Yes Kelly, that could be. Yet, I heard another version of the story :

Stephen's resignation was because he rightly attacked Krah and indirectly also his employer Bp Fellay, for their malicious public statements against Bishop Williamson in the globalists' German flagship Der Spiegel and other publications (you remember: "uranium", "hand grenade", "sickness", etc). This happened in two of Stephen's blog articles: here and here.
These were Stephen's "private opinions" which "collided" with Bishop Williamson's superior general. After these brave blog articles Bp Fellay demanded the head of Stephen on a silver tablet. And since he already wanted to shut down the Eleison Comments, Stephen saved the EC by becoming the scapegoat. [...]

Ethelred, thank you for both your investigation & refreshing our memories...

Very informative.
Its truly a credit to Mr Heiner's character for not disclosing these underlying reasons for his resignation.
If I may expound on my caveat, although in disagreement with his sv conclusions, I have the highest regard for Stephen's work in the cause of Tradition and his unfailing loyalty/fidelity to the honor of the office/person of +Williamson.
Eleison Comments has been, and continues to be a source of inspiration & grace.

This cleric is responsible for a swath of destruction. Not good.

You're absolutely right, ultimately, this is another example of +Fellay's abuse of authority.  
ABL didn't intend the Society to be governed by a dictator.

Monsieur Roger Lovely

Well, nearly, because without the 2nd "l". His name is Roger Lovey.
Sorry, my brain inserted the "l" automatically when I switched to basic English mode... Lovely, not.

Dear All

It seems that in time, all comes to light.  It would be silly for me to try to conceal what you all have brought to light in this thread, partly because the reason for my secrecy and quiet is now nullified by the chess moves of Bishop Fellay.

You are all correct, with all your versions of the story, interestingly enough.

I'll add in a few missing pieces, shall I?

Six months after Eleison Comments began it came to the attention of Bishop Fellay that I was underwriting it.  What many people don't know is that I had already crossed him back in 2006.  I had published, unedited, the first two of four volumes of Bishop Williamson's Letters from the Rector.  Bishop Fellay had asked, through surrogates, that I not publish them, and when I had made it clear that I was determined to, he asked Fr. Le Roux to intervene and tell me not to title it "Letters from the Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary."  I disregarded this request for any number of reasons.

There were people at the Angelus at the time who were "friends" of Bishop Williamson and so the Angelus even carried Volume 1 of those letters, with an introductory article I had solicited from Fr. James Doran.  When that copy of the Angelus arrived in Switzerland, I'm sure someone must have fainted but the order came down never to advertise that book in the magazine again.

When we sold through the initial (substantial) order - there was no reorder from Angelus Press.  No reason was given, despite the fact that they had sold through fairly quickly.

When I published Bishop Tissier's commentary on Benedict XVI, Bishop Fellay turned to legal means, and a lawsuit was threatened on me by the US District's retained counsel, Husch Blackwell and Saunders.  I'm sure they must have expected me to roll over and wet myself instead of consulting my own attorneys.

The SSPX lawyer had a number of demands for me:  the SSPX formally disputed my copyright to Bishop Williamson's work, which had been explicitly granted me by His Lordship, and additionally demanded that I remove Bishop Tissier's article.  They also wanted me to remove interviews that I had done with Fr. Paul Morgan and Fr. Daniel Couture.  To have a notorious Bishop Williamson supporter interviewing SSPX District Superiors could not be tolerated.

Despite the fact that such translation work is covered under "fair use" in US law, when they revealed a letter from Bishop Tissier that never got to me (Bishop Tissier used an old address he had for me and it must have gotten lost) I decided to obey the Bishop's own wishes regarding his intellectual property.  I removed that post, but my refusal to give up my copyright to Bishop Williamson's work (partially by my citing the Constitutions of the SSPX, in which no legal mechanism existed whereby Menzingen could claim ownership of Bishop Williamson's work - unlike many religious orders and congregations which could have, because it is so written in their constitutions.), and my maintaining that I would NOT remove my interviews with Fr. Paul Morgan and Fr. Daniel Couture from my website, roiled the US District, but realizing that I had my own lawyers, they decided not to pursue a suit.

Bishop Fellay, through Fr. Christian Thuvenot, his secretary, had asked those Fathers to ask me to remove those interviews.  I later asked them separately if it was their wish or if it was an order from above.  They both confirmed that they did not personally wish it but were simply relaying orders.  Indeed, I have emails from both of them that were very complimentary about the interviews...until Bishop Fellay found out that I had interviewed them...

That takes us back to that 6-month mark when Bishop Fellay asked Bishop Williamson to shut down Eleison Comments as a blog because it was "public to the world."  Within 2 weeks we had switched over to a newsletter format that required one to ask to subscribe, and worse, to Menzingen's world, we had picked up 7 translators for different languages.  Bishop Fellay had hardly been checkmated, but I knew I had bought us at least another 6 months...

