Father Pinaud on Trial


Reprinted from : 'ancien regime' : Cath Info

Fr. Pinaud is a French resistance priest (one of the 37 priests) who is being held in the Jaidhof fortress in Austria pending a "trial" by Menzingen. Fr. Pinaud decided to play through this farce of a "trial." He has written a couple of times from his place of detention in Austria. He does not speak German and does not know the people or the area.

This letter was posted on La Sapiniere and on Un évêque s'est levé! The translation is my own.

It shows what devious means Menzingen is using to try to undermine the resistance.

Fr. Pinaud: Is He Going To Celebrate His 20th Priestly Anniversary In Prison?

Abbé Nicolas Pinaud
<s>IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII </s>IIe jour de détention dans la forteresse de Jaidhof (92nd day of detention in the Jaidhof fortress)
Priestbruderschaft St Pius X
Jaidhof 1 A
3542 GFÖHL, NÖ
Autriche [Austria]

10 June 2013,

“Imprisoned in a narrow dungeon cell in the Palazzo della Signoria, sleeping on bare earth, without straw, nor light, feet in stocks, hands in chains, left arm dislocated and broken by torture, so painful that he must sometimes be hand-fed, but hating no one, cursing no one, retaining all his magnanimity, all his kindness, all his faith, to the point of affecting his prison guard and undertaking to lead him and his daughter towards the perfection of the Christian life, Savonarola still had the strength to take up the pen to put into writing, in a very short time, between April 26 and May 8, 1498, the heartbreaking and sublime cry of his last “Miserere,” and suddenly to give to the words of the psalmist, that voice of the liturgy repeated for fifteen centuries, an echo of so poignant a beauty, an accent so direct, a candor so absolute, that it must merit to be perpetuated through time as one of the most pure and moving supplications of Christian piety.”

Rest assured, this quotation from the introduction of the Prison Meditations of Savonarola by Cardinal Journet illustrates nothing about my situation. And above all, let no one translate this [quotation]into German so as to put it on I don’t know what site, because humor is very different according to place and this would provoke, by itself, a humorous movement which would wish upon me the treatment of Savonarola!

The days follow one another occupied monastically in study. My trial has been announced for the Nativity of St. John the Baptist (June 24), which is preferable to the date of his beheading (August 29)!

I perceive the confusion of some of you who have made me aware of their difficulty in believing what I wrote in an earlier letter, that is that:

“From now on, I am arranging for a certain number of messages signed with my initials, to be sent from an electronic address bearing my name: nicolas_pinaud@yahoo.fr, to some people known among themselves [i.e. in the Resistance] and unknown to others.”

I understand. But facts are facts. There were several messages sent from this address, nicolas_pinaud@yahoo.fr, which was created on March 3, 2013.

It was used the same day [March 3] at 10:19 pm, to send the following message to I don’t know how many people:

“The vice is tightening more and more. We are in the crosshairs of Menzingen and Suresnes . . . but I will not take up arms! Have confidence! NP”

At least one confrere was misled and responded with a message (that I have not received!) to this false message (that I never wrote)!

On March 6, 2013 at 1:47 pm, the same message was sent from the same address, to other priests and lay recipients. At least one layman was deceived and later threatened in mid-March. A court bailiff remitted the message and its response to me. . . which I evidently would never have otherwise received!!

On the same day, March 6, Bishop Williamson received from the same address [nicolas_pinaud@yahoo.fr] the following message that I neither wrote nor sent:

“Dear Bishop, it would seem that the address of Fr. Rioult (1) has been hacked. If you have any documents to forward to him, send them to me and I will forward them to him. (In particular any work in progress). Courage. We will have them. Wishing you a holy Lent, I assure you of my prayers, dear Bishop. N. Pinaud”

Bishop Williamson was deceived by the false message, and sent a response to me that I have never received, and for good reason! It was a bailiff who communicated this to me several weeks ago. . . I do not know how many people were deceived by this urbi et orbi diffusion, which, to say the least, lacks justice? If you are one of them, let me know. Watch this space. [lasapiniere.info]

The accounts of the [Chartres] pilgrimage which reached me were quite painful, but it seems to me that the Sunday sermon at least enabled one to forget the cold and rain for a few minutes.

“. . . the Conciliar Church, that is to say, that sect that occupies the Catholic Church. It is an advantage for us to be regarded as excluded, as in exile . . .” (2)

At last a little visibility in the persistent fog.

