CathInfo.com

Of course, their view is backwards.  It's inverted.  The doubt already exists due to the changes in the rite.  There's nothing more to prove. 

No, this is the hill I mentioned. Although we ourselves do not know, somebody knows when it is valid and when it is not. Both the sedes and the SSPX claim they have the knowledge to know - one knows it's valid and one knows it is invalid. Either both are idiots or only one of them are idiots because they cannot both be right. Which is it you tell me? 

Per the earlier link, the SSPX deem the rite is valid when done by the book. This is because they claim the Rite, when done by the book, is "not subject to positive doubt" - why do they say that? Because they claim that the matter and form is "practically identical to those defined by Pope Pius XII" along with some other reasons in the link. You disagree, I disagree, many (most?) trads disagree.  

You say because they changed the established rite that there is positive doubt, I say the same thing along with tons of other trads - but the SSPX does not and has never taken that position. They accept the rite as valid yet investigate the same as they have always done ever since new rite priests started coming over to them.

Yet, they consecrate their own bishops.

No, this is the hill I mentioned. Although we ourselves do not know, somebody knows when it is valid and when it is not.

This makes no sense.  You don't always know. 

Going back to Fr Scott's article, 1 simple change from 'priesthood' to 'presbyterate' changes validity.  If a novus ordo priest was not aware that this mattered, why would he pay attention to this detail?  He wouldn't.  So years and years later, when the new-sspx "investigates" and asks the "priest" --

SSPX -- "At your ordination, did the "bishop" use the word 'priesthood' or 'presbyterate'?
priest -- Does it matter?
SSPX -- Yes.
priest -- I don't know.
SSPX -- ....

Now the 'priest' can go back and look at the book used, and see if the vernacular used the correct word, 'priesthood', but....if the bishop were a modernist bent on creating fake priests, could simply ignore the book and say 'presybterate'.  Everyone in the novus ordo wouldn't bat an eye because this word is often used.  They wouldn't know it's invalidating and they wouldn't remember.

So, nobody knows if this guy is a priest or not.  You don't always know.

So Rome is not the Church. That's what the Protestant reformers believed too. So they started their own churches. 

  So you're not a Trad.  Never thought you were.  Well, you need to change before it's too late.

Trads didn't start their own churches in the same way that Prots did.  I can't believe you're making this argument.  You're embarrassing.  +W said countless times that Rome is a counter-church.  The Church still exists, it's just "eclipsed" by the fake one, so said Our Lady of LaSalette.

You mention the Church in the first three centuries. Are we to go back that now?

Trads already have.

The Modernists also insist that we go back to the "supposed" simplicity of the early Church. Hence the new mass that is simple. There are several names for those particular heresies, but I can't recall them right now.

Oh my, you are truly confused.  Do Trads use the new mass?