(Google translation):


Pinaud Father suffered eight months of isolation and deprivation of all ministry, to be told that I could not henceforth offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  He is accused of having corrected the spelling of a letter of advice in private to a colleague     and thinking that I could oppose an authority that puts faith in danger, authorities called Bishop Fellay.

 The November 15, 2013, the day before leaving Jaidhof, his ecclesiastical prison in Austria, Father Pinaud wrote the following letter to the Superior General.

 Letter from Father Bishop Fellay Pinaud.  

 Bishop,

 The judgment of October 28, 2013 condemning me, I was delivered on November 8, 2013 by Father Frey.

 Through this, I present appeal for the following reasons:

 1 - The lawyer that I chose was challenged without sufficient reason.

 2nd - The canonical action you undertook against me, and the process that followed, are based exclusively on private emails, not to mention the impersonations of which I was a victim.

 3rd - The act of court conviction did not answer my defense rather than partially.

 4th - The judgment is disproportionate to the acts incriminate me.  If we add the fact that the Superior General is both judge and jury, that the brothers and scandalize the faithful.

 5th - Section 6 shows that I was convicted of having held the following statements during my appearance on October 19, 2013: "because of the many concessions made ​​by the council and the unacceptable conciliar reforms itself Doctrinal Statement April 15, 2012 constitutes a danger to the faith that justifies revolt, as this doctrinal statement is not "a minimalist text" as Bishop Fellay wrote in the editorial of Cor Unum No. 102 ".

 Deprivation caused my lawyer let out some blunders that I would replace the word "revolt" by "resistance," which is more in line with my way of thinking, but how can I express regret for having estimated that favor a practical agreement without doctrinal agreement would be a great misfortune for the SSPX?

 With you, I thank 'that we have been preserved from any kind of agreement last year. "But I can not stop thinking until today, that the main causes that led us to misery are part failure to follow the requirements of Chapter July 2006, which excluded a practical agreement without doctrinal agreement, and second, the refusal to take into account the many, wise and legitimate warnings of those who pleaded not persist on this path of practical agreement.  Only favorable opinion to a practical agreement was presented in our publications.  The brothers who expressed, in one way or another, disagreed, were repressed or punished.

 In addition, unfavorable judgments as expressed by superiors who had inside knowledge of the content of the Doctrinal Statement of April 15, 2012, favored the serious suspicions of unacceptable concessions that had been made.

 Publication of this Declaration in the spring of 2013, confirmed these suspicions.  Bishop Tissier de Mallerais wrote to me on May 20, 2013: "I will not elaborate on the content of the last Cor Unum, too deplorable to be noted, too obviously unsatisfactory for approval, too outrageous to not embarrass who is responsible."

 It is clear that the whole thing revolves around the doctrinal positions that are expressed by this Statement of April 15, 2012, which were not retracted during the Chapter.  Your subsequent statements, but removed this text, do not deny its content and provide doctrinal corrections.

 - Do you keep your acceptance of the new formula of the Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity to assume an office held in the name of the Church?  (DD, note 1)?

 - Do you maintain that the New Mass and the new sacraments were lawfully promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II (DD III, § 7)?

 - Did you know that in 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre accepted Keeps "the legitimacy or legality of the enactment of NOM" (in his note on which the DD, published in Cor unum 104)?

 - Are you keeping your acceptance of the new Code of 1983 (DD III, § 8)?

 The fact that he mentioned the Dogmatic Constitution Aeternus Pastor DD III, does not suppress the acceptance of the new profession of faith which was carried out in the preceding paragraph, or remove the ambiguity of the other statements mentioned above, because there is no ambiguity in these statements.

 Assuring you of my prayers, please accept, Excellency, my respectful greetings.




 Answer by Bishop Fellay.

 Menzingen, on November 25, 2013

 Father,

 I received your email of 15 November by which an action against the decision of the 28th of October.  You will subsequently be informed of monitoring to be given to its application.

