

The validity of the current/recent pope(s) has NO bearing on the validity of the Mass or sacraments we receive from our Trad priests during this time of emergency.

You can't equate "Is he a priest?" with "Let us solve the Crisis in the Church with full certainty." as questions of equivalent urgency, importance -- or possibility.

Figuring out if a given man is a valid priest -- that we can do. Figuring out a supernatural mystery? Not so much.

Granted, the Crisis in the Church (and the Mass, the Papacy, etc.) is of the utmost importance -- but it fails in the possible for humans to solve department.

However, you can't just leave "Is he a priest?" for God to sort out later, decades from now. Because in the meantime, all your confessions could be invalid (if your "priest" turns out to be invalidly ordained) and all your "communions" could turn out to be mere bread. See the difference, bozo?

Next.

bozo? I did not mean to offend you and apologize if i did. You seem so certain that these new rite clerics are not valid. How can this not spill over into the requirements for a legitimate papacy? I take it that by "figuring out validity", the farthest you can take it is to avoid all new rite sacraments. But this positive doubt is not enough for you determine if Francis is legitimate or not.

I don't;t think you aren't missing anything at all.  If I'm understanding you, you are asking whether those who believe the NREC is doubtful/invalid also believe that it is at least doubtful that Francis is a true bishop since he was consecrated in the New Rite too. And if they do believe that that makes him a doubtful bishop, how does that affect their position on his legitimacy as Bishop of Rome/pope.  Is that what you are asking?

As far as I know this would be unavoidable since one of the requirements for a pope is to be a valid bishop.

Mathew, I never made a case for sedevacantism, I never said I solved the Crisis, I never said that having positive doubt about Francis papacy would solve the Crisis. I am looking for a coherent defense that recognizing that there is positive doubt in the NREC does not logically conclude positive doubt of the Bishop of Rome. The answer I get is that it is mystery even though we have Vatican1 and are aware of the impediments to a valid election taught by the Church. The Crisis is a mystery but not every symptom of the crisis is.

I understand exactly where you are coming from, Comrade, it is a very pertinent question, an inevitable question, I would say, for anyone seriously trying to make sense of the crisis.

I agree with Matthew that there is a certain element of mystery involved that can only be resolved with the full weight of the Church's Authority.

However, in the meantime, the following teaching of St Robert Bellarmine certainly provides a "coherent defence" of this position of a Pope with doubtful orders being Pope nonetheless:

Two things can be considered on Bishops: Firstly, that they hold the place of Christ so for that reason we owe obedience to them... Secondly, that they might have the power of Order and Jurisdiction. If it is considered in the first mode, we are certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true Bishops and Pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by the Church... Now if this is considered in the second manner, we do not have any but a moral certitude that these will truly be Bishops, although it is certain with infallible certitude that at least some are true, otherwise God will have deserted the Church... - St Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis: On The Church, Bk III On The Church Militant, Ch X On Secret Infidels

Isn't that interesting?

I understand exactly where you are coming from, Comrade, it is a very pertinent question, an inevitable question, I would say, for anyone seriously trying to make sense of the crisis.

I agree with Matthew that there is a certain element of mystery involved that can only be resolved with the full weight of the Church's Authority.

However, in the meantime, the following teaching of St Robert Bellarmine certainly provides a "coherent defence" of this position of a Pope with doubtful orders being Pope nonetheless:

Two things can be considered on Bishops: Firstly, that they hold the place of Christ so for that reason we owe obedience to them... Secondly, that they might have the power of Order and Jurisdiction. If it is considered in the first mode, we are certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true Bishops and Pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by the Church... Now if this is considered in the second manner, we do not have any but a moral certitude that these will truly be Bishops, although it is certain with infallible certitude that at least some are true, otherwise God will have deserted the Church... - St Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis: On The Church, Bk III On The Church Militant, Ch X On Secret Infidels

Isn't that interesting?