I still have three issues:
1. The “I read it somewhere” line is devoid of any context or setting. Was it read accurately or fully understood? Was it just a theological opinion (even a minority one) or explicitly declared by the Church?
2. What is the logical conclusion of this? The Last Rites from an Anglican vicar? Yes, Leo XIII declared their orders invalid, but that was before they sort ordinations from the ‘Old Catholics’.
3. “I hold them to be doubtful rather than certainly invalid ... based on the possibility that there was a legitimate conditional consecration afterward.” This is nothing more than a negative doubt (which is to be despised).
I'll try to find sources. They have been cited here before.
No, this is not negative doubt. It's POSTIIVE doubt, since there are concrete reasons for the doubt, i.e. the botched consecration attempt ... captured on video. Negative doubt resolves in the practical order to moral certainty with regard to the Sacraments, whereas positive doubt does not and is distinct from certainty. You make a gratuitous assertion regarding the nature of the doubt, implying that if one is not certain that they are invalid, then that's the same as negative doubt. It is not. Similarly, I am not certain that the NOM is invalid under all circuмstances, but I do hold that there's positive doubt due to the concrete, specific, and credible arguments made against it.