So, Holy Orders were given by Our Lord for those in Orders to SERVE the faithful and to SERVE the Church, not to Lord it over them.  To use those Orders as weapons contradicts the very reasons for which Our Lord conferred them upon the Church in the first place.

When Bishops with valid Orders find others laboring under doubtful ones, especially others with whom they have no serious (as in Catholic vs. non-Catholic) disagreements about various issues related to the Crisis, they have a grave obligation to get that rectified.

So these bishops also have to recall that they have NO AUTHORITY at all, really, no actual episcopal jurisdiction, and have the Orders only in order to keep alive the Sacraments for the remnant faithful, so you're not conferring jurisdiction on anyone or appointing them to a See, etc.  You're merely helping to perpetuate the Sacraments, which is all your role is for at this time anyway.  They were not given to you FOR you, because you're such a great guy and deserve to have the faithful bowing their heads to you and calling you "Your Excellency".  Nobody is worthy of these Orders, and you're only carrying them as Christ's representative.  They were given to you to SERVE the faithful, as Our Lord taught at the mandatum on Holy Thursday.

If everyone is worried about the qualified of the Boston "seminary", then maybe you should all join forces to put something more solid together and work together on this instead of playing games.

If he's not a valid bishop, this must be fixed for the sake of the poor faithful, and for Father/Bishop Pfeiffer.

Nothing in Pfeifferville can be fixed until Pablo is ousted.  He's the elephant in the room, which I'm sure +W was aware of.  Until Fr P gets rid of Pablo, he cannot be trusted.  Let's not let temporary emotion cloud the major problems which still exist.

You're effectively saying every Trad priest that wants to be a bishop should be consecrated as such.
If the completely valid bishops deny them, then they simply find anyone else and then come back around a claim it's the valid bishop's duty to fix the mess.
If BpPfeiffer had been consecrated by Moran, would your thoughts be the same?

Lad, Mater has a point. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, your idea needs tweaking. There’s also the issue with a certain person at OLMC who stays by Bp./Fr.’s will, permission, or perhaps fear and brainwashing. Even if conditionally consecrated, if said evil influencer is not renounced and permanently banished, what difference does it make?  
Lad, however, you DO have a point about the effect on the laity of bishops and priests using the Sacraments like weapons against one another in order to wipe out the opposition’s foot soldiers. I refer to laity as being stuck in the crosshairs, pawns in an unholy game of chess where they are viewed as dispensable. Whether by carelessness or intent, the effect is the same. How many lay persons are out there, victims of triangulation between warring clergy?  There are struggling Catholics who long for a Mass to attend and to receive the Sacraments, to have Catholic family and friends to turn to in times of need, but who have none of these because of in-fighting, not their fault, who find themselves exiled in the midst of traditional Chapels and their fellow Catholics. God help the children raised under such conditions. Except for an extreme miracle, those children find themselves deprived of the normal means of salvation while seeing their relatives and peers enjoying a healthy spiritual, social, and emotional life. Come the age time to choose a state of life, no venue to the religious life is available and there is nobody to marry. 98% of these will take a worldly, novus ordo, or heretical spouse. 1.5%, maybe more, will fall headlong into the world, and 1/2% will fail to mature, remain at home, become a recluse, and after both parents are gone, be cast into the world unable to cope. Raised in such a state from early on or birth, when these souls turn to lives of sin it is partly due to ignorance. 
Those who find themselves adult victims of triangulation cannot plead ignorance. They are left with the choice of choosing one clique and adopting lack of charity towards all others, choosing a clique and pretending to reject others (lead the double life of a hypocrite), or soldering on alone. If the issues dividing the factions were matters of morality, then yes, the only choice pleasing to God is to go it alone. But when factions are based upon human points of view, however learned, matters of jurisdiction, authority, or matters lacking definitive ruling of the Magisterium, to whom shall Christ impute guilt?  The soul who knows Christ’s commands to confess his sins, to eat His Body, and drink His Blood, to hear Mass all Sundays and Holy Days but fails to do so because Christ’s servants have barred him from so doing?  Or shall the solo soul obey God while secretly disobeying those very servants of Christ whom He has commanded to shepherd and father the sheep? For me it has turned into a dilemma without solution. Most of the time, there is no choice. I cannot adopt “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”  There’s nothing to ask or tell. Everyone knows. Everyone says to stay away despite the fact that my conscience does not hold me guilty. My “guilt” consists of people I know with whom those in charge disagree. Or my associates have committed some “sin” (or not, God knows), in the distant past for which they’ve never been let off the hook. By long distance in time and place, I’m somehow held guilty for events that occurred when I was still a minor under my parents’ roof, between persons I wouldn’t meet for 30 years. In places I’m unknown, I go by “Don’t ask; don’t tell” in order to receive the Sacraments, all the while recognizing if the people or priest knew about certain associations or friendships, even if not sins to the best of my understanding, they’d deny me the Sacraments. So I’m damned if I do, and damned if I don’t.  
Picture a young teen of divorced parents in a custody battle. Mother says, you can live with me if you repudiate your father and have nothing to do with him ever again. Father says you can live with him only if you repudiate your mother and promise to never again have anything to do with her. The judge says, you must choose one. Of course, you love both and cannot, in justice, be forced to make an immoral decision. What does the teen do?  Which is the right choice?  
What would Bp. Williamson say? What does Our Lord say?  Our Lady?  What is the answer according to moral theology?  

