I suppose that Dom Tomas and father chazal need to close their houses of formation, because I can guarantee you that no bishop ordered them to open any institution of the sort.

Look, I think we need to pass the academic issue of "should Fr. Pfeiffer have started the seminary in the first place". It's a matter of opinion (yours is as good as mine; who only knows who is "right").

What is more important is the time period after November 2014, when Fr. Pfeiffer began open war on Bishop Williamson, and when +Williamson made a point to stop going to Kentucky. At that point, he gave it an actual vote of no-confidence, and it should have been shut down at that point. That is when Fr. Pfeiffer was clearly rejecting the authority/leadership of a perfectly good Resistance bishop.

And when a priest/group can't properly run or staff a seminary -- you need to not bother. The seminarians need to be supervised by priests, or at least devout Catholic men. No, Pablo the apostate doesn't count.

Don't forget, those young men would probably learn more by reading books all day at their homes. Whatever knowledge the 2 seminarians gained (2 years for one, 1 year for the other) could easily have been matched by a bit of book reading and self-study elsewhere. And HOW MANY thousands of dollars have been spent on this endeavor so far? This black hole?

What does a seminary normally offer? Silence, isolation from the world, spiritual good influence and direction from wise, holy and experienced priests, regular daily Mass, prayer and Divine Office said in common, help forming habits of meditation/Mass/Rosary/Scripture/spiritual reading every day, etc.

From what I've heard, these seminarians were not getting this in Boston. It sounds like most of their days were spent in "manualia" (Latin for "things manual" or manual labor) So what good is the forsaken place? Any young man who has learned anything there is obviously intelligent and fit for self-study, and could self-study elsewhere.

Should an independent priest begin any operation larger / apart from a basic chapel without the blessing of a bishop?

... sounds like a good question for a new thread. : )

What is more important is the time period after November 2014, when Fr. Pfeiffer began open war on Bishop Williamson, and when +Williamson made a point to stop going to Kentucky. At that point, he gave it an actual vote of no-confidence, and it should have been shut down at that point. That is when Fr. Pfeiffer was clearly rejecting the authority/leadership of a perfectly good Resistance bishop.

And this has always perplexed me.  What happened in November that set Father on this path?   Was it the Mexico conference or was it something else?  The leaking of the coordinator list was just a childish Pablo prank.  Like a guy who puts cherry bombs in the school toilet and laughs when the school is on lockdown.

Can anyone shed any light on what significant event triggered all this war on the Bishop at that time?

Quote from: Matthew

That is when Fr. Pfeiffer was clearly rejecting the authority/leadership of a perfectly good Resistance bishop.

How is Bishop Williamson in any legitimate way, the authority or leader of Fr. Pfeiffer? He has no canonical authority and he has continually refused to be anybody's avowed leader, officially and/or unofficially. He is, at most, an independent Bishop who's issues with SSPX authority and direction mirrored those of Fr. Pfeiffer.  They are not connected in any way except perhaps that Fr. Pfeiffer was formed and directly chosen for ordination by Bishop Williamson.

RED HERRING ALERT!

No one ever said Bp. Williamson has canonical authority over any Resistance priest.

The issue is that all over the world, virtually all Resistance priests acknowledge Bishop Williamson (and Bishop Faure) as good Resistant bishops, they are on good terms with both of them, etc.

There are really only two exceptions that I know of: Fr. Pfeiffer (and by extension, Fr. Hewko, though I think we all know that Fr. Hewko is just following Fr. Pfeiffer).

That is the problem. Why is Fr. Pfeiffer's tiny group the ONLY ONE that considers not only itself, but the whole Resistance to be "without a bishop"? Are there real issues with the Boston Seminary? Megalomania involved? Who knows. The specifics of the SSPX-MC's dysfunction are open for debate.

But what is NOT open for debate is that there is something very dysfunctional about Fr. Pfeiffer's operation. There are real, noticeable problem(s) there.


In summary:

1. Name one other Resistant priest (outside Boston KY) that considers itself/the Resistance to be bishop-less.
2. Name one other Resistant priest who attacks his fellow priests/bishops in the Resistance.
3. Name one other place (besides Boston, KY) where Bishop Williamson and/or Bishop Faure has refused to set foot.

With regards to #2, we've all seen ALL TOO MANY attacks coming from Fr. Pfeiffer, Pablo, Greg Taylor, etc. -- but notice they're all part of the same group.

When is the last time Fr. Morel, Fr. Zendejas, Fr. Ringrose, Fr. Girouard, or any other Resistant priest attacked someone in the Resistance?

Quote from: Matthew

Father has spoken about his wearing the white cassock on several occasions.

Papal aspirations?

LOL

I've said several times that this reminds me of David Bawden's operation.  And if ManuelChavez sees this, I once took those saying so to task.  But Pfeifferville has tumbled to nothing more than a joke and has stooped to schism to affiliate with a schismatic fraud.

Were you asked by Father Pfeiffer if he should be a bishop?

I have never spoken to Fr Pfeiffer. However I would like to know what valid legitimate Catholic bishop would consecrate him?  

What do you say constitutes a "valid legitimate Catholic bishop," Poche?  What are all of the requirements?