Nicolas Pinaud

1. Fr. Olivier Rioult is a very vocal resistance priest in France. –Ed.
2. From the May 19, 2013 Sunday sermon by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. –Ed.



It makes you think doesn't it? Bishop Fellay thinks he can convert Rome from within the Conciliar establishment....yet look how he is acting towards someone in his own Society when BF is criticised? Why would the Pope not treat him in exactly the same way once an agreement had been accepted? AND one of the conditions demanded by BF is the right to criticise those whom the Society thinks is in error. (As if the Pope would ever allow someone the 'right' to criticise even him when he is in error!) If BF criticised the Pope when in error then he would be above the Pope.


Reprinted from : Ancien Regime : Source

I did a translation of the Tribunal document and posted it on CI a couple of days ago. Thought everyone might like to see it here as well. I don't know all the legal terms for criminal law, so some of the wording may be a bit awkward, but you can get the gist of what they are trying to do.

I find it supremely ironic that Bishop Fellay and Co. are relying on both the 1917 and the 1983 Codes to justify their actions. In addition, +Fellay twice sets himself up as the "ordinary" thereby giving himself jurisdiction over this matter. Last time I checked, such claim of jurisdiction is a formal act of "schism"!! (see #2 under the "Whereas" section and #3 under the "Considering That" section)

Isn't that the big scare tactic Bishop Fellay used to justify his negotiations with Rome? (We might be considered to be in schism!!! OH NO!!)

BTW: Fr. Pinaud is appealing his "sentence" -- I don't know to whom.
taken against Fr. Nicolas Pinaud, Priest, member of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X.

Date of notification of this recommendation: 8 November 2013

Signed: N. Pinaud and Bishop Fellay.

In the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

Fr. Henry Wuilloud, Judge
Fr. Paulo Petrucci, Associate Judge
Fr. Vincent Quilton, Associate Judge


1. the authorities of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X (hereinafter “SSPX”) have stated that the numerous seditious actions have been undertaken after the General Chapter of 2012 and particularly again the General House;

2. by a decision of 18 March 2013, the Superior General of the SSPX has established an ecclesiastical tribunal (hereinafter “Tribunal”) to inquire on certain facts and documents which seriously threaten the common good of the SSPX; indeed it comes back to the Ordinary (through his power of jurisdiction) to punish the offenses concerning their society and consequently to investigate into their subject (canons 335 and 2220 ss. Of the Code of Canon Law of 1917 (hereinafter “CIC-17”); canons 391, 1315 and 1399 of the Code of Canon Law of 1983 (hereinafter “CIC-83”));

3. the procedure followed by the Tribunal in judging the current affair is an administrative penal procedure according to canons 1933 §4 CIC-17 and 1342 §1 CIC-83;

4. the attacks against the common good and the serious consequences which followed (increase in anonymous e-mails, public appeals to sedition, serious calumnies and suspicions thrown in the ranks of the Society, collusion with small political groups) have led to an inquiry into the activities of certain members, in particular after one of them had admitted to having maintained an Internet site without authorization; during a meeting on 24 June 2013, the Tribunal examined provided documents and kept those obtained from the e-mail account of a certain Charles CORDAY, who turned out to be the pseudonym of Fr. RIOULT, at that time a member of the SSPX;

5. on 31 July 2013, the Tribunal notified Fr. Pinaud of its charge against him, which he answered in writing on 20 August 2013;

6. on 19 October 2013, Fr. PINAUD appeared before the Tribunal to answer for his actions; on this occasion, he asserted his defense by reading a document dated 11 October 2013;


1. the document dated 28 February 2013 titled “OPEN LETTER TO BISHOP FELLAY” signed by “Thirty-seven priests of the District of France” (hereinafter “Letter of the 37”) displays a seditious character since its object consists of pushing the Superior General to resign and constitutes a crime against canon 2344 CIC-17 and 1373 CIC-83, which provide for: “Whoever gives injury to . . . their own Ordinary by public journals, sermons, or pamphlets whether directly or indirectly, or who excites animosity or odium against their acts, decrees, decisions, or sentences shall be punished by an Ordinary not only at the request of a party but even by office with censures and, or order to accomplish satisfaction, other appropriate penalties and penances for the gravity of the fault and the repair of scandal;” And “a person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against . . . an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties”;

