Fr McFarland can say there isn’t doubt, but reading the opinions of many Trads, the sensus fidelium seems to think otherwise.

He just said that each case has to be investigated. However in 1988, +Lefebvre wrote to a certain Mr. Wilson and he agreed with Wilson's desire to conditionally reordain novus ordo priests, and that he has done that many times. +Lefebvre also said "All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtful now. The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more Catholic."

This is where I am conflicted because it appears that +Lefebvre had a different view of the new rite of ordination in 1988, than in 1983.

In our position as laymen, it's one thing for us to believe that all the NO sacraments are doubtful (or invalid - as if we could know it), and avoid them on that account. Some trads even say avoid them except in case of emergency - whatever, because we have no authority, no responsibility, no obligation and no ability to ordain anyone, we can say whatever we want in this regard.

But the SSPX and whatever other trad groups are out there with their own bishops, simply cannot lawfully say this as if they know that all NO sacraments are automatically and certainly doubtful or invalid, and so on that account (i.e. their own word) automatically re-ordain NO priests. This they cannot do without risking sacrilege on the part of both the bishop performing the ordination and the priest being re-ordained. Because the sacrament of Holy Orders is one of the three sacraments that cannot be repeated without sacrilege, they have got to investigate each case separately. This is nothing new or earth shattering, this is nothing more than basic Catholicism.

   

The Apostolic Tradition of of St Hippolytus is a very uncertain basis for NO consecrations. It appears to be some sort of Egyptian, Alexandrian treatise on what the Church should be, written by a priest of that name. It does not match what is known of liturgy in Rome, but instead is closer to Syria or Egypt, an early fragment in fact more likely had the title of 'Egyptian Church Order' or something close to that. The supposed statue of Hippolytus of Rome, which gives the Apostolic Tradition its name, is that of a woman with a man's head stuck on. The basis for it is pseudo-historical garbage. While the new text is not wholly inadequate (some refutations of it used contrived translations to make it easy to stereotype), the old old text seems far more focussed. I started watching the video in OP, but stopped as the priest seems to think that sedes can be refuted by sneering at them. Maybe it gets better, and the sound quality improves. I found it hard to watch and not convincing in what I saw.