 As I wrote in my secretary fax sent to him on 15 October, so authorize take two weeks of vacation with your family.  At the end of these two weeks, I ask you to contact Montgardin.

 The execution of the penalty in court Oct. 28 is suspended by its action.  In return, which commanded him in the fax of 15 October last remains, namely, that during his stay with your family, you should avoid going through our priories and be content to celebrate his Mass in private.

 I assure my prayers for your intentions.

 + Bernard Fellay.

 Last reply Pinaud Father.

 December 8, 2013

 Bishop,

 I have received your response to my letter of 15 October and I thank you.

 The measures imposed me you are not in any way necessary as a precautionary measure, I find that I have them a character of punishment, which goes against the presumption of innocence.

 I have been convicted before trial.

 In these arbitrary conditions, my application no longer a purpose and therefore I desist.

 Assuring you of my prayers, please accept, Excellency, my respectful greetings.

 *

 Since then, Bishop Fellay applied for contempt, the punishment decreed by the father Wuilloud.  Bishop Fellay let him know the Father Pinaud their holidays with family were over, he was suspended divinis, which should already be in Mongardin and, therefore, is directed to serve his sentence there for an indefinite period ...

 The Father has not attended Pinaud Montgardin and celebrates Mass every day, both in private and in public.

Whilst I appreciate this being brought to our attention, I believe the bulk of SSPX laity will not involve themselves in disputes between priests. I personally do not believe what SG has posted will make any impact.

Non Possumus claimed for example there was plenty of interest in 'El Krahgate'. Where? Certainly not in Ireland. Most laity didn't give a hoot.

Why should this internal matter concern them? Fr Leo Boyle always discouraged laity to involve themselves in the internal disputes.

As I stated I appreciate you bringing this news to our attention but in reality what percentage of SSPX will (a) read it (b) care. Will it have an impact? I am not convinced it will.

As Cassini stated of SSPX laity. I believe he is correct.

Thankfully the majority (of sspx lay folk)  stayed out of the society's row and continued to make Mass their priority

Neil Obstat on another thread.

I had to be really impressed because +F plays their heartstrings like a fiddle, and it works every time.  They get taken for a ride and like any victim of abuse, they keep coming back for more.  It's simply abuse, and that's all it is.  Really impressive abuse.

It's the SSPX laity who keep themselves such a captive, passive audience and ensure they get taken for a ride time and time again. They have only themselves to blame.

Even the YouTube user 'Oblationem' stated people should have questioned much earlier.

Many allowed Bishop Fellay to pull the wool over them.

It's the SSPX laity who keep themselves such a captive, passive audience and ensure they get taken for a ride time and time again. They have only themselves to blame.

Part of it, I believe, is generational. Look at any movement in the Church's history and it is the first generation that tends to be fighters or what is called "Type A" personalities.

Their offspring, the second and third generations, when the latter stick with the movement, are often more "Type B" passive and institutionalized. They are not in it so much for the fight as the fact this is the culture in which they grew up.

All that to say even in my day when I was still attending the FSSPX, I was surprised at how passive and more flexible second generation FSSPX faithful my age were compared to those like myself who were first generation.

Mgr. Williamson, the oldest of the four bishops, who spent the least amount of time with the Novus Ordo, is very first generational.

Mgr. Fellay, in contrast, the youngest of the four bishops and I believe the youngest too when he discovered Mgr Lefebvre and the FSSPX, has his pulse on the second and third generations of the movement.

 

passive

As demonstrated and based on the evidence, most SSPX laity are passive and have been a captive audience. What I didn't like here in Ireland and elsewhere is how SSPX laity disregard doctrine and truth just to remain blindly obedient to the Church of Fellay.  Any disagreement or opposition to Fellay here is more to do with transfer of priests or lack of church hall etc etc as opposed to doctrinal matters.

I was amazed at the level of surprise at the 'Voice in the Wilderness' conference. Despite everything, laity still went on pilgrimage with the new SSPX and Fr Morgan.