Obviously the Sacraments are valid even if they are in the traditional Rites. This is true even for the SSPX, generally. The question is if they are licit, and if done with the approval of the heirarchy, they obviously are. Regardless, there are clearly no questions of validity at an Indult parish."That's somewhat of a hazy issue right now," said Sherman.The SSPX sacraments being a separate issue, there wouldn't be any problem with FSSP or ICK or indult sacraments, right? A universal indult would take care of any haziness I would think.
The loon from the US Bishops conference is a complete idiot if he truly thinks that the validity of the Sacraments is in question. Think about it, what's necessary for a valid Baptism? It doesn't have to be in any Rite, nor does it require a priest. It only requires water and the very brief formula "I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." For some reason I suspect that maybe the old Rite meets this formula.
As to the Eucharist, given the grant of the indult and past usage for 500 years, I can't see how anyone could seriously contest validity. For marriage the priest is just a witness. Confession, again, for validity only requires a simple formula, one that is clearly met by the old Rites.
So either the Bishop's conference guy is a complete idiot who failed his Baltimore catechism class (and would fail it again today), or perhaps he worries about if they are licit or not. Even that, though, hardly seems like a valid concern once the Bishop approves, and given the evidence that the Vatican approves of the FSSP and Campos.
Bottom line: like nearly all other bureaucrats at the UCCSB, this one is probably another liberal dissenter who hates to see any more latin.