[Fr. Pfeiffer in the video:] Those who are familiar with St. Thomas Aquinas recognize that what is the rule of the Church about the validity of a sacrament? When a minister [...] is saying the words of the sacrament, if any ordinary man can tell they were saying those words, they were saying the words that were in that book, and they were pronouncing the words in that book to make the consecration happen, or make an ordination happen, or make Christ present on the altar, and any ordinary man can tell that these are the words he was striving to say, and therefore [sic] these sacraments are valid. However, he did say all the words correctly anyway [??!!], but in the recording it doesn't come out perfectly ...

St. Thomas notes that, if the change in the words is at the beginning of the words, the sense is generally altered essentially or substantially, but not usually if the change takes place at the end of the words. If the corrupt forms cannot have other than a sacramental sense, they generally remain valid forms. Thus the separation of individual words of or syllables does not constitute a substantial alteration, unless the interval is long enough to alter the meaning of the sentence (more easily admissible when syllables are separated). In such a case the moral unity of the form as one complete prayer is destroyed by the interruption and also by such grammatical changes or mistakes as could actually change the meaning of the form. Substantial alteration may also be risked by faulty articulation or by clipping words through haste. In practice, where a complete word is de facto interrupted through a pause between syllables, it is advisable to repeat the word, unless the interruption is extremely slight.

Yes, there are too many contradictions here.

So there was the initial story relayed by Tradman from those within the group that the MC noticed the problem right away and that a conditional consecration took place right after the ceremony.  This would not have been a function of a poor recording.

But now +?Pfeiffer is saying that the conditional consecration took place the following morning.

He says at first that there were no doubt about the essential form, but then decides the following morning that there was sufficient doubt to perform a conditional consecration.  If there's no doubt, then it's sinful to perform a conditional consecration.  Despite there being no doubt, he concedes that +Webster did "slightly mispronounce" one word, slightly enough to justify conditional consecration.

Then he claims to have access to a superior audio recording.  At another time he says, that they "cleaned up" the audio ... whatever that means.

We had another agent on CI here claiming that it was just a pronunciation issue.  +?Pfeiffer also says there was a pronunciation issue (albeit a "slight" one).

So was it a pronunciation issue or was it a problem with the audio quality?  When you come up with two different explanations for what took place, that's prima facie evidence that you have already come to a conclusion and are seeking to justify it after the fact.

No, as Fr. Chazal points out, it's very obvious that Bishop Webster is struggling with the Latin and does not understand it ... and the slip-ups are obviously a function of that.  He stumbles throughout the entire preface, and he does not recognize the "comple" begins a new thought and a new sentence, does not understand that in sacerdote tuo (in sacerdotibus tuis) actually represents two OPTIONS, one of which must be selected (this is incredibly common in Sacramental texts, e.g. Baptisms ... so I don't see how this would not be familiar to a 20-year priest), and he gets so messed up towards the end that he has to pause for 5 seconds.  So I agree with Fr. Chazal that it comes across that he does not understand what he's reading.  This was by no means attributable to just sloppy pronunciation, i.e. how you pronounce certain vowels.  When he was not stumbling, he was actually fairly consistent with the pronunciation and it was easy to pick up how he rendered various vowels.

Not only that, be he very strongly implies that he is the ONLY "true son" of +Lefebvre left, that both the SSPX and the Resistance have broken with +Lefebvre.

These tactics are straight out of the malignant narcissist's playbook.  He's claiming there was no error because he's trying to get ahead of the narrative.  It's the pre-emptive defense.  He's worried that Webster is going to go public with an announcement that there was no conditional reconsecration.  Some of the narc tools used by Pfeiffer:

• smear campaign (maligning Webster, feeneyites, sedes)
• gaslighting (there was no defect, you didn't hear anything, you don't understand St. Thomas)
• blameshifting (I was forced to take this step because +Williamson wouldn't help me)
• projection (Fr. Chazal was the one who wanted to be a bishop, not me)
• victim mentality (I've been abandoned by my friends and supporters, I have no help)
• word salad (well, I, um, um, um, that's because, you see, you've got to understand, it wasn't like that)
• generalizing (the New Mass is from hell, +Williamson supports the New Mass, +Williamson is condemned)
• stalking (showing up uninvited to consecrations, ordinations, funerals)
• triangulation (invoking +ABL, saying that Pablo is the bad cop, bragging about his badass daddy)

So my prediction is that some time in the next few days Pfeiffer will admit there was no do-over because "there was no defect of form so it wasn't necessary".

Bishop Pfeiffer explains it here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VjAf94rfQ5o

This is all completely false.