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.