I’ve received the following notice from Bp. Williamson:
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
Letter from Bishop Fellay to Bishop Williamson
23 September, 2011
I would be happy to invite you to the SSPX Superiors’ meeting to be held in Albano early in October, as the nature and composition of the meeting has been somewhat changed because of current events. I would also be happy to send you a text from Rome to which they want a reply. However, I find myself obliged to attach conditions to each of these points.
Firstly, as to the text, I ask of you an oath in writing that you will communicate to nobody either the text or its content. Too often in the past you have lacked discretion, so I am obliged to submit you to a procedure of this kind, which I am not happy to have to do.
Secondly, as to the meeting in Albano, I can only invite you to attend insofar as you stop publishing Eleison Comments. You have already been given the reason several times, as you have been given the order to stop. You considered that for the sake of the preaching and defence of the Faith you needed pay no attention, on the pretext that nobody had the right to stop a bishop from fulfilling his duty to preach and defend the Faith. But such preaching and defence of the Faith are inserted in concrete circumstances which may well call for superiors to intervene. Besides, no other bishop of the SSPX publishes a circular letter and considers himself thereby hindered from expressing himself.
Moreover the consequences of your attitude are harmful to the SSPX: you ooze distrust towards SSPX headquarters and the Superior General. You cannot help yourself communicating this feeling to those around you. No revolution could do a better job of undermining authority… and this you do in the name of a supposed possible betrayal on the part of the Superior General… That is very serious.
Especially when a certain number of indications show that your action is not confined to theory:
1 To an Argentinian priest from the Novus Ordo who asks for your advice, you recommend that he should not join the SSPX.
2 To an American layman you write that the apostasy of the mainstream Church is farther advanced than that of the SSPX. How can you write such things, false and unjust, against the Society of which you are still a member?
3 There exists in Anglo-saxon circles a network of infiltrators of the SSPX preparing a break-away. You are put forward as the head of this movement, you are the friend of its leaders and you are playing their game.
And you talk to us of being double tongued! As for the unity of the SSPX, the one most putting it in danger is yourself, your Excellency! Always in the name of defense of the Faith. In such a grave moment as the confrontation now taking place between ourselves and the Holy See, the outcome of which will be decisive for our own future and not without consequences for the entire Church, I ask you then, once more, to remain silent until further orders. If you were to refuse to heed this directive, it would mean both your not being invited to the Albano meeting and the starting of the canonical procedure leading to exclusion from the SSPX. So I await your reply.
All of this is most sad, and it has nothing to do with the confrontation just mentioned, whatever you may think. The loss of one of its bishops is one of the worst things that could happen to the SSPX. It depends entirely on you to spare it such a misfortune. Do believe, your Excellency, in my fervent prayers to the Sacred Heart of Jesus,