The tactic only bought me a bit of time, though, as I definitely fought back against Krah - who was used as the "cat's paw" of Menzingen in leaking stories to Der Spiegel - when he tried to smear my lord Bishop and it was then that there was an ultimatum of sorts from Switzerland and I did step down and leave the editing to Nicholas, as he was an "unknown" quantity to Menzingen and the pressure to shut down EC would quiet down.  The apostolate must go on, and I didn't want to be a distraction for that.  My resignation did the trick.  I did not step down because I was a sede.  I had been working for the bishop as a sede for years at that point.  I stepped down because of my part in the "revelations" about Krah and his smearing of Bishop Williamson.

As for the bit about sedevacantism, I've been a sede since roughly December 2009.  The bishop and I have had many conversations about it, but it never affected our work.  He has great things to say, and I would never let our disagreement about this matter stop my sharing his important perspectives and works.  

I am still to this day a supporter and am humbled and privileged to call him a friend.  

There are many more stories of intervention and conflict with Bishop Fellay, but those aren't germane to the discussion that was going on here.  But now you have a bit more context for understanding some of what you all heard.

Curious, I trust my confidantes and their discretion, but it seems as though even the most discreet have leaks, so that you have already heard, through various sources, "the rest of the story." :-)

Cheers

Stephen Heiner

PS  My dear Kelley, you don't have to disclaim my sede views anytime you mention me, you know.  They don't define me.  You might add that you are neither a supporter of the "Arsenal Gunners" or "Saint Louis Cardinals baseball team," both of which Stephen support. :-)

It seems the people on this thread are intelligent enough to parse that you don't have to agree with everything a man says to agree with some of what he says.

Dear Stephen,

Thank you very much for this clarification, which confirms the basic points addressed in this important thread.

And blessings from God for your massive long-time support for our Bishop Williamson!

We (friends and me) are very grateful for ... :
- the important four books with the Rector's letters. And now we learn how difficult it was to get them published!
- the publishing of the weekly Eleison Comments, which help us to keep the catholic Faith in these crazy times, where even so called "followers" of Archbishop Lefebvre openly betray him and the Faith. Now we learn how difficult it was to keep these Eleison Comments going!
- your visits in London to perform video interviews with Bishop Williamson in 2009 and 2010. That was a critical time when the good shepherd was hunted down by the vile media, by the anti-christian world so to speak, and by their helpers inside the SSPX. He was exiled in a broom cupboard, but these interviews helped the good Bishop to talk again to the faithful all over the world, and of course it helped us faithful people all over the world to see our Bishop! This was important moral support for both sides.

It looks like your Bavarian roots help your good fight. As an Austrian, I should know these. :-)

Clearly you played and hopefully always play an important role in the gifted apostolate of the brave Bishop Richard "Lionheart" Williamson. May God bless you, your family and your friends (like Mr Wansbutter), who all fight bravely for Our Lord Jesus Christus.

God save Bishop Williamson!

+1

I'm very grateful too Mr. Heiner, God bless you.

God save Bishop Williamson!

Think about any of the great religious congregations: the Oratorians, the Redemptorists, the Jesuits, etc.  Can you see St. Philip Neri telling the Oratorian Fathers that he, and he alone, would be the voice of the Oratory?  St. Alphonsus with the Redemptorists?  St. Ignatius Loyola wanting St. Francis Xavier to run sermons by him before they were preached or policies before they were implemented in the missions?

Oh, you mean that same St. Phillip Neri who dismissed priests from his congregation for merely saying Mass in a singular manner?  Or St. Alphonsus Liguori asserting that any priest who does not follow a particular rule for priests regarding travel to Rome without permission would be subject to his personal accusation before the Lord of gross disobedience?  I could go on and on and on about dictators of religious orders, but I think the point is made.  Suffice it to say, Heiner wouldn't last thirty seconds in a traditional order.  

What men like Heiner fail to understand is precisely the nature of obedience and rules in religious orders.  Religious are sanctified by the ever increasingly perfect observation of the Rule.  That is their state, their duty and obligation.  Being a liberal, a free-thinking man that is attached to his opinions and notions finds this idea of obedience insufferable and labels such actions of a Superior General as "totalitarian" and "iron-fisted."  Rather, in these very epithets, the spirit of Heiner and his ilk are betrayed, not that of a Superior General.

You all sound like a bunch of libero-democratic sillonists.    

The Archbishop would be expelled from the Society today.

Just as three of his four bishops are now threatened with a "split"

http://www.tagtele.com/videos/voir/36078

Let's get something straight, this person who talks about prudence and charity, has always thrown out nasty insults with the greatest alacrity.

You're the character who suggests we can never prove anything these Popes have said is heretical, or is a sign of heresy, and that we must recognize them.  

At the same time you agree with disobeying them for the sake of the Faith.  Although since you never admit anything they say is truly heretical, it's impossible to see what justification you have for making such a determination.

At the same time, you have no trouble with draconian punishments for those who disobey the commands of the superior general order that doesn't even have the approbation of the Pope you recognize, even though this superior general has recently said that what was condemned in the council in the past by the society isn't really in the Council.

So for Caminus, one is released to obedience to the Pope because of his lack of Faith, but not to a mere Superior General going against the wishes of the three other bishops of the society in seeking to make an agreement with a Pope who hasn't changed his theological position, the very theological position that previously has been used to justify disobedience.

This is of course, totally unhinged, totally illogical.  

correction above "stultified their wits