2. Father PINAUD, by approving the content and providing corrections, became an accomplice, cooperated formally and immediately to the Letter of the 37;

3. the fact that Fr. PINAUD said, “This document is clearly better because it is harder and more precise (1) ,” even though it is a private opinion (2), and not yet eluding judgment, because it is clear and convincing evidence that allows to qualify the act of cooperation posed by Fr. PINAUD;

4. Fr. PINAUD could not ignore that he participated in an open letter(3);

5. even if Fr. PINAUD did not approve of the anonymous character, the offense is not any less;

6. in addition, Fr. PINAUD has shown no in this case; what’s more, he has not ceased criticizing his superiors; in his last defense, he went on to say, “because of the many concessions it made to the Council and to the unacceptable conciliar reforms, in itself, the Doctrinal Declaration of 15April 2012 constitutes a danger to the faith which legitimizes the revolt, because this Doctrinal Declaration is not a “minimalistic text” as Bishop Fellay wrote in the editorial in Cor Unum no. 102” (4);

ACCORDINGLY, we condemn Father PINAUD to a medicinal punishment of suspension of all acts by removing both the power of order and the power of jurisdiction (can. 2278 ss. CIC-17 and 1333 CIC-83). The lifting of this censure should be reserved according to law (can. 2245 CIC-17 and 1355 CIC-83).

An administrative appeal with suspensive effect (can. 1353 CIC-83) may be lodged against this decision within fifteen working days from the notification of this decision (can. 1630 § 1 CIC-83).

In addition, the penalty is suspended for the duration of the delay of the appeal.

Made in Rickenbach, 28 October 2013.
Signed: Fr. Henry WUILLOUD, Judge ad hoc
Fr. Lukas WEBER, Notary ad hoc

1.) E-mail of Fr. PINAUD dated 23 February 2013.
2.) And no internal forum (cf. Defense of Fr. PINAUD of 11 October 2013, p.2)
3.) “We know that we shall be blamed for not respecting protocol by writing you so publicly . . . And what’s the use of writing you in private, when we know that a brave and lucid priest . . .” (Letter of the 37).
4.) Fr. PINAUD’s Defense of 11 October 2013.
Regarding the "jurisdiction as schism" question, I finally found the relevant quote from the SSPX.org website archives:

Consecrating a bishop without pontifical mandate would be a schismatic act if one pretended to confer not just the fullness of the priesthood but also jurisdiction, a governing power over a particular flock. Only the pope, who has universal jurisdiction over the whole Church, can appoint a pastor to a flock and empower him to govern it. But Archbishop Lefebvre never presumed to confer anything but the full priestly powers of holy orders, and in no way did he grant any jurisdiction (which he himself did not have personally to give).
So, I ask, has Bishop Fellay and his Tribunal performed an act of schism by claiming jurisdiction in this particular proceeding of an ecclesiastical "tribunal"?
Last edited:


1) - As others have pointed out that Bishop Fellay has no Canonical authority to suspend the faculties of a priest; that is reserved for an "Ordinary" Bishop. Bishop Fellay is NOT an Ordinary;unless he now claims schism.

2) - If this is really a grave and serious problem, and because Bishop Fellay is not an Ordinary, the judgment has to go to the Roman College; which will not happen, of course, and Bishop Fellay will be laughed at...

3) - The faculties of the [sspx] priests are given to them under Supplied Jurisdiction from the request of Catholic faithful asking for the Sacraments.

4) - Therefore, the faculties of the [sspx] priests are only taken away from them by the Catholic Faithful no longer asking for them from that particular priest anymore; not from Bishop Fellay.

5) - Further, the Catholic Church is suffering from lack of priests and from the lack of the Sacrifice of the Mass. If Bishop Fellay had the mind of the Church, and for the salvation of souls, he would NOT prohibit the Mass from being offered; rather, to encourage the Mass to continue from this priest and from all priests.

6) - The inappropriate and unproportional "punishment" given to this priest shows that Bishop Fellay had done so in spite and wickedness to that priest; rather than to have a just judgement using the Church's Wisdom, and if needed to punish, then for it to invite mercy and a conversion.

7) - Bishop Fellay once again abuses his authority; and shows further of his imprudence and incompetency to lead a congregation of souls under his charge.

