Another thread has brought up this issue.

Who "owns" the Catholics who regularly attend Mass at a given Ambulance Hall, Hotel Room, or Fire Station?

You can't say it's the owner of the building, since virtually ALL of the Resistance Mass centers have no dedicated building.

You can't say it's the people, because Catholics belong only to God. Priests serve this or that group who need the Tridentine Mass and Sacraments through supplied jurisdiction.

But when ANY priest starts getting territorial, is he not in danger of schism and forming a de-facto cult?

And you can't even say it's bad form to muscle in and take over a group, because many of these groups aren't receiving the "bare minimum" of Mass and Sacraments, which is once every Sunday and Holy Day. Therefore ANY of the parishioners could contact a new priest who becomes available, and invite him to come and help them.

In fact, if they're not getting weekly Mass they are almost obligated to do this! The Church says we must attend Mass on all Sundays and Holy Days. Is it licit to stay home some Sundays because you're loyal to a specific group, and you don't want to ruffle any feathers by inviting a 2nd priest in on the "off" weeks when you don't get Mass? If there are no priests available, or the priest(s) says no, then you're off the hook of course. But isn't each person obligated to TRY, at least somewhat, to get a priest every Sunday?

And even if we conclude that the average layman is not obligated, doesn't he at least have the RIGHT to pursue weekly Mass if he has the time/inclination?

And not just weekly Mass. What about weekday Mass, Saturday confessions, a priest nearby for Extreme Unction, a priest who has time for Catechism for the adults and children, etc.?

So where does leave someone like Fr. Pfeiffer, who did the painstaking work of setting up these chapels? Well,
1. He will receive his reward from God. A good reward, I mean.
2. I don't think Fr. Pfeiffer spent much personal money on setting up these Mass centers. Fr. Pfeiffer's money comes from the Faithful, who only want greater availability of the Tridentine Mass without any compromise. Though he did spend a lot of TIME and personal effort, which I suppose is equivalent to money. So I guess this point is a "wash".
2b. Even if it's true that Fr. Pfeiffer's group should get some of the "windfall" once the group is large and established -- how long should the "copyright" last? Indefinitely? When does the good of the group start to outweigh Father's financial remuneration -- which is indeed quite just?
3. Father should have known that eventually he'd be handing 95% of his chapels off to other priests -- after all, he and Fr. Hewko can't take care of the whole U.S.A. as if it were their own dedicated franchise territory. I have no reason to believe Fr. Pfeiffer would disagree with me on this. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.
4. Perhaps it's simply not a great idea for MOST PRIESTS to start a group, solicit donations, set up chapels more than you can ever hope to take care of, and pass them off. Maybe it takes a ridiculous amount of work and is not very feasible financially. Perhaps it's an incredibly thankless work, and only select souls are called to do this. Maybe this is the key. Reality bears me out, too -- how many cases like Fr. Pfeiffer's Resistance have we ever seen in the history of the Traditional movement?

Quote from: Matthew

And you can't even say it's bad form to muscle in and take over a group, because many of these groups aren't receiving the "bare minimum" of Mass and Sacraments, which is once every Sunday and Holy Day. Therefore ANY of the parishioners could contact a new priest who becomes available, and invite him to come and help them.

In fact, if they're not getting weekly Mass they are almost obligated to do this!

No, they have no right to undermine  a nascent apostolate which is being established to preserve the birthright which XSPX is presently hawking for a mess of pottage. They do have every right to go to St. Ignatius or the NJ Mass centre on the "off" Sundays, which in the example to which you refer, would have been an infinitely more prudent course than what transpired. In fact, that's what a lot of "we" do.

That is another important point which adds complexity: what is the nearest SSPX chapel like? Is it one of the yellow-lighted, or the red-lighted ones?

There are plenty of SSPX chapels that should be considered RED LIGHTED for all parties, and treated as if they don't exist. As in, one should stay home rather than attend them for any reason.

This is a touchy issue, because many Catholics (including many CI members) are not very good at being objective. It's hard to imagine a "good" SSPX chapel if your local chapel is objectively bad, and likewise it's hard to imagine a chapel so bad you need to stay home if your local chapel has no problems.

Just like it's impossible to imagine being full when your hungry, or hungry when you're full. It's just human nature!

