Read from the web site, of a Sedevacantist Chapel in OH, a "Bishop" who has stepped down per Bp. Davila. The "Bishop" came to the realization of his "doubtful validity".being the Episcopal Lineage of Bp. Slupski. Another priest there, was conditionally ordained by Bp. Davila. 
     Incidentally, "Bishop" Pfieffer is also in Bp. Slupski Episcopal Lineage. I hope he will realize this.

Why does being consecrated by Bishop Slupski raise doubts about validity?  Just asking.

  Read from the web site, of a Sedevacantist Chapel in OH, a "Bishop" who has stepped down per Bp. Davila. The "Bishop" came to the realization of his "doubtful validity".being the Episcopal Lineage of Bp. Slupski. Another priest there, was conditionally ordained by Bp. Davila.
    Incidentally, "Bishop" Pfieffer is also in Bp. Slupski Episcopal Lineage. I hope he will realize this.

 A link to this website would be appreciated.

I guessed correctly ... but I guess it was via Dymek and not via Petko, but both Dymek and Petko were in turn from Slupski.

https://ourladyofvictorychapel.blogspot.com/

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lkZNKY44ZIhctCr_LiClWpYT3_aziuYp/view?pli=1

So....  There would be no question if the consecration hadn't been filmed?  Perhaps the only way to prove validity is to perform all sacraments strictly without recording devices.  I'm being facetious, of course, but orders weren't recorded from AD 33 to, at least, the 1940s and after that very seldomly until very recently.  How do we know that no bishop ever made a similar mistake that could have invalidated thousands of bishops through history?  It seems that the Church would supply for validity in such cases.

Yes, indeed ... this has crossed my mind as well.  So, had it not been for the video that surfaced later, the consecration of Petko would have been considered valid.  Let's say now some video were uncovered of the ordination of Archbishop Lefebvre and it was found that Lienart botched the ordination (deliberately? ... given that he was suspect of having been a Mason).  What then?  All these Sacraments, untold thousands of them that derive from +Lefebvre, they're all invalid now, where we get the opposite of a sanatio in radice?

So, the more I contemplate such matters, the more and more I've come to the opinion ... and others can feel free to shoot me down ... that as long as a minister has the intention to perform the Rite in question, to baptize, to absolve, to confirm, to ordain, to consecrate, where even a material botching of the essential form could and would be supplied for by the Church, based partially on Our Lord's Promise that what the Church binds on earth is bound in Heaven, so that if the Church presumes various Sacraments to be valid, so too does God hold them to be valid, and even a material defect in the essential from can be supplied for by the Church's presumption and declaration.  Nor would anything change if something were subsequently discovered.  So, for instance, if we found that video of the botched ordination of +Lefebvre, it would make no difference, and it would not require all those untold hundreds of thousands and millions of Sacraments to be re-administered.  Now, I think the cases where a couple of those Novus Ordite deacons deliberately changed the form to something invalid, those would not be supplied for by the Church, since it's clear that they were intending to do something other than what the Church does, since they refused to follow the form ... on purpose.  But it's quite obvious to all concerned that Bishop Slupski was attempting to CONSECRATE A BISHOP and that he was intending to follow the Church's Rite, to do what the Church does, and that he intended to use the correct essential form ... just that he tripped up, which is what i refer to as material error in the essential form (vs. formal error like when the deacons changed it on purpose).  That also reminds me of how we establish the correct MATTER for the Sacraments.  So, for instance, we don't need to get into a chemical analysis of the water used for Baptism, or the bread / wine for consecration at Mass, as theologians have long referred to what basically understood by common perception to be bread or water.  Similarly, if the common (and common sense) perception was that Slupski was consecrating, putting hands on the bishops going through the entire ceremony, etc. ... I personally hold this to be valid even if he botched the form.  That would also render +Pfeiffer's consecration valid.  Of course, this is obviously only my own speculative opinion, which has absolutely no support from the Church or from authority ... so that objectively speaking we must consider them to be in doubt.  I believe, therefore, that the +Slupski consecration of Petko must be considered to be objectively laboring under positive doubt and treated accordingly.

