This has been discussed to death on other threads.  Most of the sources cited in the video just defend the validity of the Thuc line in general.  I have no problem with the validity of the MAIN Thuc lines, but some of the offbeat ones, including that of Bishop Webster, may be a cause for concern.  Then the video of the consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer clearly shows a confused Bishop Webster botching the essential form to make it at least doubtful if not downright invalid.  I believe it was clearly invalid.  Now +?Pfeiffer claims that there was a conditional do-over but has produced no evidence.  Given his recent track record of lying, I cannot simply take his word for it, that the conditional happened and was not likewise botched.  Since the first attempt was so bad, I have little confidence that he would have gotten it right the second time.  Pfeiffer claims that the first one was valid, so his assertion that the second one was has zero credibility ... as he disqualified himself with his former assertion from being considered a competent witness.

Except in danger of death I would not receive the Sacraments from a Pfeiffer-ordained priest.

I think the issue for me (the OP) is the back and forth argument ‘The Thuc line is valid’, no they’re aren’t/ Thuc line isn’t valid, yes they are’. It is so confusing and I can’t make sense of it even though I’ve read all the threads here about it. New priests are coming from this continued line and the doubts about them will be problematic for some that possibly won’t have any other access to Sacraments. It is a terrible situation if doubtful ordinations and consecrations are possibly occurring when we already have a priest and bishop shortage as it is. Not only that, more virus lockdowns will make Sacraments more difficult to come by as well. I know that has been the norm for some here already, being ‘red lighters’, or those living in isolated areas, but some of us aren’t there yet and so taking a stand on something like this it would be helpful to know the truth first before you did.

This whole notion that the Thuc line is invalid comes almost entirely from Bishop Kelly fanning the flames of negative doubt for political reasons.  It's not honest and has no credibility.  Unfortunately, it tends to take hold of scrupulous people.

But, with regard to +?Pfeiffer, the +Thuc issue is only scratching the surface.  Even if someone believed that they were 100% valid in general, we have no proof that Pfeiffer was correctly/validly consecrated by Webster.

I have met a brother of his.

I think the issue for me (the OP) is the back and forth argument ‘The Thuc line is valid’, no they’re aren’t/ Thuc line isn’t valid, yes they are’. It is so confusing and I can’t make sense of it even though I’ve read all the threads here about it. New priests are coming from this continued line and the doubts about them will be problematic for some that possibly won’t have any other access to Sacraments. It is a terrible situation if doubtful ordinations and consecrations are possibly occurring when we already have a priest and bishop shortage as it is. Not only that, more virus lockdowns will make Sacraments more difficult to come by as well. I know that has been the norm for some here already, being ‘red lighters’, or those living in isolated areas, but some of us aren’t there yet and so taking a stand on something like this it would be helpful to know the truth first before you did.

.
Archbishop Thuc performed many consecrations, all of which have no real doubt surrounding them. BUT-- and this is a MAJOR but-- Thuc did not personally ordain or consecrate Neal Webster or Joseph Pfeiffer.  There is a lineage that starts with Thuc in this case, but then goes through the schismatic Palmarian sect for three or four bishops/"bishops" before it emerges from that sect and finds its way to Neal Webster, and then from Neal Webster to Joseph Pfeiffer.
.
Now, the Palmarians changed the rite of Mass.  That is extremely bold, and it leads many to wonder whether or not, when ordaining and consecrating, they actually used the Roman Ritual or if they changed that, too.  To my knowledge, there is no conclusive evidence for them changing the ordaining rites but how can you be sure?  If someone is bold enough to change the Mass then they are bold enough to change the other sacraments, too (just look at the Novus Ordo). 
.
Are you starting to see the problem?  The validity of Fr. Pfeiffer's consecration depends on schismatics who changed the rite of mass using the rite consecration formula-- not once, not twice, but three or four times.  In my opinion, there are more than sufficient grounds to treat such lines as doubtful.
.
Now, someone might counter-argue that Webster's consecration was done by a certainly valid bishop who certainly knew how to consecrate (Slupski), it is 'only' his (Webster's) priestly ordination that comes through the troublesome Palmarian line. It is disputed amongst theologians whether a man can be consecrated validly as a bishop without first definitely and validly receiving priestly orders.  Pfeifferites will act like it is a settled matter, but it is not. And positive doubts regarding sacraments (i.e., doubts that are grounded in a reason, and a dispute among experts is certainly a reason) must be taken seriously, meaning that we do not participate in those sacraments except in the most extreme of need.
.
So, do you see how just claiming 'but the Thuc line is valid' totally dismisses all of these problems out of hand? In the vast majority of cases Thuc line clergy (e.g. the CMRI, SGG, MHT) are unquestionably valid because in the United States most of them have very clear and completely Catholic lineages.  But occasionally there are people claiming 'Thuc line lineage' that come from one of these obscure, schismatic, Palmarian offshoots, and that is the case with Webster/Pfeiffer.  No amount of foot stomping and hand waving that 'The Thuc line is valid' addresses this issue.
.
This is just a cliffs' note summary-- you can read more details and specifics in any of the threads about the matter.  And do not forget, the questionable lineage of Webster is only one problem: even were it not a problem, there is the fact that Webster quite clearly, on video, did not clearly and correctly consecrate Pfeiffer. Obviously Pfeiffer claims a conditional consecration was administered afterward, and that is all well and good, but when the reference point for Webster's competence is him stumbling over the most important and essential part of the ceremony-- indeed, the most important thing he will ever do in his entire life-- I think it is reasonable to demand more than just Pfeiffer's word that they got it right in secret afterwards.  There really is no benefit of the doubt to be given when the only evidence we have is of incompetence.  In that case, it seems to me that competence must be proved rather than assumed. 

