You won't go to the NO even in danger of death....but you'll go to a man ordained in the Novus Ordo Sacrament...just because he believes his orders were valid.  MMMkay.  

Put it this way, I would go to Fr. Hesse without the slightest hesitation, certainly before I'd ever go to a sede priest and definitely I would never go to a priest ordained in the NO no matter what, but if it happened that I had to, as I have actually done a few times in years past, I would only do so after first asking him about his ordination.

You who are scared to even ask the priest about his ordination, likely because you have no idea what to even ask or know what his answers should be, have zero room to criticize anyone and anything that has to do with NO ordinations.

Not so. Even though you don't, the Church presumes validity unless proven otherwise. Fr. Cekada theory aside, that's how it's always been and that's how it will always be.

The Church presumes validity in its own rites. You've said before that the NO was promulgated for the "Conciliar Church" and not the Catholic Church. 
If the new rite of ordination is not Catholic, then we assume no more validity than we would for Evangelical ordinations. 

The Church presumes validity in its own rites. You've said before that the NO was promulgated for the "Conciliar Church" and not the Catholic Church.
If the new rite of ordination is not Catholic, then we assume no more validity than we would for Evangelical ordinations.

Not so. The sacraments are the Church's, She owns them, She owns all of them all of the time. Those outside the Church, when they use them, always use them illicitly, but not all are always invalid.

Sedes have their own NO inspired false ideas, also ideas derived from their false premise of the Church's indefectibility and infallibility, which helps explain their gross misunderstanding in this matter.  

I could be wrong, but this doesn't seem to me to be a consistency problem so much as a difference in principles.

A Sedeplenist cannot believe that the Novus Ordo is *inherently* invalid.  If its at least potentially valid, a priest like Fr. Hesse (a traditional and knowledgeable priest) would presumably have the know how to make sure, for sure, that his ordination was valid.  Thus, on Sedeplenist premises it seems intrinsically believable that Fr. Hesse's ordination could be certain.

On the other hand, on Sedevacantist premises the new rite of priestly ordination is inherently either doubtful or outright invalid.  Based on that premise, not even a traditional priest ordained in the NO who looked carefully into their ordination could be *sure* of their ordination, thus for a Sedevacantist it would be safer to avoid them.

I'm not seeing logical inconsistency from either party here.  I'm seeing each party carrying their own premises through to their own logical conclusion, and then I'm seeing Stubborn call 2Vermont inconsistent on the basis of a premise she doesn't hold (namely, that its even *possible* to be sure that an NO priest is validly ordained.)

Am I off base here?  If so, why? 

A Sedeplenist cannot believe that the Novus Ordo is *inherently* invalid. ...

On the other hand, on Sedevacantist premises the new rite of priestly ordination is inherently either doubtful or outright invalid.  

I think there is a correlation, but there are other positions, though perhaps less common.

There are people who recognize the conciliar bishops but think the Novus Ordo was always invalid in English. More generally, someone might hold that indefectibility does not protect individual rites - the Roman Rite  does sometimes forget that it isn't the whole Church.

On the other hand, a sedevacantist could hold that if heretics and schismatics like the Orthodox can have valid sacraments, the schismatic conciliar church can too.