CathInfo.com

Disclaimer:  This is not a "look over here" post. Caminus asked for the source of the "accident" report. Bishop Williamson is the source. Dr. Drolesky (sede vacantist or not) is the reporter.  If Bp. Wiliamson can talk to Dr. Drolesky is such detail, do not lynch me.

It would seem the source is, as Diego put it, "Dr. Drolesky ...

Quote from: Diego

Quote from: ManofGosh

It would seem the source is, as Diego put it, "Dr. Drolesky ...

Can you read?

I wrote, "Bp. Williamson is the source."

If you have 'suspicions' about Dr. Drolesky lying as you infer because it has a 'problem' that "Dr. Drolesky was the reporter," do what he did—call Bp. Williamson himself.

Um yeah ok that makes it true, maybe you or Mr. Drolesky can provide that phone number so I may have a chat with Bis
hop Williamson too, can't seem to find it anywhere. Thanks in advance.

The moderators are to be commended on the suppression of the private communication sent by Bishop Fellay to Bishop Williamson, on 23rd September, a translated version of which has recently been made public and was linked to on this forum.

The question that should be asked is who ultimately benefits from this private communication being made public.

When the obvious conclusion is drawn it may, perhaps, present a more likely scenario of its leaking.

Bishop Williamson certainly does not stand to gain from its publication at the present time. It was published without his permission and he is angry that it has been made public; a fact that can be easily confirmed should anyone wish to phone and ask him about it.

Its publication merely results in more internal SSPX pressure being put upon His Lordship, and his good name eaten away with suspicions that he has been - as the text of the communication boldly claims - indiscreet. It makes him look very foolish in his choice of trusted friends and advisors, and it gives the appearance of the good bishop being prone to allowing his emotions to rule his reason in a misguided attempt to hit back at Bishop Fellay.

On the other hand, Bishop Fellay does not gain from its publication either. His control freakery, machiavellian operating procedure, despotism and spiteful way of treating people he finds himself at odds with - things all well known amongst SSPX clerics - is now apparent for the world to see and to understand.

So who else could have leaked this communication - sent to Williamson by Fellay in the form of an email, not a letter, and written in French?

It is certain that the communication was copied to a number of Fellay's inner circle at Menzingen and further afield.

Two names from amongst this circle come immediately to mind. Fr. Pfluger, who for some time now has been attempting to play off and discredit both Williamson and Fellay to anyone who will listen in the hope of fulfilling his own puffed-up ambitions in regard to SSPX.

Behind Pfluger stands the shadowy figure of the Liberal "He who shall remain nameless".

"He who shall remain nameless", Menzingen's lawyer introduced to the inner circles of SSPX by Fr. Pfluger, is a conduit between Menzingen and the world of Finance, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and Judaism.

For the past three years "He who shall remain nameless", with the co-operation of Fellay and Pfluger, has been hell-bent on attempting to remove Bishop Williamson from within SSPX; a fact well-established and chronicled by the "bannedgate" investigation and by Stephen Heiner.

It is clear that neither Williamson nor Fellay stand to gain from the publication of the content of this private email at the present time. The ultimate beneficiaries of its publication are Pfluger, "He who shall remain nameless", Masonry and Judaism.

It appears to be very likely that those who have allowed publication of this private email have been played by the enemy.