Seminaries are an outmoded form of priestly formation. Whilst they were suitable and effective for the latter half of the second millennium, the changes in the both spiritual and temporal conditions that emerged in the 20th century have brought the Church to a new situation where priestly formation is better served by a tutorial model in which a single pupil or a small group apprenctice under a veteran priest for several years.

This issue came up in a previous thread, and various persons then suggested that seminaries are “outmoded” and candidates for Holy Orders should just apprentice under another priest, and one can perhaps understand the “utilitarianism” of that approach.  What is not being considered is that the Church had at one time allowed that approach (the seminary or at least university model also existed then).  When the “reformation” hit it was observed that a huge number of priests were very poorly formed, and as a result the laity were very poorly catechized.  As just one example of poor changes that had crept in, the apostolic practice of preaching a homily on the scriptural readings of the Mass had nearly ceased.  The Council of Trent devoted its Twenty-Third Session to the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the proper formation of clerics … it doesn’t seem prudent to ignore the wisdom and insight of Trent.

 
In the “old days” a priest would usually have at least 5 – 7 years of Latin training: Four years in minor seminary (high school) and one to three years at the collegiate level (Philosophy) before beginning his four years of theology (which at one time was mandated to be taught in Latin, I’m not sure when the change to vernacular instruction occurred).  They would likely have at least two years or more of biblical Greek also.  So, recalling the instance of when a Fr. Pfeiffer was “consecrated a bishop” by a Bishop Webster.  Several here who watched the video of the ceremony said that Bp. Webster’s pronunciation of essential words was so bad that the consecration was invalid.  In an “apprentice model” of priestly formation I can easily imagine the situation where the candidate is taught how to “read the red, say the black” without any real solid training in the language.  The Canon of the Mass is said in near silence, at most “maybe” a Master of Ceremonies “might” hear, and then only at a High or Solemn Mass (I’m guessing that an apprentice model formed priest would pretty much be a “Low Mass kind of guy”).  It could be possible, perhaps even too likely (given the example of Bp. Webster) that a priest could say a half century or more of invalid Masses because his poor Latin pronunciation caused the consecration to not occur.  There could be a similar issue with the words of absolution during Confession.
 
Also, in the forum sometimes there will be a serious, and often complex, issue presented involving moral theology.  The best advice given is usually “You need to talk to a traditional priest!”  In the seminary model a priest receives FOUR FULL YEARS (summers off usually) of theological training.  I just don’t see that happening with the apprentice model.  I could see a lot of: “Fr. ****** trained under Fr. ###### and he says this. / Well, my priest trained under Fr. @@@@@@@ and he says this, so there!”