Note: This letter first appeared on the Canada Fidèle web-site on the 18th of April 2017. It was written by Father Nicolas Pinaud on the 18th of April 2016.

Open letter from Father Nicolas Pinaud to Father Olivier Berteaux, priest of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, Assistant to the District Superior of Canada, Director of the École Saint-Famille in Lévis (Québec)



"The world is rotten by dint of silence" St. Catherine of Siena

Father,

In Lévis, on Sunday 24 April, 2016, you made a commentary, in reaction to the homily delivered the previous Sunday in Montréal by Father Pierre Roy.

In an era when it is no longer possible to sneeze discreetly, perhaps you are not surprised that these two interventions are on the internet? Which allowed me to learn about it.

What you affirm therein is so erroneous that it seems necessary to me to share it with you by means of this open letter which the faithful whom you deceive will be able to read.

First, the homily of Father Pierre Roy:

Despite the preacher's youth, his mastery and the serenity of his speech impress me. Not a word is to be withdrawn and this intervention seems to me all the more courageous as it comes after the publication of the last Cor Unum in which Bishop Fellay writes: “We are witnessing, thank God in a limited way, this painful spectacle of priests, who want to be counter-revolutionary, but who nevertheless do not hesitate to act, to publish their opinions, as if the superiors no longer existed."

After a simple and clear commentary on the last Apostolic Exhortation which Father Roy legitimately qualifies as apostate, he continues - which fills you with emotion - : “I have kept silence until now, but I really am worried about what is happening between the head of our Society and apostate Rome. You know, more and more, the will is expressed more and more clearly in the Socwty, to want to succeed in coming to terms with these people. To want to at least receive approval from them, so that these people can declare us Catholic. ...

Yes, I am very worried that we might come to think that we can come to terms with these people, that we can build ourselves on the same foundation that these people are established on. ...

Yes, I am worried. Many priests, like me, are worried. If we have so far kept silent, it is always in this hope that these leaders who are leading us at this time can find the way, can find the light again. "

Father Roy is a worried priest. He is not the only one in the Society of Saint Pius X. He has shared it with his faithful, some of whom are no more reassured than he is. You know it.

Is this worry, that provokes your anger, surprising? I do not think so. Just remember the warning from Bishop de Galaretta to Albano on 11 October, 2011:

“For the good of the Society and of Tradition, the“ pandora's box ”must be closed as quickly as possible, in order to avoid discredit and the demolition of authority, disputes, discords and divisions, perhaps beyond the point of no return ”.

Here we are.

Bishop Fellay himself is not unaware of this concern which he describes as "mistrust" in the Cor Unum of March 2016:

"... This mistrust, we unfortunately see it in a certain number - quite small, it is true -, of our own members, not only towards the authorities of the official Church, but also towards their own superiors! "

Is it so improper to be suspicious of official Church authorities ?! Father Roy would be one of them and a few others!

Bishop Fellay wonders about the origin of this mistrust:

 “It seems to us that often these attitudes, a little desperate, come from personal wounds, frustrations, disappointments in relation to superiors…

"We therefore believe that part of the unease that some people experience does not come immediately from the deplorable and uncertain situation in which civil society and the Church find themselves, but from this lack of proximity or ease of frequent contact between the superiors ... "

Having never had the slightest contact with Father Pierre Roy, I do not know of the "personal frustrations that would have plunged him into this desperate attitude"! ... on the other hand, he cannot suffer from the estrangement of his superior, since they both live in the same house, where Father Roy assumes the function of director of the publication of the District bulletin. Usually, this is not a function that a superior gives to the first comer ...

The causes therefore seem elsewhere ... but the pilot survey launched by the Superior General should be able to provide answers without delay !!

We read in fact in the same Cor Unum:

"We have started to launch a pilot survey with a number of colleagues, asking them, while ensuring their anonymity, their opinion on the situation at various levels of operation."

If Menzingen sent me this pilot survey, perhaps I could share my experience with the SSPX and give my testimony regarding "guarantees of anonymity"!

Your reaction of last 24 April:

The following Sunday, you did a 17-minute tune-up. To give your words the illusion of wisdom, you assume the demeanour of a theatrical Imperial Guard scolder. But I hope your words have gone beyond your thought, because you have uttered a lot of nonsense!

How can you say that "the Society is an infinitely (!) precious good and that the gift it brings us, even before the Mass, the Sacraments, the Catechism, is AUTHORITY"?

Can you not see the appalling consequences of this primacy of authority over truth? Does not this primacy legitimise all the totalitarian ideologies that we know?

