CathInfo.com

I disagree with Matthew that simple priests should not start seminaries. We need priests, therefore, seminaries are necessary. "Simple" priests have been starting seminaries and congregations from time immemorial. In fact, it's probably better if our seminaries are run by priests because then the bishops can devote themselves completely to the duties that are of an Episcopal nature. Irrational complaints made against father Pfeiffer like this make us lose credibility.

Regarding the other point, I totally think that father has episcopal ambitions. I know a few people whom he has approached and asked. It's also obvious from his empire-building activities. Running the seminary, saying mass at over 30 locations, attempting to open a convent, flying around the world every few months to "shore up" the other priests.

Do you know the definition of a priest? Besides the other definitions (Alter Christus, etc.) a priest is fundamentally a HELPER TO A BISHOP. The Bishop wears the ring, he is married to a diocese. But the diocese is too large for him to say Mass everywhere for his whole flock, so he has authority over a number of priests who help him in his work of spiritually ministering to the Catholics in that diocese.

If a priest starts ANYTHING, it should be OUT OF OBEDIENCE, not out of a self-appointed position or crusade he picked out for himself. He should be working for someone, following someone's orders.

Priests are only leaders of the laymen beneath them. They are not even part of the Ecclesia Docens (Church teaching). There is a reason the book of the Gospels is not placed on priests' heads during Ordination -- that only happens for a bishop during his Consecration. A Bishop has a special obligation to teach and preserve Tradition and the Faith.

Even today, among trads, why wouldn't the Trad priests (in the Resistance for example) let the Bishop(s) lead? Would the world REALLY be a worse place today if Fr. Pfeiffer had just followed +Williamson's direction and stuck with the "loose association of priests" structure? Do we have any more priests because of that seminary, or do we actually have less? Didn't at least one seminarian in Boston, KY give up the faith when he left? And of those who left, how many gave up on their vocation at least after experiencing Boston KY in all its splendor?

Bishop Williamson knew what he was doing. Today we already have a REAL seminary over in France with +Faure. The Dominicans can also take in new vocations. Do you really think +Williamson was going to let Tradition die out?

Fr. Pfeiffer's seminary hasn't done any good yet -- he has what, one seminarian with a couple years' training under his belt. The other(s) are brand-new. Those newbies could have gone to +Faure's seminary at this point.

It's questionable how much +Williamson ever supported the Boston seminary. At best, he gave it tacit approval at the beginning. But when he visited and discovered the inadequacy of the setup, the ignorance of the seminarians, and said he would never be back -- at that point Fr. Pfeiffer should shut it down. Instead of happily opposes himself to Bishop Williamson. Who does he think he is, a bishop?

It's not the "running" a seminary that's the problem. It's the starting of one, and not even that. It's particularly when you start one AND you don't have the requisite means/gifts/support to start one properly, and without the blessing of the (only) bishop (who supports your cause).

And if +Williamson was/is against the Boston seminary, I don't think it's so much against the concept (he doesn't have a problem with +Faure's seminary, does he?) but against this seminary IN PARTICULAR since he checked it out and it was found wanting. Just like he has ordained +Faure and has promised to ordain others -- just not on Fr. Pfeiffer's timetable, and not Fr. Pfeiffer personally.

If Fr. Pfeiffer had to close down his seminary, it wouldn't mean the Catholic Church is doomed. That's exactly what Fr. Pfeiffer would have us all believe! But I know better. Father obviously believes that "God needs him", otherwise he wouldn't be going to such imprudent, disastrous lengths (Pablo, Ambrose Moran, etc.) to keep it going.

However, this cutesy belief that "priests can only do what is explicitly ordered by their bishop" is so sentimental and out of touch with reality, that it's not even funny. This view ignores the 50 year old crisis in the church as well as the recent implosion of our beloved society. For better or for worse, Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure have not taken an authoritative position in the resistance. Any priest fighting for tradition who is not directly working with the bishops is left to his own devices.

Well, I guess it's my turn to disagree with you.

And the fruits of your "priests gotta take the initiative, when they believe the bishop isn't doing enough." strategy are visible in Boston, KY for all to see. When priests have to become the highest authority -- a de-facto bishop -- all heck breaks loose. There are too many priests with too many views.

See, the Archbishop held things together. But without a Pope or other authority/center of unity, we are basically at the mercy of human nature just like the protestant groups. Even the SSPX has the authority (albeit tyrannical and up-to-no-good) coming from Menzingen.

I don't think the Church Crisis justifies it. It explains it on a human level, yes. But priests should humbly accept the leadership of their superior (bishop). So far, I can't see ANY downside to such a course of action.

Where would the world be today if all priests followed my position? Would the world be a better or a worse place?

See, everything you can point to that is GOOD came about because a *bishop* started something. And even in the cases where a priest had to start something, he wasn't *REJECTING THE AUTHORITY OR COUNSEL OF A TRAD BISHOP*. There's a difference. And being an independent priest (to directly serve Mass and sacraments to the Faithful) might require setting up a chapel. That's not out of bounds for a priest. But a seminary? Religious order?

It's the difference between a young 29 year old widow taking charge of the household (including getting a job to feed her 5 children), and a 29 year old woman taking charge of her husband, and getting a job so her husband could stay home with the children. See the difference? One is a true necessity, the other is disordered.

All I'm saying is that even as we embrace the Trad position, we shouldn't throw out ALL notions of authority. God will provide.

Do you really think the Church would have ended if Fr. Pfeiffer hadn't started his seminary? It's odd how you still defend him to a point, even though he was wrong from day one to start that seminary without the blessing of +Williamson.

He was the stubborn kid setting off for Disneyland on foot, with the ticket money in his pocket. His parents couldn't afford to take him, so rather than accept it as God's will, he stubbornly sets off on foot. If you try to stop him, he says, "Are YOU gonna give me a ride? No? Then leave me alone. I have another 1,000 miles to go. I hope to make 8 of them by nightfall. Good day to you."