Pfeiffer certainly hasn’t wasted any time getting down to business!

He ordained Sub-Deacons and Deacons?

How many?

Pfeiffer certainly hasn’t wasted any time getting down to business!

Pure insanity.

...and Jean Laborie, Jean Pierre Danyel, Hugh George de Willmott-Newman, William Bernard Crow, Aleister Crowley, Theodor Reuss, et al. by way of Terrasson’s ordination.  

Ah, how could I forget?  There should be a prominent picture of His Holiness Pope Gregory XVII, Clemente Dominguez, from whom his orders partially derive (leading to the priestly ordination of Fr. Webster).

OK, I've poked fun at +?Pfeiffer about the "Da michi shpudibush," but I'm sure it was largely a joke on his part.  I cannot speak to his grasp of Latin because he was a year or two ahead of me at Seminary and I never had any classes with him (and I didn't take Latin there at all).

Joe (before he became a priest) was actually a very jovial, fun-loving guy ... and I really like him.  I'm not sure what happened over the years to make him bitter.  People say he changed a lot after the summer-camp drowning, and I surmise that Pablo has had a diabolical influence upon him.  We should really pray for him, and see is an exorcist if available to go after Pablo.  I really looked up to and respect his brother Tim, Father Timothy Pfeiffer, but the latter was much more serious, while Joe like to goof around a fair bit, so the "Shpudibush" was at least partly a joke.

OK, so I just now had a chance to listen to his sermon.

Did he REALLY refer to the "Holy Papacy of Francis"?

Also, when he started talking about repeating the essential form afterward, he stuttered very badly, to the point of sounding like porky pig (in those old cartoons).  He was fairly fluent until he got that point and then started stuttering badly.  That suggests to me that he's not being totally honest.  I doubt very much that they noticed during the ceremony that it was a problem, since if they had, they would have had Bishop Webster repeat it right away.  He implies that this was corrected immediately after the ceremony.  I doubt it.  They probably just became aware of the problem after this thread and the Novus Ordo Watch post.

Without a video, I don't buy it.

OK, so I just now had a chance to listen to his sermon.

Did he REALLY refer to the "Holy Papacy of Francis"?

Also, when he started talking about repeating the essential form afterward, he stuttered very badly, to the point of sounding like porky pig (in those old cartoons).  He was fairly fluent until he got that point and then started stuttering badly.  That suggests to me that he's not being totally honest.  I doubt very much that they noticed during the ceremony that it was a problem, since if they had, they would have had Bishop Webster repeat it right away.  He implies that this was corrected immediately after the ceremony.  I doubt it.  They probably just became aware of the problem after this thread and the Novus Ordo Watch post.

Without a video, I don't buy it.

If I were in his shoes, given all the issues surrounding the first doubtful/invalid attempt, I would certainly have recorded any subsequent conditional consecration, so that prospective seminarians, parents, faithful, and adversaries would have one less concern.

If such a recorded video does not emerge demonstrating not only the fact of the conditional consecration, but also a valid rendition of the essential form, I think I am inclined to agree with Ladislaus that doubts will be justified (despite my own previous common sense observations that it would be crazy for the seminarians to accept orders in the very ceremony in which Fr./Bp. Pfeiffer acknowledges the defect of form).
A fact trumps conjecture.

Lad has been hitting the nail on the head this entire thread.

If I were in his shoes, given all the issues surrounding the first doubtful/invalid attempt, I would certainly have recorded any subsequent conditional consecration, so that prospective seminarians, parents, faithful, and adversaries would have one less concern.

Indeed! Especially with that "cesspool" of CathInfo. You don't want to give those guys any rope to hang you with!

Seriously, from his perspective we're all a bunch of Al-qaeda terrorists, and I sit in a chair all day twirling my mustache and petting a cat. Even though our collective "fraternal correction" calling out Fr./Bp. Pfeiffer is actually the best form of charity called for in this situation -- he sees it differently. From his perspective, he has many "enemies".

If the only thing out there on the Internet forever is the video showing how slipshod the ceremony was, how frail the consecrator was, etc. I would be the first one getting that conditional consecration video out there POST HASTE.

The correction needs to be as concrete, certain, popular, and available as the original defective ceremony *which now Fr. Pfeiffer himself admits was defective*. And might I point out that first ceremony is available everywhere "forever" since I've mirrored it on my server now. So he has to match THAT.

If Father didn't record and/or refuses to release the conditional consecration ceremony, he has a lot to learn about marketing, propaganda, etc. You don't want the last thing people see to be a screw-up. Everyone is going to see it and walk away shaking their heads, "THAT needs to be fixed..."

Seeing something on video? That's real. Taking Fr. Pfeiffer's word for something? Much more hit-and-miss. Proof trumps hearsay. And when it comes to verbal testimony from Fr. Pfeiffer, sometimes it's true, but many times it's not. Sad, but true. I could list many lies Fr. Pfeiffer has told publicly, but I don't have time right now. There are many threads on CI about this.