OK, DL.  I'll accept that I'm wrong...for now. 

I think the video only adds to the confusion and doubts...and the condescending, anti-sedevacantist attitude.  At this point in the game, considering that these orders could be valid (which is what your posting this video does) is problematic at best and dangerous at worst.

DL, I'll give you my two cents on the issue.

Fr. Cekada famously wrote a paper, and then a few followups, where he argued that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration (NREC) was invalid and null because it failed to univocally express that the recipient of the sacrament was receiving the power of orders and the grace of the Holy Ghost. According to Pius XII's Sacramentum Ordinis, the essential formula of episcopal consecration must univocally express that the recipient is receiving the power of order and the grace of the Holy Ghost.  Fr. Pierre Marie O.P. wrote a politically motivated rebuttal shortly thereafter (politically motivated in my opinion at least, since at this time Ratzinger, consecrated according to the NREC, had become elected and the SSPX had eyes on reconciliation with Rome). Although politically motivated, he offers what is probably the best defense of the NREC to date.

You can and should read the paper for yourself, and see if you find it convincing. If you've just doubted N.O. holy orders because "that's what trads do," give Fr. Cekada's arguments, and also Fr. Pierre Marie's rebuttal, a fair shake. I won't summarize everything for you, I'll just focus on the main point. The main point is that the NREC essential form does not univocally express the episcopal candidate's reception of the power of order and jurisdiction. And as such, Fr. argues it is simply invalid. Here is the essential form in question:
.
.
In fact, Fr. Cekada argues that it is not even clear what at all is being expressed in this essential form, because the "governing spirit" (spiritus principalis in Latin) is perfectly ambiguous in both Latin and English.  But even if we could be sure what the "governing spirit" is, the problem is that it is plainly only one thing, while Pius XII defined two things (the power of order and jurisdiction) must be expressed in the essential form. So disambiguating the "governing spirit"-- say, by looking at the surrounding material in the preface, as many have done-- does not solve the problem.
.
Moreover, remember that essential forms are, well, essential. You could get everything about the surrounding ceremonies of baptism right but if you don't actually pour water on the head of the candidate and say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" you don't baptize. Same with every sacrament. Pointing to other parts of the ceremony that apparently vindicate the meaning of the form is a vain exercise if the form is substantially deficient, as I think the form of the NREC is.
.
Long story short, I find Fr. Cekada's case compelling enough to cast legitimate, positive doubt on the integrity of the NREC. I have read the various follow-up rebuttals, and have not found them compelling enough to redeem that doubt.

I forgot to say--

Although it has been customary for non-sede trads to hold the NREC in doubt, I think the question of its validity is very difficult to separate from the question of Paul VI's papacy. If Paul VI's papacy was legitimate, a perfectly valid argument would just be to appeal to the disciplinary infallibility of the Church and conclude that the NREC is valid simply by virtue of being approved and imposed by the Pope on a universal class of people. 

If Paul VI wasn't the Pope of the Catholic Church, no such assurances exist.

I think that argument is flawed and very easily countered, Mithrandylan, by the fact that a legitimate Pope is not free to impose illegitimate laws. He is not a law unto himself, he is the Vicar Of Christ. He has no power to revolutionise the Sacraments. This is no organic development along the lines described by St Vincent of Lerins. As The First Vatican Council taught in the Constitution Pastor Aeternus "The Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter, not, that by his revelation, they might make known new doctrine, but that by his assistance they might guard... the deposit of faith". That is why, all these years, most Traditionalists of the R&R persuasion, including ABL and his Society, have held doubts about the rite, without denying the legitimacy of the Pope.

This "free to" or "not free" to is completely missing the mark and does nothing to address the core disagreement.  What's under dispute is whether the Holy Spirit protects a Pope from teaching grave and substantial error to the Universal Church and from promulgating a Rite of Mass that's harmfult to souls and displeasing to God.  Whether or not he has the "right" to do so is absolutely irrelevant.

And that quote from Pastor Aeternus is a complete butchery of the intent of the passage, which is doing nothing more than distinguishing the role of the Magisterium from the Deposit of Revelation ... and has nothing to do with what you're claiming it means.  It does not mean, "He has no right to teach error, and therefore we are free to reject the Magisterium we have decided to be in error."  It simply means that the teachings of the Magisterium are not an extension of Divine Revelation but is a safeguarding, clarification, and explanation of the Deposit of Revelation that was received once and ceased with the death of the last apostle.