Well, that was the shortest Fr. Pfeiffer sermon in history.

I guess he just wanted to put it out there that he was (allegedly) conditionally consecrated.

Would be more believable is Webster was there for the sermon/announcement, or, if video would come out.

Alas, he does not have a great track record for honesty.

Wouldn't it be appropriate for *Bishop Webster* to come out and say this?

It's easy for the consecrated "bishop" to claim this -- it's in his own best interest. But how are we to know if Bp. Pfeiffer really bugged him about it, brought it up, Bp. Webster consented, etc.?

Bp. Webster saying he did it would be the same thing as him doing it -- both would be just as easy for him. Bp. Pfeiffer claiming he was re-consecrated, on the other hand -- much easier "said" than done.

One word to those seminarians: RUN.

Hopefully they can find a seminary that will accept them and a Trad organization that isn't completely vainglorious.

Cult followers tend not to leave.

On the other hand, Pfeiffer has just acknowledged there was a defect in form, and a conditional consecration was necessary (he gets credit for that much).

That being the case, wouldn't the ordinands want proof that in fact Webster repeated -properly- the consecration form??

This would imply it is true (or else these seminarians/ordinands are completely hopeless).

.
Except for obvious exceptions (danger of death), sacraments conditionally re-administered have/ought to have witnesses. 
.
Who are the witnesses? 

(One of) the scary things is that it appears Pfeiffers strategy is to initiate a blitzkreig.  Now that he regards himself as a bishop, he's going to put his hands on everyone within reach and send out ministers at the rate of rabbits... you know.

That should be obvious -- not even worth a prediction. The more priests/"priests" under him, the more glory for the Holy See of Boston, KY. And remember, he considers himself to be in a worldly fight for numbers, recognition, popularity. It's easier to call Bp. Zendejas and all the other priests "the fake resistance" when he has similar numbers to them -- or even higher numbers!

You know Fr. Pfeiffer is proud and competitive. A king over 100,000 has more glory than a king over 200.

Also, the more priests he can send out to old ladies and other desperate Trads starving for Mass (1-2 families here and there, all over the world) the more money he can bring into his coffers. He must have been hurting financially ever since his biggest draw -- Fr. Hewko -- left him. There were many locations that were "Fr. Hewko YES, Fr. Pfeiffer NO, any other random priest NO". His biggest limiting factor up till now is lack of priests. It's taken him this long to find a bishop will will consecrate him. It's a fact that he has been seeking consecration since at least 2013.

Remember, this is Fr. Pfeiffer we're talking about -- he thinks the whole world is his jurisdiction. When he plants his flag somewhere, it's his forever. Even if he abandons it. He came to San Antonio a few times in 2013, and totally abandoned the area after that. He never said Mass in Houston. Nevertheless, if you ask him today, he'll tell you Bp. Zendejas "stole" San Antonio and Houston from him. He really thinks he has "dibs" on the entire country, and even the entire world. Is he Pope now?

.
To my knowledge, sedevacantist priests do not name a bishop in the canon.
.
The una cuм clause identifies one's juridical superior, i.e., one's ordinary.  It is totally incorrect for Pfeiffer to mention Webster in the una cuм, so far as I can tell.

.
Correction: I actually listened to the sermon, and Pfeiffer said he would 'pray for' Webster at all his masses. This is ambiguous, and it is not clear (to me) that he meant he would be inserting his name in the una cuм. 

It's taken him this long to find a bishop will will consecrate him. It's a fact that he has been seeking consecration since at least 2013.

And this tells you something.  If I had a bit of time and money, I could go out right now and find a bishop to ordain and consecrate me (despite being married).  In fact, I had a +Thuc-line bishop offer to ordain me to the priesthood many years ago (but that was before I was married).

Perhaps some of the delay can be attributed to his reluctance to use a +Thuc-line bishop, most of whom are also sedevacantists.  And very few +Thuc-line bishops would consecrate a hard-line R&R.  Bishop Webster is not a theological hard-liner that way.  He has his opinions, but he doesn't bind the consciences of others with them.  I do have a lot of respect for him that way.  Maybe this might be an example of Traditional Catholics working together and helping each other out, despite such differences.  Unfortunately, he made a tragic error in judgment with this particular candidate ... not unlike +Thuc did on a number of occasions.

Why not ordain more bishops and hold a conclave on the compound and be made Pope?  

Not sure at this point he would want to make people not dependent on him. Or potential competition.