So, I've listened to this talk by Fr. Hesse and if I'm to understand correctly he claims the new rite ordinations ARE valid. This runs contrary to a lot of the opinions offered throughout this thread.
Now, if Fr Hesse, who probably forgot more about canon law than any of us here will ever know, believes
the orders of FSSP priests are valid, why should I require any more proof?

I'm sorry, but this is the dumbest and saddest thing I've read all day. You would risk your soul on the fallible opinion of the most biased "priest" to ever speak on the matter?!

All the new rites are invalid and thank God that the Body of Christ is not abused all over the world because of it.

I've attached extensive proof of the invalidity of the new rite of episcopal consecration and here's why the Novus Ordo rite of priestly ordination is as invaild as the Anglican rite: https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/new-rite-of-ordination-invalid/

This is a sacramentological question with an easy answer. If there's doubt about the validity the sacrament must be treated as invalid. The very existence of this thread is proof of the existence of reasonable doubts (caused by changes in the texts).

Cekada spells it out simply and in great detail.

Thank you for the sanity check.  I thought I was going crazy.  The new-sspx view of this subject does lead to crazy town.  

The minister must have at least the intention to do what the Church does, and that means something more than just performing the action. If he follows a Catholic rite, it is presumed he has this intention

You are correct but I meant it’s irrelevant for this discussion.  Old rite bishop, performing old rite sacraments…the best scenario we can hope for.

On the contrary, someone argued that a “proper personal intention” can make up for the new rite deficiencies.  Totally wrong. 

The point being, the personal intention is important but the Church's intention (as written in the rite) is vastly more important to validity.  And it can be seen, heard, proven…unlike the personal intention.

In the end, for us, for our own personal salvation and the salvation of those in our care, it does not matter one iota whether NO ordained priests and bishops are valid or not, anymore than it matters whether the one preaching a different Gospel is truly an angel from heaven (Gal 1:8) or not. We stay away from them without regard to their validity because to go to them puts our immortal souls in danger.

I've read more than once where some of those posters insisting on automatic doubt=invalidity in this thread, said we can indeed go to them in an emergency, or in danger of death when a NO priest was all that was available. Personally, I still wouldn't.

  That's not what we're saying at all.  If you think the above, it explains why this conversation has been a chaotic mess.

Pax Vobis:
A Church that can promulgate for the entire Roman rite an ordination ritual that is of doubtful validity, or, as in the case of the ordinations of bishops, definitely invalid, is most certainly not the Roman Catholic Church, for in this matter the Church is infallible through the special assistance of the Holy Ghost:

A Church that can promulgate for the entire Roman rite an ordination ritual that is of doubtful validity, or, as in the case of the ordinations of bishops, an ordination ritual that is of doubtful validity, or, as in the case of the ordinations of bishops, definitely invalid, is most certainly not the Roman Catholic Church, for in this matter the Church is infallible through the special assistance of the Holy Ghost:

Yes and no.  It's not that simple.

1.  You would be absolutely correct, without question, if...the new rites were the ONLY rites.  If the modernists had explicitly outlawed the old rites.  But they didn't.  So there's parallel rites in existence.
2.  This parallel situation is unique.  We know the old rites are 100% legit and from the Holy Ghost.  Even the V2 modernists (every single V2 pope) has allowed the true rites to be used, in various situations.
3.  The new church is advocating for BOTH rites; but obviously pushing the new rites and simply allowing the old in very limited cases (i.e. Ecclesia Dei/indult).
4.  So we have a situation where you can choose 100% valid rites or doubtful ones.  The choice is clear.

Your statement only works if the new rites were the ONLY ones used in all of new-rome, for the last 50 years.  But the dual rite situation makes it clear that the new rites don't have the infallibility protection, nor are necessarily from Holy Mother Church, nor....and this is the most important point...are they "promulgated for the entire Roman church" because the old rites can still be used, thus the new rites are not required, nor commanded, nor an obligation.  Thus, they are not "approved rites" in the historical sense of the term.  Non-approved rites have no protection from the Holy Ghost.

Everyone trying to be a Catholic is affected by this issue or biased in some sense, however, "Fr." Hesse is uniquely impartial on this issue because the validity of his own orders is directly at stake.

An ulterior motive can be construed for pretty much anyone from the Society being unable to dialogue with a 'pope' that isn't even a bishop to sedevacantists looking for another proof of the invalidity of the antipopes, however, as I said, Hesse is pretty much the only person who has a whole another level of bias.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to his arguments, but, as I tried to point out to MV, following him merely on his own authority is ludicrous.

In any case, to anyone of good will it's clear there is nothing to be gained by trusting in the validity of the new rites and everything to be lost. Literally everything.

Well, he unbiasedly explained, clearly, why *he believes* the NO ordination rite is valid when it is done by the book.

 He explained how the NO rite is worded even more clearly than the old rite. He explained why the Church always initially presumes validity; "when there is doubt, the Church always sides with the sacrament." He explained the sacrament is valid when done by the book using himself as example when he said; "I was validly ordained in a schismatic church." He compared this to the valid orders in the schismatic Orthodox church.

He had no bias in that recording because what he did was quote numerous popes showing what the Church has always taught in the matter. He even touched on the whole "ut" issue two or three times I think.

And there is still those among us who preach NO invalidity and also that it's perfectly acceptable in an emergency to have a NO priest give NO last rites when the only priest available is a NO priest. So there's that.