Sean beat me to it, he wrote the post above mine as I was writing this below:

Not so similar in need, as Fr. Zendejas was not seeking to be consecrated, he was asked "would you consent to being consecrated a bishop?".   Whereas Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking "please, someone consecrate me!"

This.

Are you a Pope Michael follower, Matto?

No, that part of my post was a joke, but a joke with a point similar to the point you made about the SSPV. My main point, that the consecration of Pfeiffer is similar to the Williamson consecrations, I would stand by "if and only if Bishop Pfeiffer is not a scoundrel, but if he is a true believer in his message and the gospel". I expected him to go to a Thuc Bishop years ago. I don't know what took him so long. And I wonder if there will be a revolt among his followers now similar to how there was over Moran. And it would be cool if Moran came out with videos excommunicating Pfeiffer and Webster.

I wish to draw attention to and underline this fact:

The issue of validity of consecration is very small. It is less than 10% of the "Bishop Pfeiffer" problem. He actually has much bigger issues in his apostolate, life, "seminary", and all that.

His spiritual life (if you can call it that), lack of discipline, adherence to an actual warlock, public sins of slander/lying against Resistance bishops, etc. are much bigger issues than his validity as a bishop.

Whether or not they are real priests, the men he ordains/"ordains" will be sorry excuses for priests. Unless they received 5-6 years training at a real Seminary somewhere else, they will be hopeless. They will be *worse* than if they had self-studied for the priesthood for 4-6 years at home.

As for the Consecrator of Bp. Pfeiffer --

1. He can't be very good, if he's willing to consecrate the likes of Fr. Pfeiffer
2. Boomers are hopeless! If he had done a single Google search, maybe he wouldn't have consecrated him. A Bishop Pfeiffer will do tons of harm to the Traditional movement and God's Church in general. But I guess if Fr. Pfeiffer wasn't in the MAGAZINES or NEWSPAPERS His Excellency subscribed to, he probably knew nothing about Fr. Pfeiffer.

Add that to the long list, along with "Vatican II", of the "gifts" the Baby Boomers gave the world. (They didn't design or create the new religion, but they accepted it. They were teens when the New Mass was foisted on the Church, and only a few of them resisted. Most of them stayed in the sappy new religion, and raised their families in it. They gave it legitimacy.) Vatican II would be dead today if it weren't for the baby boomers. Who are the remaining priests, extraordinary ministers, Lectors, who stubbornly defend Vatican II and want no part of Tradition? A bunch of aging baby boomers. Younger people are much more open to Tradition. Who defended, and held the line for the past 50 years to keep Vatican II and the New Mass? Boomers.

No offense to the Boomers on CI, but the world will only have a chance to heal and become a better place AFTER their generation has passed on.

Again, there are/were some heroic men and women of that generation -- both cleric and lay. But as a generation, they have done more harm to the world than any generation since the French who lived around 1789 and cheered on as priests were guillotined.

It makes me want to go hug a Millennial or Generation Z (Zoomer). Their generations have plenty of problems of their own, but at least they can use the blasted Internet. They aren't completely apathetic about getting to the truth of the matter. They are certainly quicker to be "redpilled" about the truth. They are more open to the truth, more willing to go against state-sponsored propaganda. I'll give them credit for that.

No offense to the Boomers on CI, but the world will only have a chance to heal and become a better place AFTER their generation has passed on.

Perhaps we are like the Israelites in the desert. We can only reach the promised land after all of the boomers have passed away.

Is it just me, or was Bishop Webster REALLY STRUGGLING with saying the essential form?

I didn't watch.  Could you tell me roughly at what minute mark it occurs?

He struggles with the entire preface beginning at about 54:45 minutes in.

54:50 - 54:54, he seems to say "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum" (Receive the Holy Ghost) while laying on his hands.  But he fumbles even this and appears to say "Spiritum Sanctum"t wice.

Then he really strumbles through the preface.

Finally ... at about 59:10/11 he starts in on the essential words of the form.

Here are the words of the essential form --

Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica.

First of all, he rolls into the "comple" from the previous sentence without a pause, making it sound like it goes with the previous thought.

so then it goes like this ... "comple in Sacerdote tuo Sacerdotibus tuis [he says both the singular and alternate plural forms ... you're supposed to pick one depending on whether you're consecrating one or more than one] misteri misterii tui [he botches ministerii confusing it with mysterii, confused by the word so he says it a second time, neither correctly ... I didn't hear any "n"] e tui [repeats the tui] sanum [botches "summam"] et ornamentis totius gori-fi-cationis [dashes being slight pauses] instructum

I'm going to have to listen another dozen times to completely get what follows, it's some garbled mess where he has to take a very long pause and someone has to fill him in.  I'll come back soon to try finishing this off.

Was he reading the latin prayer?  Maybe his pronunciation is just bad?