The more I see, the more I realize how important it is not to trust Traditionalist priests and to be annonymous. Otherwise, you run the risk of being left without the sacraments, because you have been to somebody else's mass.

Get in, confess, hear mass, receive Holy Communion and go home.

Either this or you are limited to the sacraments just from a certain group of priests, since all the others will "excommunicate" you.

It gets harder as time goes by.

I hate your answer, but I fear it’s the only option. Add traditionalist Catholics to the list of those not to trust. Aside from finding worldly (bad) companions, that leaves me alone so far as other human beings. Since 2018, eight of nine Catholic friends have died. The one remaining lives 1,000+ miles away and I can’t travel like I did when younger.  I have no family left except for a few distant half cousins given over to the rainbow brigade. I’ve had nothing to do with them since 2012 when the youngest, got her “bottom surgery” at tax payer expense, 🤮 age 19! Instead of the usual Christmas Eve luncheon, there was a celebration for “Andy” female turned male, and her new partner, “Michelle,” male turned female. Obviously, I did not attend and have had no communication from that branch of the family since. At present, my only company is a cat who lacks in the brain department and is obsessed with my feet, socks, and shoes. She eats house spiders but is afraid of mice. 🐀 🐈 
I do have more time to pray and meditate, but I’ve discovered I’m not able to focus for long periods as before. The same with spiritual reading. I try, but the harder I try, the more I find my mind either drifting or just blank despite reading the words.
For whatever reason, this seems to be my cross. 
Please pray for me that I carry it better.

I am shocked to learn from this sermon of Fr Pfeiffer that he considers the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary to have been properly performed by Pope Francis in accordance with the wishes of Our Lady of Fatima: around 1:31 - 1:32

I think the suggestion of Ladislaus has merit, and I have thought about it myself.

Strictly speaking, what Mater Dominici says is right, but we are not in normal times.

I'm certainly in no place to judge all the issues that may be involved such as Pablo, as Pax mentions.

However, while the positions adopted by Frs Pf and Hewko were gravely scandalous at the time, they are not heretics and we are in a crisis. Their concerns were, after all, understandable, even if their reactions were exaggerated (to say the least). There is no longer a clear moral head of the Resistance and it is well and truly divided into isolated pockets. The greater scandal may be to leave them with doubtful orders. I don't think it will create a precedent in terms of emboldening priests to appoint themselves to the bishopric. In terms of their formation, the priests trained at OLMC will not be the most ignorant priests in the Resistance to have been given orders. I think the proposal deserves consideration by those in authority.

You're effectively saying every Trad priest that wants to be a bishop should be consecrated as such.

