No. One is suspected of murder but no one is guilty until it goes to trial. You cannot go around labeling people murderers and heretics because YOU think they are guilty. And just as well. I'm sure all of you here would have me strung up, tarred and feathered, and burnt at the stake, if you had your way

If I see someone commit a murder, I know that they are a murderer

If I hear someone say something heretical, I know that they are a heretic

You are guilty of a sin when you commit it. A sentence of guilt from the state or Church merely confirms that you are responsible for the crime

Your decision is your business but applauding the subversive actions of this sede-vacantist choir is abhorrent. If they feel that strongly about the SSPX's policy of using Novus Order priests who have not been re-ordained (I'm assuming that is what you mean by 'doubtful' priests), then leave. It is unfair to the rest of the congregation to do what they are planning to do. It's unfair to have a group of parishioners who are bent on controlling the parish by such games.

This family choir has been at this mission chapel since it's foundation 30+ years ago.  Their position has always been known and there is no "subversion" on their part.  Our priest knows their opinion and he posts on the white board the names of all priests who will be substituting for him if he has to be away. But it is precisely because they protest that we don't get doubtful priests at our chapel.
Personally, as I have already stated, I cannot in good conscious support the SSPX anymore.  They have compromised by not condemning errors and sacrilegious acts by the false religion in the Vatican. This is causing the true faith to be obscured and errors to flourish and coexist within tradition.

The problem with Robinson is that his false arguments, such as “Novus ordo sacraments are valid” is doing the bidding for the SSPX’s (Jaidhoff bought) corrupt leadership.

Indeed.  The "logic" or lack thereof is so pathetically awful, that they cannot be excused of blatant and deliberate dishonesty, simply to carry water for the "leadership".

Father Cekada explained in one interview that from the very beginning, in SSPX there were the hardliners, the soft-liners, and the yes-men, those who just went along with "the current thing", even if it was the opposite of what it had been the week before.

Only the bobble-headed yes-ment thrived in SSPX and were promoted to leadership positions ... whereas anyone who could think for himself, whether to the right or the left ... they were relegated to mud huts in Zimbabwe, despite being some of the brightest minds and most virtuous priests among the SSPX.

This obsequious carrying of the water for the SSPX "current" thing is utterly repugnant, and it's transparent because their defenses of that position are nothing but one logical fallacy after another, strawmen, conflation of irrelevant points, and extreme textbook gaslighting ... that there's no way to reconcile it with anything that even remotely resembles intellectual honesty.

I'd love it if next month the SSPX would simply reverse their positon ... and see if Robinson et al. remained convicted of their prior position and had the backbone to actually disagree with the SSPX or would just start carrying water for the next thing.  I suspect the latter.  I'd rather see the former, where at least I'd have respect for them, where they'd be either hot or cold ... rather than his vomit-inducing lukewarmness that we see on display constantly with the obsequious lackeys, which of course they spin into a virtue, as "humble obedience".  Yeah, right.  Keep telling yourself that.

This family choir has been at this mission chapel since it's foundation 30+ years ago.  Their position has always been known and there is no "subversion" on their part. 

Yep.  The new-sspx is called NEW for a reason.  Tradition is the same.  The sspx has changed.  God will judge the sspx in due time.  They are the subversives to Tradition and God's true Faith.

I love how anyone who disagrees with the new-sspx is a "sede" and a subversive.

Correct.  That's textbook gaslighting.  Earlier Borat even claimed that not just sedevacantists in general but the Dimond Brothers specifically invented these doubts about the Conciliar Rites, pretty much out of thin air.  They're not rooted in any facts, such as how they completely changed the Rite of Episcopal Consecration, changed the essential form of the Rite of Ordination, and removed all references to the priest's power to offer the Holy Sacrifice (which Pope Leo XIII taught invalidated Anglican Orders) ... so pay no attention to those pesky facts, but clearly it wasn't those facts but, rather, the diseased minds of the Dimond Brothers that merely invented this out of thin air, and based on nothing.

In that earlier video from neo-SSPX they also gaslighted by claiming that the SVs "need" the NO Sacraments to be invalid and "want" them to be invalid.  Yes, I need to declare the Sacraments of the Greek Orthodox to be invalid in order to consider them schismatics outside the Church.  Yes, I WANT to not be able to drive 5 minutes to Father Bob down the street if I want to go to Confession, and to pray that I do not die before a Traditional priest flies in for Mass on the weekend.  It's so ridiculous that it simply cannot be excused of gross dishonesty.

