What do you guys think of this video? I myself am conflicted on this question and I have read from both sides. It also seems that Archbishop Lefebvre changed his views on the validity of the new rite of priestly ordination over time. Is there an objective doubt with the new rite of priesthood in itself, or does the doubt come with the intention of the ordaining bishop?

• Fr. McFarland spends most of time discounting the issue because of an emotional reaction from people who hate the Councilor church or the misconception that the chruch would cease to exist if all of the current V2 Bishops were not valid. More Ad hominems, more fear mongering, little substance.
• Does not actually present the real opposing arguments. For example, he mentions the "Ut" argument but does not provide proof that the meaning does not change the formula. He just says a " it is 2 letter word, how can a tiny word change the meaning?". Note: that was a paraphrase. Remember the "Many vs. All" argument. An honest representation would show the translations side-by-side.
• Makes claim that the The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus was an approved version used by the Church, but does not provide any reference. I wonder if this was the Anti-pope Hippolytus who crafted that one.

Saying I doubt the validity of NO bishops is probably too strong, more that I question it. Currently, I go to an SSPX church instead of FSSP for this reason. I know for sure their sacraments are all legit. This CMRI video compares the NO mass to the TLM Mass, but near the 1:04 mark, it discusses the difference in the rite of consecration and it's more convincing (doesn't mean it's 100% accurate) than the video presented here though.

Another poorly done argument.

• Fr. McFarland spends most of time discounting the issue because of an emotional reaction from people who hate the Councilor church or the misconception that the chruch would cease to exist if all of the current V2 Bishops were not valid. More Ad hominems, more fear mongering, little substance.
• Does not actually present the real opposing arguments. For example, he mentions the "Ut" argument but does not provide proof that the meaning does not change the formula. He just says a " it is 2 letter word, how can a tiny word change the meaning?". Note: that was a paraphrase. Remember the "Many vs. All" argument. An honest representation would show the translations side-by-side.
• Makes claim that the The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus was an approved version used by the Church, but does not provide any reference. I wonder if this was the Anti-pope Hippolytus who crafted that one.

I was looking for more background into this issue. SSPX did provide any at all. Here is Fr. Cekada argument: http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf

Even if you don't agree with Fr. Cekada at least take the time to confirm one of his arguments using the resources he provides. I think these podcasts are missing a question and answer section.

I do not need to watch it, for I know it is the same ole dung repeated since 2005, when the SSPX had to deal for the first time with a "pope" that was consecrated a bishop with the new formula, Ratzinger. Before that time you could find many SSPX priests openly teaching people about the doubts in the new ordinations of priests and the consecrations of bishops. After Ratzinger they changed their tune. There's no money in saying their superiors in Rome may not be valid priests when they're kowtowing to them.

In a nutshell, he (sspx) says the new rite of ordination is valid when followed to the letter, but doubtful or invalid if the consecrating bishop does not follow the NO script but instead, 'ad libs' during the ordination. What he said there has always been the position of the SSPX since it's very beginning.

Like so many issues that are still discussed and debated, this is an old issue, it's as old as the NO and was addressed way back when the new rite first came out.

It was addressed +50 years ago during the infancy of the NO, even before the SSPX was founded, precisely because the enemies flooded the Church with effeminate, liberal priests which caused doubt of their validity among most of the truly faithful way back then.

So this particular issue is not anything that was not already addressed pre-1969, before many (most?) people here were even born, or converted, or converted back to the true faith. So he's not saying anything that has not already been said umpteen times over the last 5 decades.    

The SSPX does not conditionally ordain any Novus Ordo priests anymore, whereas before they conditionally ordained all of them. So, where the rubber meets the road, where it counts, they have changed completely.