When it comes to today's mess, if validity cannot be proven by those competent to decide such matters, then that *is* the positive doubt which warrants a conditional ordination. *Our* positive doubts only provide *us* the correct reason to avoid the NO sacraments altogether.  

Further, it is by diabolical design that we trads correctly have positive doubt about all of the NO sacraments and on that account avoid them like the curse they are, but that does not in fact prove they are all invalid all of the time, anymore than our positive doubts prove all NO transubstantiations are certainly invalid all of the time. Trads often seem to reject or forget that the devil will certainly take a valid sacrilege over an invalid one whenever possible.

Many trads wrongfully automatically choose to defend the integrity of the sacraments by first presuming all NO sacraments are automatically invalid  - in so doing they are defending nothing at all, for what is an automatically invalid sacrament if not nothing at all? - but the Church, the only  protector of the sacraments, necessarily safeguards them in presuming validity initially.

The below youtube is pretty sick, really sickening, yet what would be more to the devil's purpose, a valid host or invalid?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_FDl1XX7js&feature=youtu.be

Clearly they are not proven invalid, but in the practical order, in the case of positive doubt, we must avoid them altogether except in danger of death (if that's your only option).  In the case of positive doubt, conditional conferral of the Sacrament is required.  In refusing to do conditional ordinations, the SSPX is stating that there is no positive doubt about the validity of NO ordinations ... which very few Traditional Catholics hold.

Exactly.  Canon law forbids a Catholic from acting under doubt, in regards to mass/sacraments.  So, practically speaking, doubt = one must absolutely avoid under pain of sin.

The new mass and sacraments have a DOUBLE doubt.  Not only are the sacramental rites themselves (except for Baptism) doubtfully valid but the priest who performs the rite is also doubtful.
Doubtful priest + doubtful sacrament = Fail.

Anyone who doesn't recognize the above issues with new-rome isn't really a traditional catholic, including most in +Fellay's neo-sspx.

Exactly right.  Novus Ordo Confessions are also not doubtful if conferred by a valid priest ... so long as they don't adlib the formula.

Assuming he is a valid priest, he must say the Sacramental formula: ego te absolvo, etc.

Assuming he is a valid priest, he must say the Sacramental formula: ego te absolvo, etc.

Are you implying that absolution has to be in Latin in order to be valid?

To: Are you implying that absolution has to be in Latin in order to be valid?
I feel I should be able to assume that anyone looking at this web site knows that saying a Sacramental formula in Latin is not necessary for validity, though it is better than the vernacular. If anyone needs to know, the form is valid if the words mean the same as in the traditional Latin form.

Anyway, "Go in peace, your sins are forgiven?" Are you sure? That's not valid. I wonder if the Novus Ordo priest said the Sacramental formula while you were talking and you didn't hear him recite the form. My priest always has me say the "O My God I am Heartily Sorry" while he says the absolution and I sometimes don't hear "ego te absolvo". Anyway, the Conciliarists are off the map most of the time anyway.