No, and that's why I added that it should be done for any established congregation of good faith, i.e. in good faith as Traditional Catholics, to rule out the notorious Order-collectors, such as the clowns who get ordained/consecrated by a dozen Orthodox and/or Old Catholic types.

We're talking about established groups with legitimate needs to care for the faithful.

One need simply look at the souls who depend on Bishop Pfeiffer's chapel and missions, etc. and take pity on them, many of whom just don't know better and are just trying to save their souls.

Bishop Pfeiffer is not just some vagus who came out of nowhere, with decades of experience as a priest, and in fact left SSPX at the same time as many of the others for the same reaons.

While he took some bad turns, the faithful at his chapels shouldn't be punished for it.

Saraments were given for the salvation of souls, not as weapons against groups you don't like or against rival groups, etc. ... as SSPV have done.  That's another situation.  It's not like +Dolan and +Sanborn et al were these unknown quantities running around collecting Orders, but they have legitimate established chapels and faithful to care for.  AND there's not a lick of theological disagreement between them that's worth harming souls over and costing the salvation of souls.  +Kelly et al. should have promptly offered to do mutual conditionals for the peace of all involved.  Instead not a few families were ripped apart by the stupidity.

After this eulogy, they should let bygones be bygones and offer conditional consecration to Bishop Pfeiffer.

So, the thing that His Excellency Bishop Williamson was KEENLY aware of is that neither he nor the bishops he consecrated have any real (as in jurisdictional) authority and are merely emergency dispensers of Sacraments in these times of apostasy.

In fact, he was criticized for consecrating Bishop Zendejas because the latter was not considered qualified from an intellectual perspective to be a bishop, and His Exellency responded that it was unnecessary given the role of these bishops, to care for the needs of the faithful.  That is WHY Bishop Williamson deemed it expedient to consecrate so many, and also why he never set up an organization.  I know his thinking on the matter quite well, as he articulated it long before he was expelled from SSPX and shortly aftere the death of Archbishop Lefebvre.

https://fsspxranglia.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/interview-with-bishop-williamson-on-the-episcopal-consecration-of-fr-zendejas/

Here are some of the relevant portions of this (questions in plain text, with Bishop Williamson's responses in italics, and the bolding is mine to emphasis parts I find relevant) ...

... a famous and arbitrary commentary in a Forum questioned the intellectual / academic aptitude of Fr. Zendejas for the episcopate (although when consecrated bishop will have almost 25 years more of priestly experience and maturity that Bishop Fellay had in his). What would Your Excellency respond to such an accusation?

The Catholic Church always needs a number of well-trained priests, but most of the priests of old had little more than their seminary training.

He's absolutely correct.  I've known quite a few pre-V2 priests who, let's just say, couldn't make it through 2 years at STAS.

In the Eleison Commentaries announcing the Episcopal Consecration, His Excellency explained the need for authority, and in combination with its analogy or parallel to the geographical location of the four original bishops of the SSPX with the four bishops of the Resistance, some are Trying to extract from this reference to geography and authority, an intention of him to impart territorial jurisdiction to the bishops of the Resistance. Presumably, that ridiculous dispute will be dispelled by the reading of the Apostolic Mandate, but in the meantime, could you say a few words in this regard?

Monsignor Lefebvre was very clear when he consecrated the four bishops in 1988, which was not intended to give them any kind of jurisdiction as only Rome is able to give. They were to be simply the Church’s emergency lighting system as long as the normal lights of the Church were obscured. In the same way, Fr. Zendejas will receive the Sacred Order of the Episcopate to be able to act sacramentally as Bishop, but will have no geographical jurisdiction in North America or anywhere else.

His Excellency concurred with the opinion I too have long emphasized here, that the current Trad bishops are merely emergency dispensers of the Sacraments for the salvation of souls and the good of the faithful.  Without that need, there's no justification for their consecrations, so if they use those Orders CONTRARY to the needs of the faithful, they will be held accountable for wrongly usurping Holy Orders.

