What?  This has nothing to do with SVism.

Second proposition is only morally certain, not dogmatically.  Could be that your priest isn't valid for one reason or another.

Yes, but absolute moral certitude. For practical purposes of faith, because we offer adoration to what looks like bread but we know is not (hypothetical notwithstanding).

We also know that the men commonly claiming to be true popes cannot be so, because the Church could not violate Mortalium Animos to the universal Church in all Her organs of the magisterium.

What is the definition of "absolute moral certitude"?

There's no such thing as absolute moral certitude, as the two terms are contraries.

Moral certitude refers to certitude beyond a reasonable doubt ... whereas absolute certitude refers to there being no doubt possible.

While extremely unlikely, it's possible that your priests was not validly baptized ... cf. the infamous docuмent de presbytero non baptizato or that the bishop who ordained him botched the ordination Rite, etc.

Only moral certitude is possible regarding the validity of any given attempt to offer the Mass.

And you also clearly have no clue about what dogmatic fact means.

So you're absolutely and dogmatically certain, certain with the certainty of faith ... that your priest didn't botch the essential form of the consecration or that the bishop didn't botch his ordination or that his parish priest didn't botch his Baptism?  No absolute or "dogmatic" certitude can ever be had about matters such as those which are within the realm of "absolute" possibility.

Not sure where you found that Billot quote or whether you ripped it out of context, but these quotes from Billot contradict your point.  You just have to ask any priest with a modicuм of training scholastic theology that this is in fact the case.

Billot (two separate quotes from his De Sacramentis):
First quote rejects dogmatic certainty, the second rejects absolute certainty.

I could go on defending my statements with quotes, but it isn't necessary.

Whatever term you want to use, I presented the analogy, and the false V2 popes is a FACT just as certain, and directly connected to the integrity of dogma, though not dogma itself. Those not understanding it are unfortunately in a position of having their faith in the divine Church eroded. 

So ... not sure what you're smoking, but the validity of particular Sacraments has absolutely nothing to do with the Pope question.  As for dogmatic SVism in general, the problem you have is that you ignore the fact that there are other premises in your conclusion that are not dogmatic, but the dogmatic SVs ignore them.

In practice, however, MOST R&R types do deny the dogmatic MAJOR premise and are losing the faith, but not all, and specifically, Archbishop Lefebvre, whom they falsely hide behind to justify their error ... explicitly affirmed the MAJOR premise.  That's the unfortunate aspect of the Archbishop's legacy, where he failed to emphasize his reasoning enough, resulting in many of his modern followers having become thinly-veiled Old Catholics.  +Lefebvre had more of  a D&R position, "Doubt and Resist" ... which is perfectly acceptable.

It has to do with the certitude giving adoration to the Eucharist, because of the dogma behind it.

The certitude is at the same level for knowing the papal claimants cannot be true popes because of their implementing the errors of Mortalium Animos throughout every corner of the Church hierarchy.