CathInfo.com

Maybe there will be an exemption made for those already there, but from now on it will be SAJM membership required.


And it does not have to follow that a seminary train only those of the membership of the congregation training.


In fact it has been common practice for hundreds of years, especially in Rome, that there be a mixture.


The insistence on the seminarians being of the congregation "for cohesion" is something I find deeply objectionable. I don't want to get into an argument about this, as this can be a sensitive "intra" resistance topic.

The SAJM seminaries will undoubtedly operate just like the SSPX seminaries always have. 
They will train their own as well as candidates from other traditional religious communities if the need arises, for example the Benedictines, obviously, and the FBMV. There is nothing extraordinary about that.
There would be something extraordinary about training priests to be independent. You won't find that in the Church's tradition.
It is normal for a priest to belong to an order or a diocese, and a great help to his perseverance. Even if we are living in extraordinary times, and even if Bishop Williamson advocated for independent pockets of resistance, he also commended Bishop Faure for his endeavour with the SAJM. To say these "unsuspecting seminarians" will be forced into becoming members of the SAJM is ridiculous. What young man would enter a seminary expecting to come out a law unto himself? 

The times we live in, it is better that priests be independent and not in any kind of group.

Priests being "their own boss" or independent is COMPLETELY contrary to the mind of the Catholic Church, especially the Council of Trent.

Archbishop Lefebvre is not a saint and providential because he's "my guy", "on my team", etc. He's providential because he objectively, clearly was. Go read his biography. Read about how he spent time in Africa (that was God's plan of course) and he learned the dangers first-hand of a priest being on his own. That's why +ABL later established the concept of "priories" in the SSPX, where priests would recharge in friendly territory on the regular, and so avoid burnout, isolation, excessive temptations, etc.

The Resistance has inherited this God-given wisdom from +ABL and his order, the SSPX.

+ABL has been vindicated too, as isolated priests are as much in danger in 2026 as they were in +ABL's time, or in the middle ages when the Council of Trent had to correct things by mandating the establishment of "seminaries" for any future priestly formation. But it's hard to form seminaries of priestly formation without organized groups...

I hate to quote Fr. Cekada, but he was right about one thing: the Tridentine Mass needs a Tridentine priest (i.e., one formed at a seminary).

Independent priests are a "thing" because after Vatican II there was chaos; groups didn't exist yet. But as soon as Tradition was able to organize and establish groups, and Traditional bishops began to exist, there was NO LONGER ANY EXCUSE for priests to go it alone, maverick cowboy style, unless they just wanted to "be their own boss".

Being an "Independent priest" is not something a man chooses -- it is more a matter of necessity, as in "I have no choice". Priests should work under and with a bishop AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, to keep the SPIRIT of their vocation and the mind of the Church as much as possible.