So, he did what he should have, and the priest did what he should have. Now, the parishioner should continue organizing as best he can, but from off the parish property.
Some may protest that he should ask the priest before distributing literature on the parish grounds, but I know of no Church law to that effect, and the story does not tell us that the priest had issued some prior command to that effect, so I see no reason that the distribution of the literature was wrong. Maybe it contravenes the social mores of some, but that hardly makes it wrong.
I think he probably should have moved off parish property when told to do so, but I think he was perfectly within his rights to protest the actions of the new pastor (and the incredible spite and vindictiveness of the departing bishop, Pilla!).
Many people objected to the changes to the liturgy after VatII, not even necessarily to the NO itself, but to the bizarre things that happened, the insulting liturgies, the removal of the Tabernacle, the turning of the altar and stripping of the churches, etc. We were all told it was the bishop's decision and we had no right to protest it and if we didn't like it we could leave. And that's what many of us were eventually forced to do. No concern about being "inclusive" where conservatives or even simply people distressed by the New Church were concerned; we were simply inconvenient and they were glad to see us go.
The bishop has the obligation to listen to his flock with fatherly concern, something that seems to be entirely absent from most bishops. Curiously, many bishops seemt to permit a lot of divergence from Church teaching, and blind obedience is only called for by these bishops when they cannot legitimately explain or defend their actions or base them on Church teaching (which Pilla and the new pastor obviously cannot in this case). I am assuming that Petrakos has made efforts to contact the bishop and the pastor about this, and he is resorting to this publicity stunt after having been ignored by them.
I think in this case, it will be counterproductive, because bishops stick together, no matter how rotten one of their members may be, and the new bishop will not be friendly to him, either. But I think one has a legitimate right to protest the decisions of a bishop; like any other person, he can be wrong. Bishops can also be heretical and evil, just like any other person; the history of the Church is filled with bishops who have been exactly that. We cannot be obedient to evil and claim that we were just following orders. Certainly, the burden will be on us; we are the ones who will have to leave our church jobs, parishes or even dioceses in protest, but I think we have every right and even a duty to protest when a grevious wrong is done.
It seems in this day and age that the reserve of tradition has largely been kept filled by the laity and not by the heirarchy, who have done everything possible to drain it and wipe out any memory of its existence. If more of us had protested and fought for tradition at the beginning of the Liturgical Terror, we might have preserved more of it and given strength and courage to the clergy (and even bishops!) who were steam-rollered by the whole project and had no support from within their own ranks.
That said, I don't think Petrakos' approach was particularly helpful, but I can certainly understand the pain and frustration that were behind it.
I suspect the idea is, if one lets one guy pass out information without permission, however justified his complaints, every person will have to be allowed to do so. Since one will get Davinci Code devotees and all sorts of flakes, the just will have to grow silently among the weeds.