From the comments posted on Maurice Pinay's blog:


I wish I could say otherwise, but I am not shocked in the least at this latest report.

There are many things that I could very critically comment on about this reputed letter from Bp. Fellay to Bp. Williamson, but since I cannot attest to its authenticity at this time I will refrain from doing so. Nevertheless, in my opinion the time has unfortunately finally come for me to make public a personal face to face conversation I had with the Rev. Fr. Niklaus Phluger in the mid-afternoon of Sunday, February 20, 2011.

Said conversation took place in the bookstore of the SSPX's chapel Our Lady Immaculate in Oak Park, Illinois. At the time Fr. Phluger was First Assistant to the Superior General of the SSPX, His Excellency Bp. Fellay.

I have been a regular attendee of Our Lady Immaculate for a good number of years. I am familiar to some degree with the circuмstances surrounding the long internal exile which has been imposed upon Bp. Williamson by Bp. Fellay. It was in this context that I walked up to and engaged Fr. Phluger in a brief one on one exchange. We stood all alone.

I figured my time with Fr. Phluger would be rather limited so I immediately cut to the chase in inquiring about the status of Bp. Williamson. In the course of our talk, Fr. Phluger made some pointed derogatory statements about Bp. Williamson. These were topped off by his stunning assertion with respect to Bp. Williamson and this is verbatim: "He's a nαzι." As God is my witness that is exactly what this priest told me face to face.

I made the above quote known to Bp. Williamson as well as the full details of my conversation with Fr. Phluger in an email to the former one day later on February 21, 2011. I still retain that email as well as the reply I received to it from Bp. Williamson on February 22, 2011. (I also informed my SSPX pastor of the conversation and the specific nαzι assertion in an email to him on February 23rd.)

I am sorry to bring such a despicable affair to light at this time, but I think that those who are in a position to do so should hold Fr. Pfluger accountable for it. Don't shoot the messenger. In my opinion his aforesaid assertion to me was a grave calumny. Some may strongly disagree, but my conscience -- after much consideration -- informs me that my extraordinary step of making it public at this time is fully justified.

The internal exile of Bp. Williamson should in my opinion never have been imposed. Furthermore, in my opinion its continuation is absolutely wrong and is (or at least should be!) an ongoing scandal to the faithful.

James Phillips

 :shocked:

An SSPX priest...

...calling Bishop Williamson...

... a nαzι?


 :shocked:

OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!!

It's warm and sunny outside, and it is still a cold black day today.

God preserve us!

'Dumb Ox' has posted the following on Ignis Ardens.

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.

Dear Maurice Pinay,

Please publish on the same blog on which you published the Sept 23 letter of Bishop Fellay to me, the following message --

The September 23 letter from Bishop Fellay to me, as posted on the Maurice Pinay blog, is authentic, but it was put on the Internet without my knowledge and without my permission. I sent a copy to friends to ask their advice or to tell them why I was not present at the Albano meeting, but never did I want that copy to appear in public. I have no idea who posted it, nor do I ask who did so.

Bishop Richard Williamson, London, 14 Oct. 2011

this is Bishop Williamsons letter of todayI found that someone published on FE

Well the publishing of a formal letter between bishops is hardly what I would call treachery.  I'd say it was likely done by one of Bishop Williamson's supporters who wasn't going to stand by and watch him be reduced to Bishop Fellay's water boy.

What careful thinker would jump to the conclusion that Bp. Williamson or one of his friends would leak the letter? While that is a possibility, it is at least as likely that one of Bp. Fellay's confidants would leak the letter to provide a pretext for accusing and further ostracizing Bp Williamson.

What started as clericalism has rotted into tyranny.

Bp. Williamson spoke truth. It is truth that put him in the crosshairs of the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan. But why the fratricide? Is fratricide traditional?

It is truth about Judaism and its fables (Titus 1:14) that has been pulled from the SSPX websites. Is concealment of the truth traditional? Did Jesus conceal the truth? Excepting Peter's denials, did the Apostles ever conceal the truth? Have the Saints and Doctors of the Church concealed the truth?

Is it prudent to conceal or endorse the lies of the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan? Is that traditional?

Hell no!

What we are seeing from the sanctimonious defenders of Bp. Fellay and his regime of malefactors (Krah, Pfluger, Hegenberger, et al.) are EXACTLY the same rationalizations used by the Novus Ordo neo-Pharisees when they concealed and enabled the sodomite rapists. I spit on those rationalizations.

Jesus did not tell us that concealment and lies would set us free. He said the TRUTH will set us free.

The Novus Ordo has made itself a sect of the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan. It increasingly appears that Bp. Fellay's regime and defenders are willing to sacrifice the truth to join that sect.

Antagonists of the truth, get over your embarrassment. Bp Fellay's letter only confirms what any discerning eye could have seen for years. This letter offers an opportunity for the Faithful to hold Bp. Fellay to justly account for his behavior—as is our right!

One poster on the Maurice Pinay blog mentioned Bp. Fellay's response. Where is that?

Quote from: John Grace

'Dumb Ox' has posted the following on Ignis Ardens.

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.

You know, guys who write this stuff can't seem to tell the difference between the an intellectual self-construct and reality.  These conclusory allegations, this pseudo-detective guesswork never seems to grasp a serious implication which is this: If these "facts" are so glaringly obvious then your version of the story necessarily implicates Bishop Williamson.  The 64 thousand dollar question is this: Why has not Bishop Williamson mentioned this blatant evil, why has he not exposed these machinations?  Either he must be a coward or he is in de facto connivance by his continued assocation with the evil hierarchy of the SSPX.  In short, the behavior of the hero of the story is not at all commensurate with the alleged circuмstances divined by these commentators.  The imaginations of these men do not seem to comprehend that exaggeration and gratuitous imputation of evil is just as bad if not worse than the "undermining scheme" they allege is afoot.  I think they're just hungry for a juicy story, rather than settling for mundane disagreements and other inevitable and standard faults of men in general.  And I always find it humorous when the criticism is made of Bishop Fellay and his "despotic, control freak" rule.  These words can only come from one infected by a false notion of liberty especially within the context of a religious order.  They sound, rather like liberal Americans who abhor such "control" over subjects.  Maybe you should study how religious orders were ran in the past, take for example St. Philip Neri's order which is markedly simliar to the structure of the SSPX.  St. Philip Neri advised his priests that if they decided to be singluar in their saying of the Mass, they would be expelled from the order.  Yes, indeed, quite the despot.  

If such Catholics have so little respect for a 100% validly consecrated bishop of the Catholic church now in time of crisis how will they have respect in times of peace?