Author Topic: Letter from Bishop Fellay to Bishop Williamson (Read 75928 times)

Diego · « **Reply #170 on:** October 28, 2011, 03:17:33 PM »

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:

hollingsworth · « **Reply #171 on:** October 28, 2011, 03:51:41 PM »

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.

ManofGosh · « **Reply #172 on:** October 28, 2011, 05:52:29 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

Quote from: ManofGosh
Quote from: Diego
Quote from: ManofGosh

It would seem the source is, as Diego put it, "Dr. Drolesky (sede vacantist or not) is the reporter.

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'.

Quote
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.

Come on, dumb ox, who wants to remain anonymous? Let me compare him to a successful anonymous whistle blower named deep throat. Who not by his mere statements was able to get congress to act on a president, but by his unmistakeable evidence. He was able to produce Tape phone conversations, hand signed letters, and actual docuмents that were enough to impeach a president. Surely, dumb ox hasn't accomplished anywhere near that with a mere statement.

ManofGosh · « **Reply #173 on:** October 28, 2011, 05:53:11 PM »

Quote from: Diego

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.

Diego · « **Reply #174 on:** October 28, 2011, 05:57:28 PM »

In my opinion, there is an unhealthy level of suspicion in the air.