CathInfo.com

Ladislaus:

Yep, that's how I read it.  Bishop Williamson is simply using the vision narrative to bolster the position of the Resistance, to allege that the SSPX fell apart when Bishop Fellay refused to comply with Our Lady's demand because +Fellay felt that he had a better solution to the problem ... exactly as some of the pre-Vatican II popes did.  Recall how in Part I Bishop Williamson explicitly cited a reference from the "Whole Truth About Fatima" along those lines.  So, since the vision seems to impugn Bishop Fellay, hey, why not?  It doesn't take a genius to draw the parallels.

Whoops! I may have spoken hastily.  Maybe Ladislaus and I are not on the same page after all.  I don't think like this.  Our thoughts are not similar in this respect at all.  I see His Lordship's opening EC remarks as somewhat defensive of Bp. Fellay, arguing that the latter did not have full knowledge, thereby justifying, at least somewhat, his actions in 2006.  If the SSPX has fallen apart, it is certainly not primarily over +Fellay's refusing to comply with Our Lady's demands.  The initiiation of really serious disintegration began after the Jan. 2009 Swedish TV 'gas chamber' interview.  It accelerated during the 'Rosary Crusade' era; and gained further momentum when the Fellay/Krah zionist connection was discovered.  The revelation of the "Six Conditions" at the close of the 2012 General Chapter didn't help to put things back together either.  And maybe, just maybe, GREC was the straw which broke the camel's back.  Maybe there were two straws, the one mentioned above and the sacking of Bp. Williamson.
In any case, Ladislaus, though I thought we might be on the threshold of a beautiful relationship, I think I am forced to acknowledge an even deeper splintering, perhaps, within the "Resistance" ranks.  I'm leaving you.  For I am certainly not at the point of attributing cynical motives to either "Mary Smith" or "Bishop X."

Or perhaps Dawn Marie has new messages for Fathers Hewko and Pfeiffer.

For I am certainly not at the point of attributing cynical motives to either "Mary Smith" or "Bishop X."

Ah, it's all about nuance, eh?  No, Bishop Williamson did not sit down and think, "Ah, yes, I'm going to feign belief in these visions so that I can construct a narrative with which to attack Bishop Fellay."  That he's constructing such a narrative is quite clear from his own texts (cf. the citations above).  But the motivations are no doubt much more subtle.  There's probably a feedback loop wherein his perspective vs. that of Bishop Fellay subtly influences his willingness to accept the visions.  Too many people fall into the trap of making everything polar opposite and black-and-white.  In between calculated malice (outright fabrication), both on the part of DM and +Williamson, ... and the truth, there are many fine shades of gray.