The fact that the bishop felt it necessary to have this "clarification" written and posted is rediculous. The fact that Stephen Heiner has, in the past, also interviewed sedevacantist clergy and has never so much as suggested that he speaks for Bishop Williamson should have been sufficient evidence that his recent article was not simply a Bishop Williamson reflection but, rather, his own work.
On the other hand, I think this incident also indicates that the SSPX itself is not all roses and hand-holding. There is a definite, though hidden, split within the Society with some projecting their desires upon Bishop Williams rather than to take him at his word when he declares one thing in his weekly emails and writings at the same time his publisher (who also publishes other things) says something else completely.
The people, I think, who caused this clarification to be published wanted Stephen Heiner's article to be a reflection of Bishop Williamson's mind.