Author Topic: The Recusant: (Read 19659 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #40 on:** April 10, 2014, 06:12:35 AM »

.

Why Is The Society (sspx) in a Tailspin Nosedive?

[/size]

From page 13 (Fr. Pinaud is quoting another priest):

As for the bond of charity, I can only observe that it as good as no longer exists. We have entered into a warlike war frame of mind, and cινιℓ ωαr too. A lot of wounds were still bleeding, and Father Pinaud’s trial, far from bringing appeasement, might well open new wounds. A Society without brotherly charity or doctrinal unity, we will soon be a body without a soul, a gathering of priests united by the common table they are sitting at but no longer united in their hearts. Such ‘unity’ cannot last long, as alas the example the Institute of the Good Shepherd shows.

Excellency, in the face of so many ills, your episcopate gives you the means to act. The wicked sentence against Father Pinaud is only the result of a more profound ill which will end up ruining the fight for the faith if you do not remedy it. Priests and faithful have their eyes on the teaching Church. How much longer will we continue to tear each other apart?

This letter has turned from protest to supplication to implore your Excellency to bring us back to peace, tranquillity and order. It is not through sanctions that this peace will return, but by mending the breaches, by tending to the wounds they have caused, and by restoring a clear, coherent doctrinal line around which priests and faithful will rally. It’s not just a question of the Society, but the fight for the faith, the defence of Tradition for which the one to whom we all owe our priesthood, Archbishop Lefebvre, gave more than his life.

...Page 14 (Fr. Pinaud):

I am not sure this formula will make history but maybe is it only the sign of human prudence, because, as we know, times are dangerous, and it is not good to say out loud what one thinks when the thought police go as far as punishing the correction of a few spelling mistakes! This is unheard-of in all the history of the French language!

Well anyway, if Bishop Tissier has written to others about my condemnation, he has written a letter to me, on 31st December 2013, but I only got the letter on January 27th, because life as a homeless priest doesn’t make corresponding by letter any easier.

...Page 15 (Fr. Pinaud):

Fr. Angles said he was astonished to learn that the Tribunal had recommended him along side Father Puga and Father Laroche as potential lawyers.

“What idiot put my name on this list?” he blurted out, “I cannot be your lawyer because I am legal counsel to Bishop Fellay! And need I tell you, if you are in the Resistance, that’s not my cup of tea, because we really need an agreement, it is necessary, otherwise we are going to end up schismatic. -- Look at Bishop Fellay, he has more power than the Pope! It is unbearable. I have resigned from my post as Superior because I do not want to condone this attitude anymore. Unfortunately an agreement can’t be made under Bishop Fellay, he has completely discredited himself; he cannot say two words without sowing doubt all over the globe.”

.
.
.

So, the only negative consequence, worth mentioning, of +F's being unable to say two words without sowing doubt all over the globe, is, that "unfortunately an agreement can't be made under Bishop Fellay." For we really need an agreement; it is necessary; for otherwise we are going to end up schismatic.

This is the thinking behind the XSPX, and this is why the Society is in a tailspin nosedive. +F is just the tip of the iceberg.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #41 on:** April 10, 2014, 06:29:48 AM »

.

From the bottom of p.16:

All this is good, you will tell me, but the question remains: what can Fr. Pinaud have done to be so severely punished?

One could also wonder, in an affirmative way, “What he did must have been extremely serious to deserve this severe sanction.” That’s true, and that is what makes the trial interesting.

It is one of the reasons which persuaded me not to avoid it. Imagine if I had been punished without trial – like most of my fellow priests – you could really say : “He must have done something very serious for his superior to punish him like this... let us keep our imagination in check... what could have happened at Couloutre?... one can imagine all sorts of things...”

But what is interesting in a trial, is that the accusations become public – on March 7th 2013, Fr. Thouvenot published urbi et orbi a gravely calumniating letter – and everyone can access it... that is the reason for the publication of the acts of the trials in their entirety.

It is impossible to say, as Bishop Fellay said recently to the author of an article summing up this entire affair: “You do not know everything Sir, this trial is only the tip of the iceberg”. No, Bishop Fellay, if you were honest you wouldn’t say such things. Since it is a trial, the sentence must necessarily correspond to the charge and the victim must necessarily have had the possibility to defend himself before knowing the sentence, otherwise the whole trial would only be a dishonest undertaking...

So what did I do? [what had I done to deserve this?]

I confess it without any regret and you can verify it by reading the book:

I corrected a few unforgivable spelling mistakes in a docuмent which was sent to me in private, for private advice.

This docuмent has become and will remain famous, it is worth re-reading it, it can be found in the acts where it figures as a piece of evidence, and it is known as the ‘Letter of the 37'.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #42 on:** April 10, 2014, 06:52:39 AM »

.

It continues:

The March 7th memorandum from Fr. Thouvenot asserts that this open letter to Bishop Fellay contains calumnies, detraction, disparaging remarks and mix-ups.

In his circular about this same docuмent, Fr. de Caqueray used the following terms: “lies”, “attitudes which are not based on anything objective”, “irrational distrust”. It is very easy to talk about lies, attitudes which are based on nothing objective, irrational distrust, mix-ups, detraction, calumnies, and more, but all these terms do not by themselves refute any of the said facts.

I readily believe the three fellow priests who have told me that Fr. de Caqueray regretted these terms which he had employed to compromise with Menzingen, once again. For instance, when I read in this open letter to Bishop Fellay:

“For more than 13 years, Bishop Fellay has authorised a priest not to cite the name of the Pope and the local Bishop in the Canon of the Mass, (this was after the signature of a docuмent by Catholics and Protestants) and he told this priest he understood his choice!”

