CathInfo.com

"All that is required is positive doubt, which is, AS CANON LAW SAYS, is to TREAT IT as invalid."  Please may I have the full reference from Canon Law to ascertain the context.  

I can't find that in there, must be made up by some of the resident armchair theologians. But what is in there is this:
Canon 732 
§ 1. The Sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and orders, which imprint a character, cannot be repeated.
§ 2. But if a prudent doubt exists about whether really and validly these [Sacraments] were conferred, they are to be conferred again under condition.

Conditional ordinations are not required by law to be public.  

Canon 1007
Whenever ordination is to be repeated or any of the rites supplied, whether absolutely or under condition, this can be done outside the [usual] times and secretly.

Yes but....a positive doubt REQUIRES one to avoid the mass/sacrament AS IF IT WERE INVALID, so says canon law.

Absolutely wrong.  Positive doubts are based on evidence.  Positive doubts exist WHILE WE WAIT for the Church to make a ruling.
Go do what you want.  You're not a Trad, that's for sure.  Traditionalists have had positive doubts for 50 years.
Ok, until we receive a concrete decision from ORTHODOX rome (not new-rome), then the positive doubt remains.
The ORTHODOX and TRUE Church hasn't ruled on the matter, so positive doubt remains.
This sentence proves that you still don't understand what 'positive doubt' is.
Don't have this info handy at the moment.

Correct on every point.  No, it does not require ROME to determine positive doubt.  If someone saw the video of Bishop Neal Webster attempting to consecrate Father Pfeiffer, there's positive doubt right there.  If I found that some priest was using Welch's grape juice for Mass, I could go beyond positive doubt to even asserting straight-out invalidity.  Once the Church has defined what the matter and form are, any deviation from those suffice to establish positive doubt.  There are some cases where it might be questioned whether the doubt be positive or negative, and in those cases the matter might be referred to the Holy Office ... once that's orthodox and dependable, as Wojtyla actually declared one of the schismatic Rites to be valid despite its lacking an actual consecration.

BUT, even then, positive doubt suffices to impose on us the moral obligation to avoid a Sacrament, but a much lesser threshold than positive doubt can suffice to justify the conditional "re"-administration of the Sacrament.  You can't do it willy-nilly for no reason, but you can for any reasonable consideration.

So, for instance, with conditional confirmation.  Since there was a tendency for bishops in the Conciliar Church to mess with the essential form and at one point to even substitute olive oil with palm oil, that suffices to conditionally Confirm anyone coming over from the Conciliar Church.  I do not have to establish a postiive doubt for a specific case.  Sure, let me go do an investigation, costing thousands of dollars, to determine who did the confirmation, then try to interview him if he's alive, or find other witnesses, to establish whether or not that particular bishop may have messed with the form on that occasion and whether that diocese was using palm oil at the time, etc.  That's just ridiculous.  Of course, the SSPX claim to be "investigating" intention, which Pope Leo XIII explicitly states that the Church does not and cannot know, since it belongs propertly to the internal forum -- yet SSPX can somehow find out due to some amazing new investigative techniques.

Given the Novus Ordo propensity to dabble with Sacraments, I would say that the general state of the Novus Orod would suffice to conditionally confer any Sacraments confected within the Conciliar Church, even Baptism.

But of course, these are specific concrete cases ... and the status of whether a postiive doubt exists in a RITE would create positive doubt across the board.

So, for instance, before Pope Leo XIII made a ruling on Anglican Orders, there were probably already some theologians out there who held they were valid, while others that they were invalid, or at least doubtful.  That dispute would have sufficed to create conditions more than sufficient to conditionally ordain all Anglican priests converting to the Catholic faith, and even to REQUIRE it, since that would establish positive doubt, since some reasonable theologians could make weighty arguments asserting its invalidity.

Now, after the teaching of Pope Leo XIII, he declared them straight-out invalid so that no conditional form was necessary, and absolute ordination required.

So there are levels here ...

1) prudent doubt -> conditional PERMITTED
2) positive doubt -> conditional REQUIRED
3) positive invalidity -> absolute REQUIRED

In other words, even IF one claimed the threshold of positive doubt was not met (which is absurd on its face), prudent doubt would justify a conditional administration.

So why WOULDN'T the SSPX do it?  Quite simple.  They don't want to offend the Modernists.  Period.  So intead of ofending Modernists, they'll risk subjecting the faithful to possibly invalid Sacraments and require them to have their consciences troubled by the possibility.  So they throw the peace of soul and possible salvation of souls under the bus, sacrificing it on the altar of having some kind of regularization with the Modernists.  Period.  End of Story.

They deceive by falsely exaggerating the threthold require to administer conditional ordination, conflating the question of how re-administration of a character Sacrament would be a sacrilege (and ignoring the fact that these are CONDITIONAL administrations).  Those conditionals would be sinful if there was no prudent reason, but something trivial, or where someone did it for no reasons, "just in case".