I believe a lot of the NO ordinations are doubtful. But I also believe a lot are perfectly valid for the simple reason that sacrileges are valid when they come from valid priests and bishops and are far, far worse than invalid sacrileges.

What makes any NO ordination doubtful?  Where are any invalid priests or bishops if the new rites are valid?  5+ years ago many R&Rers were troubled by the change in the essence of the form found in the new rites resulting in invalid consecrations/ordinations.  If the issue was not with the form, whether post-1968 or not would be irrelevant.  But that simply has not been the case with many R&Rers heretofore.

What makes any NO ordination doubtful? Where are any invalid priests or bishops if the new rites are valid?

Presuming that the "official NO ordination formula" is valid:

In this crisis, it is conceivable that either the consecrating bishop or the receiving priest, or both, of having purposely malicious intentions, but we cannot know that, nor personally, I am not certain that such intentions would invalidate the ordination. Malicious intentions (if they exist) make it sinful? Yes. Invalidate? I don't think so but I'm not sure = doubtful.

At one period of time, this was the most prevalent concern, not sure if it is still as prevalent, but when the bishop ad libs the formula during the ordination = doubtful ordination.

Speaking about the NO ordination rite, Fr. Wathen puts it like this: "The reader is reminded that the very doubt which this change creates serves the malevolent purposes of the conspirators as well as does the certitude of invalidity, because from the doubt flows controversy, disagreements, factions, confusion, and disquietude among the clergy and the faithful."

5+ years ago many R&Rers were troubled by the change in the essence of the form found in the new rites resulting in invalid consecrations/ordinations.  If the issue was not with the form, whether post-1968 or not would be irrelevant.  But that simply has not been the case with many R&Rers heretofore

Yes, since 1968, the new ordinations have always caused trads to question the validity of NO clergy. It is comparatively very easy to simply avoid all things NO completely, then it is to try to figure out with certainty the validity or invalidity of NO clergy.

Hi Myrna, long time no see!

It is as I already said Myrna, for me, I have no choice but to be subject to the pope, that is the dogma. There is no proviso in the dogma saying "...unless I don't believe he is the pope."

Seems a lot of folks around here have figured out how to get around that, and if I ever happen across a way around that, then I too can go around proclaiming the pope is not the pope for no reason at all, but until then, I will remain the pope's good subject, but God's first. It's the simplest and only way I know of where I can't possibly do wrong.

Having no pope for such a long time as it has been; is the cause, the reason why Catholics who are trying to keep the Faith are constantly debating each other.  

MyrnaM - No!  A bad/non-existent pope pope does NOT force any catholic to be uncharitable or stupid.  There are too many adults (both laymen and priests) who fling around the accusation of 'mortal sin', 'heretic', etc towards other trads on the sede issue.  This is completely juvenile, uncatholic and scandalous.  Not to mention, it's also a sin.  And the devil laughs over it all.
The bottom line is that no catholic can say with a 'certainty of faith' that the post-conciliar popes were not popes.  But plenty of people want to 'draw a line' in the sand and force everyone to play by their interpreation of the situation, which is pride, plain and simple.

Thanks for the warm welcome back to me, I appreciate it!  Thanks also for your gracious reply here.  
The problem is you can't be subject to the past Traditional popes, who have not contradicted each other, and be subject to this doubtful pope who contradicts past history of the Church at the same time.  It says in the book of Hebrews: 13;8 "Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same for ever. [9] Be not led away with various and strange doctrines. For it is best that the heart be established with grace, not with meats; which have not profited those that walk in them. [10] We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle."

I disagree. We can and must be subject to the conciliar popes in all things that do not offend God, this is dogma. It is in this way that we are subject to both the past and present (conciliar) popes. This is putting into practice what I said - being the popes' good subject, but God's first.

Among the false ideas of the sedevacantists is the belief that we owe anyone blind obedience, even the pope does cannot have our blind obedience. The Church teaches we owe the pope our true obedience, not our blind obedience.

Except that you completely redefine "subject to" to mean "pay lip service to" and/or "acknowledge his legitimacy".  You have broken communion with him and do not submit to his Magisterium nor do you submit to his disciplinary law nor do you submit to his Canon law.  And somehow you declare this to be "subjection".

This is absolutely mind-boggling.  If ANYONE refuses subjection to the pope, it's people like you.

You have been fentonized, which is the reason that I believe that you do not understand what "magisterium" even is Lad. This fact is apparent in your postings.

The pope does not own it, therefore it is not "his Magisterium". He is supposed to religiously safeguard and promulgate it, but he doesn't own it. It could be said that if he has his own magisterium at all, that it most certainly is not the Church's and whoever "submits" to it, follows him in his errors.

You will not differentiate between being the pope's subject according to the dogma, which is one thing, and blind submission to the pope, which is another, and is something the Church has never taught. This, I believe, is a result of being fentonized. 

I was thinking if someone who is able could take the time to go back and put this entire situation in chronological order, say from the time of this starting point: 

"On October 13, 1884, after celebrating Mass in the Vatican Chapel together with a few Cardinals and members of the Vatican staff, Pope Leo XIII suddenly stood still at the foot of the altar. For about 10 minutes, the Pope, as if in a trance, stood motionless, his face ashen white. Immediately after, he went to his office and composed the prayer to St. Michael with instructions that it be said after all Low Masses everywhere.

Richard Ibranyi but who is he that you should give any credit, he doesn't even believe in Fatima, or Saints such as Thomas Aquinas.  

If that were true we would have been told this a long time ago through approved apparitions of Our Blessed Mother. 
Unless of course you also don't believe in Fatima.  I know it's a private revelation but is it? 

Even his name Ibranyi suggest you run from him. 
His name is not worth mentioning I hope he is not your defense, Stubborn?