There is no calumny, no detraction, no mix-up. This is no lie. I know this priest and he is currently member of the SSPX.

After that, the accusations of sedevacantism which are meant to be disqualifying seem to me uncalled for.

As for the letter itself: I was in no way the inspiration behind it. And despite what the Penal Decree signed by Bishop Fellay says, I didn’t write it, I didn’t circulate it, and I can add that I would never have written it or circulated it if its author hadn’t done so. But I do admit that I did correct a few unforgivable spelling mistakes... which my judges learnt about through the theft of my private correspondence with Fr. Rioult.

My suspension a divinis therefore punishes the correction of a few spelling mistakes...

When I think that in school I always lost marks for leaving spelling mistakes in my work, and now I am being punished for correcting them... it shouldn’t be said that nothing ever changes, on the contrary, everything changes!

That is the reason for my exile in Jaidhof, my eight-month detention and for this sentence... they could only reproach me with the correction of a few spelling mistakes... and on the basis of stolen correspondence..

.
.
.

In school, I always lost marks
for leaving spelling mistakes in my work,
and now I am being punished
for correcting them.

They could only reproach me with
the correction of a few spelling mistakes...
and on the basis of stolen correspondence.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #43 on:** April 10, 2014, 07:22:48 AM »

.

From the bottom of p.18:

My defence gave me the opportunity to express this very clearly, I think, but also, unfortunately, to aggravate my case to such a point that I became worthy of the death penalty:

Here is the true motive for my punishment:

No 6 – Furthermore, Father Pinaud has shown no regret about the whole thing; on the contrary, he continues to formulate critiques against his Superiors; in his last defence he went as far as saying: “Because of the numerous concessions made to the Council and unacceptable conciliar reforms, the doctrinal declaration of April 15th 2012, by itself, constitutes a peril for the faith which legitimates this revolt, because this Doctrinal Declaration is not a “minimalist” text, as Bishop Fellay wrote in the editorial of Cor Unum No 102.”

That’s the mortal sin – not the correction of a few spelling mistakes in that ‘Letter of the 37’ – Father Wuilloud hasn’t actually shown much regard for spelling in his letters – but on the contrary, rejecting the recognition of the legitimacy of the New Mass, that comes with a high price.

I have no regrets, for my trial gave me the opportunity to publicly pose these questions:

~ Your Excellency, do you maintain your acceptance of the new Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity to assume a new charge within the Church? (DD II note 1)

~ Your Excellency, do you maintain that the new mass and the new sacraments were legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II? (DD III, §7)

~ Your Excellency, do you maintain that Archbishop Lefebvre accepted in 1988 the “legitimacy or the legality of the Novus Ordo Missae”? (your presentation note of the Doctrinal Declaration published in Cor Unum No 104)

~ Your Excellency, do you maintain your acceptation of the new Code of 1983? (DD III, §8)

To this day, only one response has been given to me: a suspension a divinis! Bishop Tissier wrote to me:

“If the first pages of your defensio were excellent, the rest was unnecessary: you were putting Bishop Fellay on trial, which is outside of your competence as defendant and accused and you made your case worse by attacks you should have absolutely kept out of a tribunal.”

Well, no! Your Most Reverend Excellency Bishop Tissier, I did not spend eight months in Jaidhof and I didn’t voluntarily appear before my judges at Schlieren on 19th October 2013 at 1.30pm to talk about spelling, but to talk seriously about grave matters which have mortally wounded the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X. Even at the price of my life. It was a question of honour.

To pretend or to seek a compromise as Fr. Petrucci encouraged me to do, since he wanted to see this comedy over quickly, was a compromise whose consequences would have been far too heavy for me.

By going from cowardice to cowardice, I realise now, one can become a bandit.

I preferred the punishment and I give thanks to God for that, but I consider this suspension a divinis as an honour – may God give me more fidelity in his service, as it is not only a matter of being faithful today but every day til the end. And only those who are faithful to the end will be saved.

Bishop Williamson chose “Fideles Inveniamur” as his episcopal motto: it is a whole program indeed, to be found faithful!

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #44 on:** April 10, 2014, 07:49:17 AM »

.

This long piece covering Fr. Pinaud's kangaroo-court 'trial' is truly the smoking gun of +Fellay's blatant liberalism. As Ed. says in his notably English style:

"Fr. Pinaud’s treatment at the hands of Menzingen is crystal clear proof of just what an unjust tyranny (and, like most tyrannies, an arbitrary and personal one at that) the leadership and governance of the SSPX has become, as well as just how far from Archbishop Lefebvre things have drifted."

As a point of comparison, a local NovusOrdo seminary in Camarillo CA has long been expelling good seminarians for little offenses, such as habitual tardiness, disobedience, improper clothing, having been on record too many times for correction, and "pastoral insensitivity to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs." But the real reasons they're expelled never get on the official record, because they are three in number.

They really get kicked out for 1) having been found praying the Rosary, 2) having been discovered studying Latin, and 3) having been found studying the Canonized Traditional Latin Mass liturgy and prayers.

Similarly, Fr. Pinaud was punished for correcting spelling errors, discovered by stealing his private e-mail by criminal hacking of his private e-mail account. But the REAL reason he was punished is not on the record, and that is, he does not tow the Menzingen line that the Newmass was legitimately promulgated, or that Vat.II is not all that bad, or the Newcode of Canon Law is somehow acceptable.

That kind of thing is unforgivable. It is the rejection of the unclean spirit of Vatican II. It will not be forgiven in this Society or the next (the one that comes after the Agreement).

.