Wow, what a mess.

So how is the layman supposed to figure out whether the new rites are valid or not? The consequences are simply enormous.

I suppose one way would be for someone who has received sacraments from both to say whether he has noticed any difference spiritually.

Relying upon "notic[ing] any spiritual difference" has never been considered any reliable means to make that determination.  We have to apply theological principles.  Now, one of the gaslighting tactics of Fr. Robinson was to claim that laymen should leave it to the experts, ya know, the eminent theologian Fr. John Fullerton, with his multiple advanced degrees from Rome ... because they went to muh seminary and stuff.

Yeah, well, so did all those other priests, the SV types, SSPV, Bishop Sanborn ... and I have to say they're among the most brilliant priests SSPX has ever produced in the United States (even if one doesn't agree with everything they do).  What are they, chopped liver?

Bottom line, then, from a "layman's" perspective -- though I'd pit the knowledge of at least half dozen posters here in CI against Fr. Fullerton any day -- from the layman's perspective, it's disputed among Traditional priests.  That lone suffices to justify conditional ordinations, since that puts the matter into the category of being OBJECTIVELY doubtful.

Bishop Williamson was once asked about the apparent contradiction between his opinion that the NO Rites are valid with the fact that he did conditional Ordinations.  He said that even though this is his opinion, he could see someone making a solid case for the contrary, so he considered it to be in that state where the faithful and priests and others would have LEGITIMATE problems of conscience with receiving Sacraments from there.

But SSPX in their usual hubris and arrogance believe they have some authority to impose their opinion (weak at best, and cleary developed for political reasons) on the consciences of the the faithful.

Newflash to SSPX ... the ONLY thing that permits you to carry on your apostolate in this Crisis are the needs of the faithful, i.e. the faithful petitioning you for the Sacraments (per Canon Law).  Newsflash to SSPX ... you have NO authority whatsoever to impose your opinions (even if the current opinion is the opposite of last week's opnion, depending on how talks are going this week with Prevost), you have NO authority to impose your opinions on the consciences of the faithful or on the priests in the SSPX.  When one of you get in the pulpit to deliver a sermon, you're merely opining and offering suggestions to the faithful (other than in those matters defined by the Church of course).

There's no legitimate reason to NOT do conditional Ordinations.  Period.  They layer gaslighting on top of logical fallacy on top of gaslighting on top of logical fallacy ... to browbeat the faithful into simply acceptin their absurd opinion.

They start by arguing that it's a sacrilege to re-adminster the character Saraments, but then falsely say that one is permitted to re-administer them after a thorough investigation.  So, it's NEVER permitted to re-administer one of those Sacraments.  That's why there's the CONDITIONAL form of the Rite, so that if the priest is already a valid priest the Rite is not confected or attepmted to be confected, ergo, no sacrilege.  So, no, there's no sacrilege (despite their gaslighting) in performing a Conditional Ordination.  It may, per Canon Law, be performed whenever there's a PRUDENT doubt.  Now, the prohibition against the Conditionals speaks to cases where someone out of negative doubt or scruples would go around willy-nilly re-administering Baptism, Holy Orders, etc. just in case they MIGHT have been botched.  That as a larger pattern might loosely constitute a sacrilege or offense against the Sacrament.  But if you say, "hmmm, they really changed these Rites, and, well, since they gave us a rotten Mass, how can they be trusted to give us valid Holy Orders ... and a lot of intelligent and well-educated priests, and laymen, have qualms of conscience about them" ... that MORE THAN SUFFICES to justify and even required Conditional Ordination.  Period.

See, the BURDEN OF PROOF is on those who assert the validity of the Sacraments, since all one has to do is to estabilsh positive doubt (a relatively low threshold) in order to justify and require Conditional Ordination.  Positive Doubt in the practical order is the same as being invalid ... with the sole exception being that in danger of death if you have no other option you may avail yourself of postiively doubtful (but not outright invalid) Sacraments.  Not only have they failed to meet that burden, they absolutely CANNOT meet that burden to the point where their arguments are just so darn good that they can impose them on the consciences of the faithful.  Only the Church can do that.  Now, we get to the ONE ARGUMENT they could legitimatley use, except that for political reasons they cannot, namely that Rites that Legitmate Popes approve for use by the faithful cannot be invalid, per the Church's disciplinary infallibility, but then since SSPX have spent decades rejecting the very notion of disciplinary infallibility, they can't go there, even though that would be by fart he best argument.  If Pius XII had put out a new Rite and people had questions, you'd rightly just accept it based on his authority.  But the Novus Ordites?  Then of course it would dovetail with that other opinion of theirs that they impose on the faithful, that the Conciliar Putative Popes must be legitimate.

They falsely claim that the SVs must have the NO Sacraments be invalid and WANT them to be valid, when it's projection and quite the other way around.  See, I no more NEED the Greek Orthodox Sacraments to be invalid in order to reject them as a non-Catholic sect than I NEED the NO Sacraments to be invalid in order to reject the Conciliar Church.  It might help some to make the SV case, if I believe in disciplinary infallibility, but it's not essential to the case.  As for WANTing them to be invalid, yeah, right, I really wanted to spend many hours in different parts of my life finding a validly-ordained priest, and driving hours, to bring valid absolution to dying relatives, and I really want it to be the case that in an emergency I can't get Father Bob down the street to absolve me of my sins ... but must hope that I don't die until some priests comes to town for the weekend.  Yes, those are things I WANT.  Now, every Traditional Catholic, SV, R&R, or anyone else ... on SOME level wants them to be invalid, when we behold the constant sacrileges occuring against the putative Blessed Sacrament among the Conciliars, but that's a different matter, and has no logical standing in this debate.

Bottom line is what's the worst that happens if those who conditionally ordain every NO presbyter are wrong.  Nothing.  Conditional Ordination doesn't occur, and given the confusion of our day, the legitimate lack of trust in the Conciliar so-called authorities, widespread lack of faith among the Conciliars, and clear infiltration of the Church by many bad actors ... and simply because the consciences of many faithful and priests are troubled ... that MORE THAN SUFFICES to establish a reasonble justification for Conditional Ordination for which God will punish absolutely no one.  Even if it's just to put at peace consciences that are not merely driven by scruples or negative doubt, that too would suffice.  Worst thing God might give you a tiny slap on the wrist for making a poor judgment, but that would be offset by your motives of charity for the faithful and the priests involved.

Worst case if SSPX pro-validity are wrong?  Oh, faithful getting bogus Sacraments, Mass intentions being stolen by simulated Sacraments ... and even the loss of souls.  If you don't have the actual grace to make a perfect act of contrition and need Confession, and then die, having received invalid absolution, yes, the worst case, SSPX, is the loss of souls.  Are you THAT COCK SURE of your opinion that you'll risk eternal souls, and by extension your own for that opinion?  Are you kidding me?  YOU will be liable to hellfire for any souls that may be lost due to this trash, since we all know the REAL reason you assert the validity of the NO Orders, namely, because otherwise any negotiations with Rome would be non-starters, right?  Rome would never accept into their pantheon of heretics and infidels a group that questions the validity of their Sacramental Rites, where their last couple "Popes" may not even have been valid priests.

So, the sooner you admit to yourself what your real motivations are, the sooner you can set about righting the ship and saving your own souls.  Instead, you prefer to torment the consciences of the faithful who justify (and fund) the very existence of your entire ministry ... than to displease the Novus Ordite Modernists.  Isn't that right?  You'd rather let some souls be lost than to not be able to go to Rome and play footsie with the Modernists at the negotiating table.

Disgraceful and absolutely shameful !