 :dancing-banana:
I consider myself one of many sheep rendered shepherdless by the crises in the Church at large, Vatican II, and in Tradition since 2012, the AFD.   I've no choice but to look to myself to meet my spiritual needs and obligations to God.  The men whom God appointed to provide Mass and Sacraments, the diocesan bishops, have all, to a man, abdicated their duties.  This has been the state of affairs since I was two years of age.  The SSPX, who substituted for them for me from 2005-2012 has become unreliable.  Through no fault of my own, I am once again a "free agent," in other words, I am "homeless" so far as having a specific chapel to attend or priest for a confessor.  A few SSPX chapels I can still resort to, but most, no longer!  There is no means of hearing the true Mass or getting the real Sacraments in my "territory," the local diocese.  
Like a physically homeless person, I find shelter and sustainance where and when it is available, based upon my best judgment.  If a shelter appears clean and safe, I take advantage of it, eat a meal, get a good night's sleep, a nice shower, and clean clothes, because I don't know when I'll next have the opportunity.  If the shelter appears unsafe or is filthy, I decline. I live in circuмstances where I must ask and answer certain questions without having any earthly guidance.   Is it clean?  Reasonably nutritious?  Or do they serve processed junk food or even poison that will harm my health?  What sorts of people will be around me?  Will my possesions be stolen?  Might I be stabbed, raped or murdered?  Are there unacceptable "strings attached?" Do I first have to listen to an heretical sermon and sign my name to follow a strange religion or a certain man (or woman)?  If so, fugeddaboudit!  I'm better off begging, going hungry and sleeping outdoors or in the subway.  
The God-given structure and authority to establish and rule has been rejected by His servants from the Pope on down.  Those who wish to keep the Catholic Faith, lay faithful and religious alike, MUST recognise that we cannot recreate a bygone era and move into it.  (Those do this are found in psychiatric institutions and Disney World.)   God has chosen us, for whatever reason, to live and save our souls in the era of "the Church Disintegrated."  It's a punishment for spiritual adultery.  Remember, those who suffer most when parents destroy a family are the innocent, the children.  If the abandoned children gather armies to fight one another, the cycle is perpetuated until the family is no more.  How many hundreds of thousands of the children of divorce have never married and/or had no children of their own?   Is this what we want for the Church?  For our families?  For our souls?
 
In today's chaotic situation, I do not think a given priest or bishop can "claim" a geographic territory outside of the God-ordained Ecclesiastical structure.  Those who actually pay for the fire hall, hotel room, VFW, etc. may choose the priest.  When a priest says Mass at request of a private homeowner, another priest may not show up, unannounced, uninvited, and "take over" without permission.  If, as a homeowner, I've extended him an invitation, there's no problem so long as I haven't broken a contract or prior agreement.  If I wish to break off relations with a priest, I am obligated by charity to make it known in an appropriate manner.
So far as I know, Fr. Zendejas did not "take over" a scheduled Mass for Frs. Pfeiffer or Hewko.  There was to be no "Resistance" Mass available in the Northeast on All Saints Day or the following Sunday.  When he made his presence known in the northeastern U.S., Fr. Zendejas was invited by those in charge of St. John the Baptist Chapel.  If there is some sort of contract or pledge of allegiance to Frs. Pfeiffer or Hewko, I am unaware of it.  If the services of Frs. Pfeiffer or Hewko are no longer desired, I am unaware of it.  Can this be a case of misunderstanding due to poor communication or, God-forbid, childish envy?  If the former, it heeds to be resolved by the priests immediately.  If it is an envy-driven power struggle, souls are in grave danger.  

Nowadays, a power struggle over "territory" really means a war over control of peoples' souls.  After all, for decades now, many Traditional Catholics have driven HOURS to get to Mass outside of their "territory." If going to Mass means standing in the middle of No Man's Land exposed to the fire of warring armies, for many, there will be no choice but to cease going to Mass and receiving the Sacraments altogether.  Better stay to "home alone" than to place oneself and one's family in the midst of "friendly fire" to die in a state of mortal sin.
Am I too extreme?  No.  When one is placed in a situation where neutrality is not possible, ie. going to one priest's Mass rather than the others, and BOTH sides are wrong, you choose not between Heaven and Hell, but between rooms in Hell.  
 

May Heaven help us!

But when ANY priest starts getting territorial, is he not in danger of schism and forming a de-facto cult?

This is why priests are assigned to the communities that they serve. It may become that soem people or group of people have an attachment to a particular priest, but his mission is to the people that he is assigned to. He doesn't go there on his own.

Precisely, and he wants to make sure that who he hands his parish off to is up to the task and is there for the right reasons. Otherwise, he would be derelict in his duty. Perfectly logical.

One thing to think about is one of the jobs of the bishops is to oversee the Church in an area as a whole. The problem exists where there may be two or three priests in an area where they only need one and there may be another area where there is a need for priests. What to do? The bishop's job is to make sure that the best use of the resources are made use of over the whole church. Therefore the priests are assigned and periodically rotated so that all of the Church is taken care of and individual churches don't have to wander about looking for a priest to serve them.