Well, yes, the baptism would be valid as long as the proper words were said while pouring the water.
Catholic Candle has listed trad priests they believe are valid or not.
You can google Latin Mass locations,you'll get plenty of locations. I would avoid the Indults though.

If I recall correctly the formula was "I Baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." while pouring water on the head. Not forehead I think, but baldness would have guaranteed skin contact.

Can you elaborate on the Indult Masses, there's a church that does both Novus Ordo and the Latin Mass on different days, I'm assuming that counts as one. Also what about the Eastern rites? Would their priesthood be valid or did the changes reach to their Sacraments?

If you do not have video evidence of your baptism in the NO, there is no harm in being conditionally baptised.  Basically all traditional priests would be willing to administer one, and would recommend it. Many instances of NO baptisms being invalid due to the administer botching the formula

This is more of an R&R problem.

I have never seen priests who consider the See vacant having issue with it.

Some just have to do their"investigation" first so they can check the box that they looked into it.

But I have not come across anyone who positively would NOT administer it.

I am not a Sanobornite, but his system is the best for seminarians (without proof positive = conditionals are warranted) As far as I know he has always practiced this.

CMRI is hit or miss with young men going to his seminary who came from the Novus Ordo - it basically falls to whatever +Privunas thinks.

SSPV will do them for laity if asked, after their "investigation" but those "investigations" could never turn up much anyway (why trust the Modernists to have done it correctly).

It is with the R&R that is problem mainly resides, especially with those who left the Novus Ordo, joined an R&R group, and then went on to seminary w/o any conditional baptism.

At this point there could be hundreds of their priests running around with doubtful baptisms and therefore doubtful Holy Orders.

So the dogmatic R&R slam the Thucline and self-boast that they have the "true priests", but give it another couple decades and most of them will be just as doubtful as they have made the Thucline out to be, maybe more so...

I thought you were embarrassed and ashamed of this forum and were quitting?

Already answered on the other thread, waiting for your reply on what you think of the "CatholicTrumpet"...

This is more of an R&R problem.

I have never seen priests who consider the See vacant having issue with it.

Some just have to do their"investigation" first so they can check the box that they looked into it.

But I have not come across anyone who positively would NOT administer it.

I am not a Sanobornite, but his system is the best for seminarians (without proof positive = conditionals are warranted) As far as I know he has always practiced this.

CMRI is hit or miss with young men going to his seminary who came from the Novus Ordo - it basically falls to whatever +Privunas thinks.

SSPV will do them for laity if asked, after their "investigation" but those "investigations" could never turn up much anyway (why trust the Modernists to have done it correctly).

It is with the R&R that is problem mainly resides, especially with those who left the Novus Ordo, joined an R&R group, and then went on to seminary w/o any conditional baptism.

At this point there could be hundreds of their priests running around with doubtful baptisms and therefore doubtful Holy Orders.

So the dogmatic R&R slam the Thucline and self-boast that they have the "true priests", but give it another couple decades and most of them will be just as doubtful as they have made the Thucline out to be, maybe more so...

I thought you were embarrassed and ashamed of this forum and were quitting?