I didn't hear something different, but wondered if the words he spoke meant something specific or were just non words which may prove he didn't mean to change anything to mean something different?  Or does that not really matter in the sense that the words simply must be said.  I agree, he could remove doubt by conditionally reconsecrating.    

Yes, for the purposes of our discussion (ie., validity of form), it does not matter whether or not he chose to mispronounce words of the essential form, but only the degree to which he mispronounced them (ie., whether the degree of the mispronunciation changes the sense and meaning which the words convey), although in the same passages cited earlier, St. Thomas teaches that one who deliberately mispronounced would manifest a contrary intention to “do what the Church does,” and invalidate the sacrament for defective intention.

It would seem to me that replacing “minister” with “mystery,” and replacing “summam” with “sanum” (ie., “sound”) are substantial mutations which do not at all convey the same sense as the words of the essential form.

This alone suffices to introduce positive doubt (and possibly outright invalidity) into this consecration.

In fact, I would consider this consecration more doubtful than the three main Thuc consecrations, because as regards the latter, we have only some concerning speculations regarding Thuc’s mental state, and how this might impact his intention which, to a large degree is a matter of the internal forum, whereas with the Pfeiffer consecration, we have a substantial and recorded botching of the words of the essential form (presuming always that Ladislaus has heard properly, but which nobody is challenging; I will listen myself tonight).

Ps: Interestingly, as the video is recorded, Rome (albeit modernist Rome) will have an opportunity to pronounce upon the validity of this consecration, and if they did not dishonestly declare the “h0Ɩ0cαųst denying” bishop’s consecrations invalid, I might still have grounds for an honest determination in the case of this one.  In fact, petitioning tgem for a judgment might be the charitable thing to do.

Guess what?

I already archived the video. Here it is (625 MB) and anyone can download it -- not just those who are logged in:




It looks like the software auto-inflates the link into a playable video. That's neat.
For those who want to DOWNLOAD it, just right click and select "Save Video as..."

For those who want to listen on this video, the essential form here begins right around 59:10.  It's hard to pick up because he doesn't pause between sentences but runs into it almost making it sound like "comple" goes with the previous sentence, so you may want to start at 59:08 or something and listen for "comple".

So there's a story out there very similar about when Bishop Mendez ordained Fathers Greenwell and Baumberger.

When he got to the essential form, Bishop Mendez sped up and started garbling the words to the point that the priests there could not verify that he said it correctly.  So they asked him to repeat it.  Finally, Bishop Kelly asked Father Zapp, "Did he get it right that time?" to which he responded, "I think so."

http://www.fathercekada.com/2001/09/11/bp-mendez-sspv-and-hypocrisy/

Didn’t Bp. Mendez show he was a tra­ditionalist by ordain­ing two priests for SSPV in September 1990?

-Had no wish to be identified publicly as traditional Catholic or even associ­ated with ceremony.
-Arrived, as usual, in lay clothes.
-Performed ordination ceremony in se­cret.
-Followed Novus Ordo rules and did not ordain can­didates to subdiaconate before. (Subdiaconate is when semi­narians take on celibacy obligation.)
-Refused to wear all the traditional vestments.
-Insisted ceremony not be videotaped: “Get that thing out of here!”
-When he arrived at Preface of Ordin­ation, which contains the essen­tial sacramental form, sud­denly began rac­ing through it so quickly that it was incomprehensible.
-Became angry when asked to repeat es­sential part.
-Then repeated it in way that prompted following exchange: Fr. Kelly: “Did he get it right that time?” Fr. Thomas Zapp: “I think so.”
-Ceremony continued on basis of “Think so.”
-Fr. Zapp says he cannot vouch for cer­tain that Mendez finally said essential words properly.
-Bishop’s conduct during ceremony was such that af­terwards in sacristy Fr. Kelly shook his head, told Fr. Zapp: “Never again. I’ll never do this again.”
-Mendez used a false name to disassoci­ate himself from ordination: “Bishop Francis Gonzalez.”
-Lied and denied in writing that he per­formed ordi­nation, calling it “an ugly rumor.” (Letter to Fr. Scott, 17 October 1990)

What?  If both are in need of conditional consecration don't they need a valid bishop to consecrate one of them first?  

No, each believes that the OTHER is in need of conditional consecration.  So this way they could make peace and start working together again.  Entire families were torn apart when the two camps broke with one another, with Cincinnati being split in two (between the school and original chapel), then there were competing churches in the same town, etc.  It was a mess that didn't need to happen.

Looks like the video is still accessible on Pablo's youtube channel.

I also found this there:


Enjoy.  

So now that a couple of well-trained priests have chimed in with their opinion that it was not valid, what will the response be from the +?Pfeiffer camp?

This would be pretty easy to rectify, with Bishop Webster still being around and available to conditionally redo it.