I know many R&R Traditional Catholics who consider NO Orders to be doubtful, including several priests.  We saw an SSPX priest on video saying as much from the pulpit some time ago, and I know an independent preist active for over 50 years (since the early 1970s), never sedevacantist, who has consistently held them to be straight-up invalid, not just doubtful.  But, yes, this is a Dimondite invention.  I'm not even sure the Dimonds were out of their diapers yet when this R&R priest was already calling them invalid.

Yes, this is an outright lie and revisionist history.  Boru doesn't know anything about the origins of Tradition or the 70s.  I pity the people who listen to her.  She's an agenda-driven, sspx-cultist.

Yeah, that's what I have absolutely no use for or patience for ... where, even after you've been set straight, you persist in the same error.  That speaks to insincerity and bad will, where you have some extrinsic motivation for WANTING your opinion to be the true one, whether it's loyalty to SSPX (layment or else priests loyal to their superiors), or you have some other political agenda (wanting to cozy up with Modernists) or a personal agenda (you spent years receiving Sacraments from a Novus Ordo presbyter) ... etc.  St. Thomas teaches that since the natural object of the intellect is truth, when the intellect clings to error, it's usually due to bad will.

I have no problem with someone who SINCERELY believes something based on reason, arguments, principles, etc. ... even if I disagree with them.  But there are some telltale signs that expose dishonesty ...

1) using obviously fallacious arguments:  strawmen, false dichotomies, appeals to authority, adhominem attacks, conflation of unrelated concerns, cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias
2) gaslighting (generally with some of the above woven into it)
3) re-stating the same erroneous allegation even after having been definitively corrected about it with irrefutable evidence

In all the defenses by SSPX for non-ordination, it's been literally NOTHING BUT the above.  There has not been presented a single halfway-credible argument.

Now, Borat introduces disciplinary infallibility, which is actually what Michael Davies used as well ... but the problem with that is that it begs the question that the Conciliar papal clamants have been legitimate popes, and disciplinary infallibility doesn't stop at preventing invalid Rites, but also bad and harmful Rites (such as a Mass we cannot assist at in good consciences).  So you can't draw some arbitrary line there.  Now, IF you claim that NOM is not intrinsically harmful, etc. ... that you need to make haste back to the "Ecclesia Dei" groups and you're not an actual Traditional Catholics, just a traditional Catholic.

But SSPX themselves do not appeal to disciplinary infallibility, and have spent decades fighting against the notion.  Strangely, despite Borat's contempt for sedevacantists, that is actually one of the main contentions of the SVs and why they conclude the SV papal claimants cannot have been legitimate popes.  Disciplinary infallibility would also cover canonizations, Canon Law, etc.

Or, others among SSPX, while agreeing with disciplinary infallibility, would claim that the NO Rites, such as the Mass, canonizations, etc. are not covered because 1) the papal claimants didn't study the canonizations thoroughly enough or 2) they did not correctly promulgate the NOM, or 3) they're not covered since they were not "Universal" but only affected the Latin Rite, etc.  Well, you could then turn that around and say that the NO Holy Orders labor under the same difficulties, and exampt them in the same way that the SSPX exempt the NOM, canonizations, etc.  So that argument doesn't fly.

