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.

But that's only half the story, because his ordaining bishop was a valid bishop.

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.

Plenty of people disagree with him.  

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.

This doesn't confirm anything about the validity question.  It simply uses canon law's allowance of *possible* validity, in extreme circuмstances.  Would one rather confess to a doubtful priest or not confess at all?  Only God knows the validity answer anyways.  

I agree with Fr Hesse that V2 is a schismatic church.  Stubborn, here's where your defending of the new-sspx's view is incorrect.

Similar to Fr Wathen's stance on the new mass, he says the validity question is beyond his capability and authority to answer.  Which is true.  But even if it's valid, Fr Wathen says the new mass is illicit (i.e. mortally sinful) and immoral (i.e. gravely sacrilegious).  In other words, Fr says the new mass is schismatic (i.e. illegal, heretical) and immoral.

Fr Hesse's arguments are very similar.  Even if the new rites are valid (which is debatable), they are schismatic/illegal and heretical/immoral, having gutted the orthodox ideals of the true rites (as +Tissier explained).

Conclusion - for the new-sspx to allow and advocate for the acceptance of schismatic & heretical rites is a gross display of anti-catholic thinking and a contrary-to-canon-law support of gravely illicit activity.

The new-sspx can't spin this any other way.  They are wrong in supporting a schismatic "sacrament" (and same applies for the new mass).

I'm not defending the new-sspx's view of anything, so this is where you are incorrect.

 If you understood that the sacraments belong to the Church and they are Church's to defend and preserve, you would understand that it is for this reason She *necessarily must always initially* presume validity, or as Fr. Hesse put it in cases of doubt, "The Church always sides with the sacraments." 

Yes, the NO sacraments are illicit, Fr. Hesse explains that as well. Illicit does not always automatically mean invalid - Fr. Hesse and the other priest whose name I cannot remember are both examples and he explains this as well.

Pax, you cannot get past illicit does not automatically equal invalid. Even doubtful = "The Church always sides with the sacrament." You do not accept this. To re ordain or conditionally ordain without first due inquiry risks sacrilege, that has always been the law of the Church. Fr. Hesse also touched on explaining this. You do not accept this.

SSPX accepts the NO rite as valid when done by the book because they must, they do not have the authority to do otherwise. You do not accept this, ok, I understand it and why, but you are wrong here. If the SSPX were sede, then of course they would agree with you 100%. I like to think if you were the one tasked with ordaining NO priests/bishops, that you would not be so quick to risk sacrilege and just throw caution to the wind. 

False.  The novus ordo sacraments are not from the Church.  They are "a different usage" of the Latin Rite (to quote Benedict from the 2007 motu).  The V2 sacraments were not promulgated using Apostolic Authority, nor do they apply to the whole Latin Church, nor is there any requirement to use/accept them.
They tell people they "must" because their logical fallacy of assuming that V2 sacraments were promulgated correctly and morally. 
Yes, they do, per canon law.  As Fr Hesse says, the V2 sacraments/church is schismatic.  Legitimately promulgated sacraments can't be illicit/schismatic.  This is an oxymoron.

What appears to be an oxymoron to you is for others the mystery of the Crisis that has encompassed the Church now for many decades. Fr. Hesse did believe that the NO sacraments are valid but illicit. It's just his opinion, which he did not force on others. I'll take his opinion over that of a layman any day. It's fine of you disagree. I expect that you believe that everyone should agree with your opinion, but we don't actually have to do that.

The problem is, that people like you, and other indulters, and the new-sspx just gloss over the issue of illicitness/schism as if it's not a grave, mortal sin.

"Oh well, it's valid, so it's ok".  Meanwhile, canon law has multiple, multiple condemnations of using/attending illicit sacraments/masses.  Not to mention, Quo Primum (directly from Pope St Pius V...which Benedict said was still in force) condemns the use of any rites not originating from his missal (i.e. Tridentine/true rite).

So, we circle back again to the problems with the indult and the new rites of consecration/ordination.  Many people think they are valid; many say they are very doubtful.  Even if everyone agreed they are valid, they are certainly illicit/schismatic.  And to attend, use, condone or support illicit rites is a grave mortal sin (except in danger of death).  And to attend/use/support "priests" and "bishops" with illicit orders is similarly a mortal sin.

Yeah, the problem is with people like me, who don't agree with you, and never will. Oh well. 

You're biased because you're an indult attendee.  You're also just parroting Fr Hesse's opinion, which means you have none of your own.

So those of us who are the laity need to make up our own view of the Crisis, and not rely on anything that any Catholic priest or bishop says? We should be our own little popes?

Per Fr. Hesse, the difference between the formulas in the old and new rite do not invalidate the sacraments used in the new rite.

Many, many Trad clerics disagree.  Fr Hesse isn't (or didn't start off as) a Trad priest.  He's obviously going to shill for V2.  It's appalling that you can't see the bias here.

When there is doubt, the Church sides with the sacraments

No, this is contrary to canon law.

Once you change a sacrament, it's no longer from the Church. 

A.  Major - The Church presumes validity for sacraments which are a) approved, b) by Apostolic Authority, c) under pain of sin, d) for the entire Church. 
B.  Minor - V2 sacraments do not fulfill the conditions for either a, b, c or d.
C.  Minor 2 - The only sacraments which are true are the rites coming from Pope St Pius V and Quo Primum.  These fulfill all conditions for a, b, c, d.
D.  Minor 3 - The Church only has 1 rite in the Latin Church.  She cannot and does not have 2 rites at the same time.
E.  Conclusion - The Church does not presume validity for sacraments She didn't approve; V2 sacraments are not true sacraments, but in name-only.

Neither did +Vigano. But that's not a problem for you, is it? 

  I've said repeatedly (and have others who support +Vigano) that he's a valid priest (i.e. old rite) but he needs to be conditionally consecrated a bishop.