I was thinking about the credibility and weight some people give to Fr. Pfieffer (and other priests, perhaps). It seems to me that since Fr. Pfieffer is right about the New-SSPX he must be right about all other things. I do not insult Fr. Pfeiffer, or any other priest who share his view, when I say that Fr. Pfieffer is no Archbishop Lefebvre; so to treat him as such, to follow him as such, would be wrong. The Archbishop had YEARS of experience in dealing with theology and politics. Relatively speaking, Frs. Pfieffer, Hewko and Chazal, are still 'wet behind the ears'. Does this demean the work they do? Not at all. Does this mean they have nothing to contribute? Quite the contrary! But it does mean that they may be wrong on certain matters. And it means that a man has to make a choice for himself (and family, if necessary) as to what is most prudential (which not ought be a boogey-word in our day, despite its misapplication by +Fellay & co.) and right. What's prudent for one may not be for another, as this isn't a matter of fact and defined truth, but of prudence.