You repeatedly hammer home that "this principle of authority is intangible. That lost principle is death and chaos. "

Are you not putting Archbishop Lefebvre on trial? Do you deny that he refused to submit to lawful authority?

Listening to you, Archbishop Lefebvre would be the cause of our situation. If he had not disobeyed, would not we all be better in a brave new world?

From the start, your focus is therefore based on an error! Then the military vocabulary that you use to give yourself a little consistency betrays a poorly controlled emotion that makes you laugh.

Some of your formulas:

It is war, and in war the laws change - When there is a mutiny, it is martial laws - It is an exceptional tribunal - You have to decide on the spot - We shoot immediately - In the imperial guard some soldiers go so far as to give their lives for the emperor ...

Is the Emperor Bishop Fellay? Are you about to die for him?

Does being a great soldier always mean serving the General?

Lieutenant Degueldre who said: "I prefer a disobedience which costs me my life rather than an obedience which costs me honour", was he not a great soldier?

"If we don't have steel morale, you say, if we are not determined to fight to the end, we are dead and we are not worthy to serve the Church."

Worthy to serve which church with which struggle? The one who is celebrating the 50 years of the closing of Vatican II? Is your participation in the Year of Mercy a manifestation of "your morals of steel"?

Here are some more samples of your poor focus:

"Resistance is subversion - loss of confidence in one's superiors is death… - If superiors no longer have the possibility of being flexible, felines, manoeuvres, we are dead, we no longer have there is reason to exist… - a little common sense - I'm afraid we will show off our cowardice… - We will have to clean up… - we have to go to the front, melee - wear blows, we must take up arms… - We must risk everything for the Church… - the example of the papal Zouaves… - I appeal to honour, I appeal to loyalty, to common sense quite simply… "

You really do come across as delusional.

Is not Colonel Bastien-Thiry a fine example of a Christian hero? He was shot to death for rebelling against the policies of a felon leader. It was glorious and the honour of France was raised.

The Marshals of the Third Reich, on the other hand, faithfully carried out orders received from legitimate authorities. Some of them have based their defence on this submission to legitimate authority. They were hanged.

But since you qualify the Resistance as subversion. Let’s come to that. Father Quilton did this before you did in my trial. He relied on Saint Thomas IIa IIæ q. 42 a. 2. It is always serious to quote Saint Thomas, especially when you are a seminary professor! But it is not enough to quote it, it is still necessary to understand it. I demonstrated to him that he had failed to apply his quote to the present situation. He did not contradict me and I have heard no more speak of subversion since.

If you wish to have a precise idea on this notion of subversion that you invoke, read pages 247 to 255 of the Proceedings of my trial. It doesn't seem like a superhuman effort. After that, you will no longer assert: "Some have taken responsibility, they have been kicked out of the Society, it is in the order of things. Ah! the means employed have not been good? Once again on the front lines when there is treason, there is an exceptional tribunal and we are shot. Let us not play with authority. "

You assert to impress your followers but that in no way proves the veracity of your words.

When you speak of "go up to the front, ... hand-to-hand combat, ... strike blows, ... take up arms ..." do you think of Bishop Fellay's cordial meeting with François on the 1st of April?!

"You appeal to the honour ..." the honour of serving Bishop Fellay? the honour of serving authority before Mass, the Sacraments and the Catechism?

Your young colleague called for the honour of serving Christ the King, that is something else! And when you say “cleaning up there,” what are you talking about? From Rome ? Is this really coherent for someone who has only one principle: intangible respect for authority? Be consistent with yourself!

You recall the glorious memory of the Zouaves. Do you forget that the Pope of the time was not called Francis but Pius IX?

At the end of your commentary, you still cannot avoid an allusion to the objection which must often hiss in your ears: the danger of an endorsement of modernist Rome.

Your answer is always the same, there is only one, still so appalling:

"In any case, we cannot do without authority - Let us maintain unwavering confidence in our leaders - Everything tells us that the first principle of authority is the principle that must be defended otherwise there would be no more Mass."

For what betrayal was Father Aulagnier therefore ejected from the Society? The one you are considering by submission? The one Father Schmidberger wanted in his note of 19 February?

Obviously your focus does not include a single word on the substance of the problem. You are making accusations of cowardice while you are comfortably settled in your obsessive formula: Authority-obedience!

I very much doubt you will receive the pilot survey form!

Does your focus show the soul of a soldier or that of a little valet?

In any case, let me tell you, Father: what you did on Sunday in Lévis was silly!

Father Nicolas Pinaud, USML