8) - If the other [sspx] superiors, as with the two other Bishops, cared for the unity of the [sspx], and have any concern for the salvation of souls, they would openly denounce these abuses; call an emergency General Council to immediately remove Bishop Fellay for insubordination and treason to the cause and mission of Archbishop Lefebvre; as with his huge scandals and disgrace in heading the representation of Tradition in the fight for the Traditional Catholic Faith; the salvation of souls.

God have mercy on him and on us from this new scourge.

Last edited:


What is happening now? Do you have an update? He is imprisoned when he upholds the traditional Church, but great heretics and protectors of molestation such as Mahoney are free and clear. I think diabolical disorientation is a charitable and mild way to describe this. They have stolen away the Church I knew as a child, and put a monstrosity of an impostor in its place. And the true Church seems to be having to go underground again. Sighs and tears for my Church.


Hello Maria,

See here below the translation of his letter to Bishop Fellay, 14th January 2014.

January 14th 2014

Superior General,
In the context of my trial, I have received your letter dated December 12th 2013, a response to my letter mailed on January 9th 2013.
In your letter you note the fact that I am withdrawing my appeal. You confirm that the "the sentence pronounced against me by Father Wuilloud in the penal precept of October 28th 2013 is now in effect" and you ask me to "go to Montgardin quam primum (asap)"...
After an incomprehensible 8 month-trial... I did appreciate the sudden efficiency of your personal assistant who called one of my brothers on December 10th 2013, losing his patience to the point of rebuking him for not having my mobile number handy! That same day at 9.30pm, he was also calling my parents to know if I was home and to obtain my mobile phone number, the same number which did not seem to have been useful until that day.
When one looks in the dictionary under "masquerade", "parody" and "sham", one realises that these terms refer to the notion of trial... this masquerade did last a long time but it is finally coming to an end.
If I have accepted to endure this parody of a trial it was not in the hope to finally see justice done, because personally, I have no doubt as to your contempt for promises, at least since August 2011, date of my return from Gabon.

I have endured this sham trial only to give my colleagues another opportunity to observe your intellectual dishonesty.
But now, enough is enough!
The extraordinary disproportion of the sentence proves, if needs be, that this "ludicrous and ridiculous" stage play doesn't conform to reality. It hides a hidden agenda.
After the publication on Austremoine.org of the article of November 11th 2013: "the condemnation-justification of Father Nicolas Pinaud", you arranged to meet its author on Wednesday November 20th 2013 in Zurich and you told him that he didn't have all the facts in hand. You assured him in particular that he didn't know that I was a "great manipulator" and that this trial was, in my case, merely "the tip of the iceberg".
The sentence sanctions therefore an iceberg and a manipulation which have not been described by the arraignment. What is this iceberg and what is this manipulation?
Wouldn't it be, in your case, purely manipulative insinuations, which you and your close collaborators know how to disseminate so well?
You know what Bishop Tissier de Mallerais thinks of my sentence: that it is invalid, because, among other things, the collaboration of which you accuse me of is non-existent....
In such conditions, you force me to refuse to continue on this hypocritical path. To submit myself to yet another abuse of power would only be detrimental to the common good of the Priestly Society of St Piux X.
It is therefore neither reasonable nor virtuous to prolong this comedy.
Your deplorable and cruel attitude reminds me of these words of Joan to her executioner, "Bishop, I die through you!".
Your blindness and your persistence to destroy the identity of our Society fill me with consternation. You despise any advice, you follow with relentlessness your subversive goal whilst walking over your priests' dead bodies.
Nothing seems to be stopping you. What can I do, except to repeat these words of our divine Master to his treacherous disciple: "What you are about to do, do it quickly".
Enough is enough now!

Feast of Saint Hilaire of Poitiers
Father Nicolas Pinaud,
Suspens a divinis, under your jurisdiction.


mariaangelagrow said:
What is happening now? Do you have an update? He is imprisoned when he upholds the traditional Church, but great heretics and protectors of molestation such as Mahoney are free and clear. I think diabolical disorientation is a charitable and mild way to describe this. They have stolen away the Church I knew as a child, and put a monstrosity of an impostor in its place. And the true Church seems to be having to go underground again. Sighs and tears for my Church.
Hi Maria, Father Pinaud latest news above!


So is he still imprisoned? I do not understand how they can do that over an internal quarrel?
TY for the information.


No, I'm pretty sure he isn't, he has now joined the "Resistance" priests in fact.
Does anyone know where Father Pinaud is exactly?


TY for the information. It sounds so crazy, as if they had lost their minds.