If you insist on believing the V2 papal claimants have been true popes, then, yes, you would presume validity. Unfortunately, the facts surrounding these men make them easily doubtful as popes.

Even if the conciliar popes are not true, that would not invalidate the Baptisms happening since then a priori, given that anyone can baptize as long as the matter and form are used. I do not know of any NO Baptism in which the water and Trinitarian formula are not used. This is, in general.

The same rumor mill as yours.

No, I have asked different SSPX priests the same question quite a few times in the last +45 years - it's always the same answer from different SSPX priests.

This means you have no clue what you're even talking about.

I don't see what an "investigation" could provide r uncover.  As I understand it there is a very real doubt about bishop consecrations plus priestly ordinations post 1968, hence the reason for the SSPX.  I don't know if the ordained glow under some special black light only the SSPX has that verifies validity?  Father Aribajis told me Bishop Williamson only cond. ordained to ease the minds of the faithful.  I have an issue with this.   Frankly Bishop Sanborn's conference on Jєωtube from England a couple years ago sealed the deal for me. 
Either the N.O. is the church and their religion is Catholic or it is not.  If is, then we HAVE TO hold our noses and go along,lock stock and Barrel.  Since I am convinced it is not, as I think all ya'll are as well when it gets down to brass tacks, we must consider the whole mess as just that.  All of these priests and bishops MUST be conditionally consecrated/ordained, sorry if it hurts your/their feelings.  Either this stuff matters or it doesn't, at all, and never did.  I can't believe this is even open for discussion. 

Thanks for proving the point I just made - you have no idea what you are talking about.

Feel free to quote something pre-Vat II showing I am wrong. You won't find it. I can find plenty to support what I have said.

I don't see what an "investigation" could provide r uncover.  As I understand it there is a very real doubt about bishop consecrations plus priestly ordinations post 1968, hence the reason for the SSPX.  I don't know if the ordained glow under some special black light only the SSPX has that verifies validity?  Father Aribajis told me Bishop Williamson only cond. ordained to ease the minds of the faithful.  I have an issue with this.   Frankly Bishop Sanborn's conference on Jєωtube from England a couple years ago sealed the deal for me.  
Either the N.O. is the church and their religion is Catholic or it is not.  If is, then we HAVE TO hold our noses and go along,lock stock and Barrel.  Since I am convinced it is not, as I think all ya'll are as well when it gets down to brass tacks, we must consider the whole mess as just that.  All of these priests and bishops MUST be conditionally consecrated/ordained, sorry if it hurts your/their feelings.  Either this stuff matters or it doesn't, at all, and never did.  I can't believe this is even open for discussion.

I don't know what all they investigate, I do trust that they do not want invalid priests in their ranks and will know after they look into it whether there is cause for conditional ordination - I also trust that the ex- NO priests themselves want to be confident that they themselves are valid priests - it only makes sense no? I mean, if you were the ex-NO priest joining tradition, wouldn't you want to make sure you're a valid priest?

It is also forbidden to conditionally ordain without investigation, so no matter which group the ex-NO priests join, an investigation is obligatory no matter what.

Frankly, I was glad to get the same answer from this SSPX priest that I've been getting for 45 years from all the other SSPX priests I've asked over the years, whoever distrusts the answer, it's easy enough to ask any SSPX priest yourself rather than remain skeptical or conspiratorial.
 

You go ahead and find your support, then you'll find out you have no idea what you're talking about, then you can try to double talk your way into being right - it's always the same o same o with you.

I'll take you up on it. Is it that you deny water needs to be poured on the head? Or that Protestant sects are considered doubtfully valid because of negligence?  I want to know what I am looking up that you deny.

I don't know what all they investigate, I do trust that they do not want invalid priests in their ranks and will know after they look into it whether there is cause for conditional ordination - I also trust that the ex- NO priests themselves want to be confident that they themselves are valid priests - it only makes sense no? I mean, if you were the ex-NO priest joining tradition, wouldn't you want to make sure you're a valid priest?

It is also forbidden to conditionally ordain without investigation, so no matter which group the ex-NO priests join, an investigation is obligatory no matter what.

Frankly, I was glad to get the same answer from this SSPX priest that I've been getting for 45 years from all the other SSPX priests I've asked over the years, whoever distrusts the answer, it's easy enough to ask any SSPX priest yourself rather than remain skeptical or conspiratorial.

Fair enough.  You put your trust in the SSPX.  You haven't noticed the softening of late?  do you think a human organization, one without infallibility, and certainly with only supplied licidity, ought to be trusted?  The need for investigation is fine, necessary, et. al I will grant.  Not the issue, avoiding the elephant in the room.  The rites themselves are inherently doubtful.  At best all an investigation could determine is probability of intent, not even certainty of intent.  If St. Pius X himself followed the baptismal formulae to the letter but someone substituted polluted water, would it not raise a doubt as to the matter?  I will grant the likelihood of probable, even certain intent on the part of the ordinand and the conferrer.  Still a positive doubt because of the defective form.   There is no "UT" and it was taken out on PURPOSE.   That is the elephant in the room. 
 

tio

I am denying your implying that the Church deems all non-Catholic or NO baptisms to be automatically invalid.

Is he saying that?  Isn't he saying, along with the church, doubtfully valid, even if only a little bit.  isn't that enough?  a doubtful sacrament is NO sacrament, I always understood the Church to teach.  Am I mislead?