Eastern Rites have LONG had "chor-bishops" and Latin Rite dioceses "auxliary bishops", who while they had episcopal Orders and

Is Bishop-elect Zendejas expected to confine his ministry to the SAJM (in much the same way that the FSSPX bishops confine their ministry to the SSPX), or the worsening situation in the Church will force him into a wider apostolate (If not ex officio, then at least ex caritate) ?

The main idea behind the consecration of Fr. Zendejas is that on the American soil a duly dedicated orthodox Catholic bishop is accessible as a reliable source of true Catholic doctrine and sacraments, including priests. As the crisis in the Church deepens and deepens, it is possible that in the coming years more and more Catholics and non-Catholics will see the usefulness of a bishop and turn to their services (Jn XII, 20-21) to help them To go to heaven.

His Excellency refers to the future Bishop Zendejas as a bishop “duly consecrated”.Does this affirmation imply that His Excellency retains certain doubts regarding the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration?

Readers of the Eleison Comments will recall two issues, about two years ago, in which an article of Fr. Álvaro Calderón was summarized about the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration. He is one of the best theologians in the SSPX. His conclusion was that the new Rite is probably valid, but a shadow of doubt looms over his neomodernist intentions: Do you really intend to produce a Catholic bishop? The surplus is enough for Fr. Calderon to judge that ideally, all newly consecrated bishops must be reconsecrated under condition.

As Bishop-elect Zendejas speaks Spanish and English, it would seem that he would be suitable to carry out duties in Australasia, where those languages are common in the Philippines and Oceania. Is it contemplated that he will take over the duties (eg Confirmations and ordinations, etc.) in that part of the world?

Time will tell. While the planes fly, Fr Zendejas can travel.

Here's yet another glimpse into why Bishop Williamson has been consecrating bishops for different parts of the world.  He (rightly, IMO) suspects that there are more (and probably much worse) lockdowns coming, and that Plandemic 2.0 was just a dress rehearsal.

The Resistance bishops have refused to collaborate with Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer and Fr. David Hewko in the United States for reasons that are well known in the hope that this charitable isolation would correct their scandalous public attacks. Is it planned to continue this policy under the episcopate of the future bishop Zendejas?

There are all kinds of pastoral questions that Father Zendejas will have to judge in the circuмstances that prevail then, because in the current chaos of the Church, all kinds of situations develop all the time.

Bishop Williamson here seems open to the situation evolving so that Bishop Zendejas might regularize relations with Father/Bishop Pfeiffer, and this last eulogy from Bishop? Pfeiffer appears to be just such an evolution.

One opinion says that, in the light of the relatively small number of Resistance faithful (at least compared to those of the SSPX), this last episcopal consecration is not necessary, and therefore its justification based on need is not justified by That numberHow does His Excellency respond to this perspective?

It is not a matter of numbers or quantity, but of truth and quality. Sacred Scripture tells us (Luke XVIII, 8) that at the end of the world the Church will be very small. However, true doctrine and true sacraments will no longer be needed, and in the end there will still be a minimum number of true sacraments, and at the end there will still be a minimum number of true bishops and priests. But nothing prevents these bishops and priests from being remarkably few in number. The Truth is not democratic.

Bishop Williamson justifies the necessity of the consecrations due to his belief that we're in the great end times apostasy, and IMO he's correct.

Lad, Mater has a point. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, your idea needs tweaking.

It was already qualified, and people missed the qualification, namely, that they be Traditional groups operating in good faith, as there are many bad-willed Sacrament-seekers out there, whereas others are just attempting to help save souls.

While some cases might be a bit blurry, this one here and SSPV vs. +Sanborn/+Dolan are clear cases where it's would constitute a grave moral failure to not step in an remedy the situation.  Now, if a Bishop Zendejas had made peace with Bishop Pfeiffer and the latter refused, there's no much you could do, other than perhaps offering conditional ordination individually to priests, etc.

Now, one could say these faithful should just "go to some other group" ... as if everybody has access to more than one.  Some do, but many others do not, and even if they do, they're not equippped to discern for themselves whether the various debates about the Sacraments are legitimate or not.