.
Archbishop Thuc performed many consecrations, all of which have no real doubt surrounding them. BUT-- and this is a MAJOR but-- Thuc did not personally ordain or consecrate Neal Webster or Joseph Pfeiffer.  There is a lineage that starts with Thuc in this case, but then goes through the schismatic Palmarian sect for three or four bishops/"bishops" before it emerges from that sect and finds its way to Neal Webster, and then from Neal Webster to Joseph Pfeiffer.
.
Now, the Palmarians changed the rite of Mass.  That is extremely bold, and it leads many to wonder whether or not, when ordaining and consecrating, they actually used the Roman Ritual or if they changed that, too.  To my knowledge, there is no conclusive evidence for them changing the ordaining rites but how can you be sure?  If someone is bold enough to change the Mass then they are bold enough to change the other sacraments, too (just look at the Novus Ordo).  
.
Are you starting to see the problem?  The validity of Fr. Pfeiffer's consecration depends on schismatics who changed the rite of mass using the rite consecration formula-- not once, not twice, but three or four times.  In my opinion, there are more than sufficient grounds to treat such lines as doubtful.
.
Now, someone might counter-argue that Webster's consecration was done by a certainly valid bishop who certainly knew how to consecrate (Slupski), it is 'only' his (Webster's) priestly ordination that comes through the troublesome Palmarian line. It is disputed amongst theologians whether a man can be consecrated validly as a bishop without first definitely and validly receiving priestly orders.  Pfeifferites will act like it is a settled matter, but it is not. And positive doubts regarding sacraments (i.e., doubts that are grounded in a reason, and a dispute among experts is certainly a reason) must be taken seriously, meaning that we do not participate in those sacraments except in the most extreme of need.
.
So, do you see how just claiming 'but the Thuc line is valid' totally dismisses all of these problems out of hand? In the vast majority of cases Thuc line clergy (e.g. the CMRI, SGG, MHT) are unquestionably valid because in the United States most of them have very clear and completely Catholic lineages.  But occasionally there are people claiming 'Thuc line lineage' that come from one of these obscure, schismatic, Palmarian offshoots, and that is the case with Webster/Pfeiffer.  No amount of foot stomping and hand waving that 'The Thuc line is valid' addresses this issue.
.
This is just a cliffs' note summary-- you can read more details and specifics in any of the threads about the matter.  And do not forget, the questionable lineage of Webster is only one problem: even were it not a problem, there is the fact that Webster quite clearly, on video, did not clearly and correctly consecrate Pfeiffer. Obviously Pfeiffer claims a conditional consecration was administered afterward, and that is all well and good, but when the reference point for Webster's competence is him stumbling over the most important and essential part of the ceremony-- indeed, the most important thing he will ever do in his entire life-- I think it is reasonable to demand more than just Pfeiffer's word that they got it right in secret afterwards.  There really is no benefit of the doubt to be given when the only evidence we have is of incompetence.  In that case, it seems to me that competence must be proved rather than assumed.

Great post.  Thanks.  I love cliffs' notes summaries, especially clear ones like this.