What are they left with?  Gaslighting ... falsely claiming that SVs "need it to be true", and then conflating concerns, where they hold that since "re-administration" of the character Sacraments would constitute sacrilege, they must be super-sure (morally certain?) that they're INvalid before being permitted to "re-administer" the Sacrament.  So, this is a lie, since one can NEVER "re-administer" a character Sacrament.  One CAN, however, CONDITIONALLY administer it if, as per Canon Law, there's even a prudent/reasonable doubt.  If the initial attempt had been successful the Sacrament it non re-administered, and there's no sacrilege.  That is the entire point of CONDITIONAL forms of the Sacrament.  But you'll notice how they conflate and blend together these concerns ... 1000% dishonest, aka a lie.  Now, you can still sin against the Sacrament by discrespect, or even sacrilege, if you just re-administer it willy-nilly for no reason at all, other than for negative doubt.  "Just in case the priest messed up baptizing you, let me conditionally baptize anybody with a pulse."  That's a gross disrespect to the Sacrament and would be grave sin, and a sacrilege in a looser sense.  BUT, if you have merely a rational and prudent doubt or question about it, not only can you, but you even MUST administer the Sacrament conditionally, and it's very obvious that the NO changes easily meet the threshold of being not-at-all-unreasonable doubts and questions.  They tampered with the essential form, the same people that brought us the "Bastard Rite of Mass", but yeah, when writing a brand new Rite of Episcopal Consecrations, we can just TRUST these same people, right? [again, we're not considering disciplinary infallibility, since SSPX do not argue from that]  When the same people that wrecked (or appeared to wreck) the Church in so many other ways are behind these changes, and the changes are pretty significant, that CLEARLY rises to the level of there being a rational and prudent doubt, where it's NOWHERE NEAR being in the same category as negative doubt "what if?".  You can POINT TO what gives rise to the concern.  "Look, here are changes to the essential form."  You can also look at the teaching of Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae, where he clearly teaches that the Anglican Orders are invalid (even IF someone were to amend the essential form by adding a Catholic phrase to it) simply because when the Rite was written, the authors deliberately removed all references to the priest's power to offer the Holy Sacrifice, so as to make it "suitable to", i.e. not incompatible with the "errors of the reformers".  That is PRECISELY what the authors of the New Rites (including some Prots involved in the Mass) said was their goal, to remove obstacles to Ecuмenical Unity by removing things that not "suitable to" the Prot heresies.  That not only clearly rises to the level of prudent and rational doubt, but make it all but certain that these Rites are invalid.  It's close to certain that they're invalid, to any objective observer, lacking only the declaration of legitimate Church authority.  I fully expect an "Apostolicae Curae II" after this crisis declaring them "absolutely null and utterly void".  But, short of that, the threshhold of prudent doubt has clearly been met.

Now, even IF SSPX opine (and that's all it is, their opinion) that the New Rites are valid, if they weren't so arrogant and filled with hubris, they would recognize that many intelligent men (including bishops and priests, and quite a few non-sedevacantists) have concluded OTHERWISE.  Fr. Robinson gaslights again by claiming that we should trust those who have become priests and bishops.  What are the non-SSPX priests and bishops, some of them brilliant men ... just chopped liver?  This was actually +Williamson's position, where the Rites themselves in his opinion are valid ... BUT that he would conditionally ordain as a matter of course because he realized that others have come to different conclusions, so that objectively there's an unresolved debate and therefore doubt, and also just to appease the consciences of the faithful.

In the finaly analysis, if nothing else, charity requires conditionally ordaining NO priests, since many of the faithful have troubled consciences, and they are not irrational, and they DO look to various priests and bishops who say otherwise (not only SV but even not a few R&R), and the ONLY thing that gives the SSPX or any Trad clergy legitimacy is requests from the faithful to receive the Sacraments.  That is the only (supplied) authority they have.

But instead they tell people to just shut up and accept their judgment, or else leave.  Nothing can stop them from doing that, of course ... but whether it's right or wrong, good or sinful, that's a different matter, and they will be judged by God for this, for the turmoil they cause among the Trad faithful (throwing their concerns under the bus to appease the Modernists), for quite possibly subjecting the faithful to invalid Sacraments, and even potentially the loss of some souls, who perhaps could not make an act of perfect contrition but died with invalid Sacramental absolution from Presbyter Bob.

Consequences of administering conditional and being wrong? -- not much.  No sacrilege occurs, and God will certainly excuse, and even reward, doing this ... even if it's done just out of charity to make sure that no one attending an SSPX chapel should be at all disturbed in conscience about what they are or are not receiving there.

Consequences of NOT administering conditional and being wrong? ... extremely grave, possibly resulting in the loss of souls, including their own for subjecting the faithful to invalid Sacraments.

There's simply NO CONTEST here, ZERO justification for refusing to administer the Sacraments conditionally ... and it is ALL DONE for political reasons, and for nothing else, despite what they might pretend in public and claim, to appease the Modernists so they could be on "good terms" with "Bishop" Bill ... and possibly for some malicious bad actors in SSPX, the infiltrators, to deliberately cause the loss of souls.

And that's to say absolutely nothing about their betrayal of the faith, their being traitors to Tradition, by implicitly acknowledging that the aforementioned "Bishop" Bill is a Catholic, effectively saying that you can hold all these errors and heresies and still be a Catholic in good standing.  If that's the case, then there's zero justification for the existence of SSPX, and FSSP are the better option.