Now, here's where this one gets tricky.  It wasn't (despite my original incorrect memory) Petko who consecrated Romolla, but Dymek, who also had been consecrated by +Slupski.  So we don't have evidence that this occurred when +Slupski consecrated Dymek.  That one could have gone over without a hitch.  Was the Petko situation somehow aberrant?  As mentioned, was the lighting poor, or were the bishop's glasses not right, or ... and I've experienced this myself, despite the fact that I wear glasses, where there are just some morning on which I feel my vision is extraordinarily poor, even with my glasses on.  Or was it a year later?  In other words, it it possible to extrapolate the Petko consecration to all other ordinations/consecrations performed by Slupski, or is positive doubt by definition a specific case by specific case matter.  I lean toward the latter ... UNLESS there's evidence for a habitual sloppiness on the part of the consecrator, or evidence that he truly struggles with Latin, or at least one other situation where the same thing happened.  Thus, for instance, I would question Clemente Dominguez's attempts to confect any Sacraments since he was not even close to having been properly trained ... except that in the first few rounds of ordinations/consecrations, he had as co-consecrators and assistants at ordination two pre-Vatican II priests who had in fact been consecrated by +Thuc on the same day he was.

Sacramental theologians are clear... if you so mispronounce the words that it changes the meaning of what is being said (or makes it unintelligible, as what happened with the Petko and Pfeiffer consecrations), then the form is invalid.  There is no sanatio in radice for Holy Orders.  It's either valid at the moment or not.

Agree.

I agree with Ladislaus here.  I remember reading about a priest who was baptizing "In nomine Patria...", which, of course, means "In the name of the country..."  He was not doing so intentionally, but because of his bad Latin skills.  It was noticed by a visiting priest who contacted the diocese, which referred the case to Rome.  The decision was that no baptism had to be re-done as the priest fully intended what the Church intends and his mispronunciation did not invalidate the baptisms.  (I wish I could provide the reference, but I did read about it.  The point is that, unless there is proof that the priest did not intend to perform the sacrament correctly, the Church provides for validity when it comes to mis-speaking words and not intentionally adding or subtracting words.

Given human nature, it is incredible to believe that never, through the centuries of the Church, has any bishop not made an error in his speech while ordaining or consecrating someone.

There's a difference between a mispronunciation of one word here or there, and using a word that doesn't resemble the correct word.  In your example, "patria" is similar enough to "patri" that it is understandable what is meant.

In the case of Fr Pfeiffer, the words which Bishop Webster used were so botched as to be non-sensical.  And it wasn't 1 or 2 words, but many.  

Yes, intention is important, but so is reality.  The form/prayers are written for a reason.  

Similarly, if I go to an episcopale consecration, there's a whole lot more there that tells you that it's a Catholic Rite of Episcopal Consecration, and specifically, taking the case of Bishop Webster's attempt to consecrate Father Pfeiffer.  We all knew that he was saying the essential form, since otherwise, how would we know that he botched it.  While being gravely incorrect, we knew what he meant by it and what he intended to be doing, pronouncing the words of the essential form.  If it was so unrecognizable that we could not infer what he was doing, we'd not have been able to even say, "ah, that's invalid".

I'm referring to this as a material error regarding the pronounciation of the essential form ... distinguishing it from formal error, such as where the Rite itself was intentionally changed (Anglicans, Novus Ordo, etc.) or if some minister deliberately changes it (Novus Ordo "deacon" guy who said "We baptized ..." ... where he wasn't intending to do what the Church does, since he changed the Rite).  But it's quite clear to the common sense of anyone watching that Webster was intending to consecrate Father Joseph Pfeiffer, or that Bishop Slupski was attempting to consecrate Father Paul Petko.

Yes, I get the material vs formal error argument.  I would just break it down further into "material accident" vs "material incorrect".

If Bishop Webster can't get the latin correct enough, then my conclusions would be:
a.  He shouldn't be doing consecrations to begin with.  Preparation is key; you can't perform sacraments willy-nilly with no prep work or knowledge.
b.  If his eyesight is that poor, then he should have an assistant and/or more practice.
c.  If he was stuttering due to nervousness or anxiety, then maybe that's a GOOD THING and the consecration shouldn't have happened, or should've been invalid.

In this day and age, with the crisis, I think (for something as important as a consecration) there should be LESS leniency, not more.  We should be EXTRA CAREFUL, not extra laid-back.

Knowing Fr Pfeiffer's mode of operation, as a bull in a china shop, where everything is thrown together and a "make it happen" type of attitude, I'm sure +Webster was bull-rushed into this whole thing.  Thus, the lack of preparation.  Thus, the errors.

And I just can't fathom that God would bless this type of thing.  God does not rush things; especially spiritual things.