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.

Well, thanks for that, whether you intended to get me off the hook or not.  When Caminus comes back from his walk, this "source" business should have been all but difused. :roll-laugh2:

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.

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.

Don't forget the post from 'Dumb Ox'.

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.

The "accident" story is true.  I know it for a fact.  Diego is reporting fact.   He knows it.  I know it, and others do as well.  Dr. Droleskey is not the only source.  He is not even a primary source.

Bp. Williamson did not hesitate to contact "Maurice Pinay" for clarification.  Why would he hesitate to contact Dr. Drolesky for clarification?

Dr. Drolesky's post admitted that he had initially misinterpreted, so he contacted Bp. Williamson for clarification AND he published the correction. Why would he then lie as your "Dr. Drolesky is the reporter; that is the problem" clearly infers?

If Bp. Williamson can trust Dr. Drolesky enough to speak with him, why do you have suspicions?

Bp. Williamson's current residence and the phone number there are known. Do your own homework ...or not. You can remain on yer [sic] rear end, carp, and engage in innuendo. Your choice.

Then again, Bp. Williamson might have 'suspicion' about you that he doesn't have for Dr. Drolesky—who has already shown his integrity in clarifying the record.

 :applause:

A simple, no I cannot provide the phone number would have sufficed. It is not for me to do my "homework" on this subject. It is left to them(dividers of the SSPX) to prove with evidence and facts that this is true instead of hear say. In my opinion they have not, but they did a pretty good job at stirring the roost for a moment.

Another blog has run this very topic and this intriguing entry was submitted. Being from the Asia District myself, I find the comments made pretty sound:

B. V. said...

    Dear Maurice Pinay,

    Thank you for posting Bishop Fellay's letter on your website as a form of intervention. I am writing to you from Asia and so as a new expat, I have been able to travel to different SSPX Mass Centers in Asia. I have long been praying about what to do with the SSPX situation here. I find that Bp. Fellay who has long kept the Asian district superior in place for far too long closes his eyes to many many abuses within the SSPX or he has set up the system that way & unchecked. He has wasted so much time caught up in Rome's net instead of focusing on his REAL JOB: being a shepherd to the souls entrusted to him. Recently he has visited the Philippines and last year his assistant visited Asia. They visit but overlook the pathetic situation of MOST of the Mass centers & do NOTHING to make the missions successful apostolates. The Mormons & Protestant sects put the SSPX to shame in this part of the world!!! Visit Asia & you'll see! I am so SICK of poor Asian countries being used by the SSPX as charity cases or as a basket case as a whole. We DON'T need medical missions!!! We need Catechism books, Catholic libraries, Catechetical centers & catechists, and more experienced SSPX priests because Asians are hungry for the TRUE FAITH. We have more than enough medical clinics around for vaccinations & medical care (btw the SSPX medical mission is only once a year in the Philippines & they haven't converted anyone!). When we are sent a good SSPX priest who sees the tragedy & tries to improve it, he is transferred as soon as the district superior senses the improvements & that he cannot make him a yes-man. Hmmmm sounds like the superior general himself huh!

    So here we have a Traditional Catholic Bishop shoved in a hole in England just because he dares question established Zionist "facts". When I went to public high school in Silicon Valley in the states, I couldn't believe I was forced to watch 2 weeks worth of h0Ɩ0cαųst movies for U.S. history class!!! Doesn't that tell you anything??? Bishop Williamson should be allowed to travel & resume his duties as a Catholic Bishop. Preaching is a duty! Before his exile, he actually told my husband that we were better off moving back to Asia because of what was going to happen to the U.S. For that advice alone I am truly grateful! I know that if he traveled here & saw what was going on he would say something & do something about it.

    No! Look at all this chaos & suffering because the Superior General has been in power far too long!!!

    When will SSPX-attending Catholics start thinking for themselves and hold those in authority accountable when they are wrong and abusive??? I've been thrown out of many forums for daring to question the actions of certain priests or a certain district superior. I've personally experienced that you will get their (SSPX) ear if you write a big check but if you're going to question & investigate their operations, you will simply be shut down. So now I'm smarter about donations. I am not discounting the hardworking SSPX priests but I believe the SSPX needs major reform from within and it should start from the top down. If it takes a letter to jump start change or at least a wake up call, so be it!

    October 25, 2011 10:12 AM

According to this SSPX priest, a deal will not happen.

My dear brethren

The meeting of the Society’s superiors took place at Albano on 7-8th October as announced in last month’s newsletter, and Bishop Fellay did indeed use this opportunity to discuss the ‘Doctrinal Preamble’ text as received from Cardinal Levada on 14th September.

The first day of the meeting covered three issues: an overview of the contacts with Rome since 1987; a summary of the doctrinal discussions; and an oral exposition of the Doctrinal Preamble docuмent itself.

With regard to the doctrinal talks it was disappointing to note that the Roman commission failed to acknowledge the break between traditional and conciliar teachings. Instead it insisted upon the ‘hermeneutic (interpretation) of continuity,’ stating that the new teachings included and improved the old!

It was interesting to learn that the 14th September meeting had not touched upon the doctrinal talks at all, but rather was dedicated to expounding possible practical solutions for the Society.

So it was perhaps not surprising to learn that the proposed doctrinal basis for any canonical agreement in fact contained all those elements which the Society has consistently rejected, including acceptance of the New Mass and of Vatican II as expressed in the New Catechism. Indeed, the docuмent itself conveys the impression that there is no crisis in the Church...

Hence the stated consensus of those in attendance was that the Doctrinal Preamble was clearly unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come to pursue any practical agreement as long as the doctrinal issues remain outstanding. It also agreed that the Society should continue its work of insisting upon the doctrinal questions in any contacts with the Roman authorities.

In many ways we can see the hand of Providence in this meeting, falling as it did on the Feast of the Holy Rosary, given the clarification of Rome’s persistence in the modern errors, and the consequent necessity of continuing with the fight against modernism through fidelity to Catholic Tradition.

The second day of the meeting was dedicated to its original theme, that of communications and the media.

Some people might be looking for this.