Consequently, Fr. Pinaud has decided to leave the SSPX and travel around France with Fr. Rioult to look for a place to set up a Mass center.

That is wonderful news.  It makes my day.  It puts a new bounce in my step.  Bp. Fellay and his neo-sspx are there for one reason alone- to be resisted and abandoned over an over again by one ex-sspx priest after another until their numbers are diminished to the point that here in America, for example, the only ones who are left, are the flaky ones ordained under Fr. LeRoux.

From the Thread Titled "Exchange Between Fr. Pinaud and Bishop Fellay"





(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.

Well, of course he wants these priests to go (or be exiled) in the same way he wants the 'wrong' kind of layman to go. He must be confident that he can fill his seminaries with the 'right' candidates and mould them his way. More than anything, this is going to be his legacy whether or not that prized Opus Dei status is achieved in his time.