CathInfo.com

You are contradicting yourself:

"NO ordinations have always been positively doubtful"

then,

"the SSPX, like the Church, initially always presumes validity, not invalidity."

The reason you are doing this is rather simple:

Do you believe that the post VII church is the Catholic Church? Yes or No?

No, the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church. And when I said "NO ordinations have always been positively doubtful" I meant from a layman's point of view.

When I said "the SSPX, like the Church, initially always presumes validity, not invalidity," I mean that for those responsible for making sure their priests are valid.

While *I* think they should just completely re-train and conditionally ordain all convert priests indiscriminately,  it is for good reason that they don't and never have. They are not the Church. 

I also explained to you why the presumption is always validity, but as I also said, for whatever reason you are among those who do not accept it.

If you say yes - it is the Catholic Church - then of course, She always presumes the validity of HER OWN Sacraments (never of those outside the Church - that is why investigations are the first step concerning baptisms)

If you say no - the conciliar church is NOT the Catholic Church - then it must be treated as any non-Catholic sect and validity is never presumed rather it would depend on various factors such as their rites, how they conduct them, history of abuses, etc.

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. You may not know that even heretic, schismatic and excommunicated bishops have and can confer valid sacraments, including that of Holy Orders, as well as consecrations of other bishops. 

Ordinations - as you stated, they do their own investigations, based on their own criteria to determine validity so initially they are presumed as doubtful until they do their "investigation"

I don't know, that may be the case, but the purpose of their investigation is supposed to be to prove doubt or invalidity.

I agree that all those classes of non-members CAN (it is possible) confect valid Sacraments.

You just summed up the situation in the Church today which we're discussing in one sentence.

Snip from Who Shall Ascend?

"...It is not our purpose in these pages to decide whether the new ordination rite is invalid, though, as we shall see, the argument is substantial enough that we are bound to allow for this possibility. Furthermore, we must see the issue in the context of the total redefinition and reconstitution of the Church, such as was set in motion at the
Council. In view of the fact that, since the Council, the priest's role has been in the process of being modified, as we said, to that of a Protestant presbyter, there is every reason to deduce that the new ordination rite sabotages the Sacrament of Holy Orders according to the explicit program and purposes of those now in power. (The reader
is reminded that the very doubt which this change creates serves the malevolent purposes of the conspirators as well as does the certitude of invalidity, because from the doubt flows controversy, disagreements,  factions, confusion, and disquietude among the clergy and the faithful.)

By way of preface, we observe: The revisers had a reason for making changes, and particular reasons for each change they made.  They cannot argue that their new formulas are identical to the old; that would be to admit that the changes mean nothing, and that, therefore, there was no reason to make them. To admit that they made
changes for no reason whatsoever would be a sign of a most irreverent capriciousness and cynicism. Besides, such an explanation could only be regarded as a concealment. The new forms (Latin and English) must be seen to say something different from the old. Furthermore, in view of what the other changes in the liturgical rites have connoted, we are compelled to be suspicious. We should rather say, we have  every reason to look for an effort at neuterizing this sacramental rite, because those in charge of the new rites have shown themselves untrustworthy,
or, more accurately, determinedly subversive. The new form could not be an improvement on the old. How can one method or  set of words ordain someone better than another? The alteration of the form can only have had the intention of either negating this purpose, or, at the very least, of creating a doubt as to its efficacy. (As if it
needs to be said: They could not have added something to the form by taking words away. And what could they have wanted to add to the power of Orders? Why did they touch the form at all?)..."

I also explained to you why the presumption is always validity,

Yes and no.  You're not making distinctions.


Trent told us that we must presume validity...BUT...this only applies to the "received and approved rites".  Trent's Presumed validity ONLY applies to the rites Trent was discussing (i.e. Tridentine/St Pius V/Traditional rites).

V2's rites aren't Tridentine and aren't from Trent.  Ergo, presumed validity doesn't apply.