Society of St Pius X – District of Asia
   
         SECOND CANONICAL MONITION

         TO THE REVEREND FRANCOIS CHAZAL

Dear Fr. Chazal,

On 8 June 2012 a penal precept and a first canonical monition were issued, with the accord of the Superior General and his Council, in the hope that you would realize the gravity of the actions, declarations, and publications which have been the cause of grave scandal and great spiritual damage for our faithful and for our apostolate.

This docuмent was hand-delivered to you by Fr. Thomas Onoda on 9 June 2012. That very day you violated the interdiction of the penal precept by flying to Hong Kong, and then to Korea and to Japan, against explicit orders not to do so.

In Korea, on 10 June 2012, you preached a sermon called “What’s Next”, which you publicized in the Internet. This same docuмent, as well as your other docuмent “War On”, you have also subsequently distributed in Tanay and Baguio Mass centers, and you have displayed “What’s Next” in Our Lady of Victories Church, in Manila, on Sunday morning 22 July 2012. Two other docuмents of yours, “I accuse the Counsel” and “I Excuse the Council” have just been put on the Internet as well.

I am hereby issuing a second and final canonical monition according to can. 697 C.I.C. 1983/ can. 660 C.I.C. 1917, asking you to submit to the penal precept of  8 June 2012.  If you violate its terms once more, the Superior General will institute penal proceedings leading to your dismissal from our Society for stubborn disobedience to legitimate orders in a grave matter and for grave scandal resulting for culpable behavior, according to can. 696 C.I.C. 1983/ can. 656 C.I.C. 1917, and to the particular law of the Society of St. Pius X (cf. General Chapter 2006, Cor Unum n. 85; Modifications to the Statutes, 4).

You have already been notified of your right under the law to self-defense, including a canonical counsel. You have the right as well to present to the Superior General, in person or in writing, your defense against this second canonical monition and the proposed dismissal within fifteen days of receipt of this docuмent. All your communications and responses will be given due consideration in the process.

Given at Manila, July 31, 2012

    +

Fr. Daniel Couture

                                                 In the presence of Fr. Michael Fortin
 
+Vienna, Virginia, 06 August 2012

Dear Father Couture,

The blade is now about to fall. You have kindly notified me that I may present a defense before the Superior General before that action is taken. I would be grateful to you if you would convey to him this – my last defense against the accusation of “stubborn disobedience” and “grave scandal”, resulting from “culpable behavior”.

There is no need for me to present again my case of evidence of a clear change of stance concerning Vatican II, now viewed as a fixable or bypassable Council; or the dangerous failure to denounce today’s “Magisterium”; or the desire to place the SSPX under the ongoing fornicating new rome, not to mention the new possibilities of placing our houses under the local dioceses, as well as other practical surrenders.

Since May of this year, no attempt at resolving these differences has been successful, and no written refutation of the four docuмents “War On”, “What Next”, “I Excuse”, and  “I Accuse” has been made thus far, isolating my arguments and evidence, and then refuting them.

I would think, in the interest of your cause, that it would be better for you to do so now; otherwise, you might show the world that your best argument is the guillotine. As a result, many priests of the Society who clearly agree with what I have said in the four docuмents, will be left without doctrinal protection against what you view as a “great scandal” and thus be further encouraged to disagree with Menzingen as I will stand as a punished witness to a yet unrefuted stance.

But the sole “War On” docuмent alone, some say, contains 33 arguments, and the whole case rests essentially on the fact that modernist rome and its actions are still deeply steeped in heresy.

That is why I have lost all expectation that you would issue such a refutation, which in turn opens another question: Is the publication of such a dissenting line from the party line of Menzingen, in all possible forms – pulpit, print, speech, internet, beard, red sash, etc. – a “great scandal” and a “great damage” and a grave disobedience to the Society?

The answer to such a question is yours, because you know so well that our founder did much more than I do. He dared to stand against Popes, Councils, Bishops worldwide and theologians.

Therefore my condemnation will make sense if the content of these four public docuмents is erroneous, and I do believe that I was always glad to obey my superiors until this crisis.

Lastly, I would like to complete my defense with Our Lady. To this day, I still do not understand how the piety of our faithful towards Her was chosen as an instrument for the reconciliation plans. And is there an awareness that the man who will process the reconciliation plans is the prefect of the CDF, a man notorious for his denial of Mother Mary’s virginity? I have heard from the Horse’s Mouth (the First Assistant) that we cannot build our plans on a miraculous triumph of Our Lady above the institution of the Papacy; I remember that Benedict XVI is the most recent chief plotter of the burial of the message of Fatima, and, in the end, instead of Our Lady choosing the time and nature of Her Triumph, we will tell Her what the circuмstances are that She must follow and supposedly this is how the papacy will convert.

Indeed, if you choose to deny me proper trial and examination, I shall rejoice at the fall of the blade.

Reverenter ac devote,

In Iesu et Maria,

Francois Chazal+

            

All I wish to say regarding this is what a shame it is not Fr Couture that is being dismissed but then again, it is hardly likely one of the gang will be dismissed.If Fr Couture was to go it would certainly be good riddance to bad rubbish.

Fr. Chazal is obviously doing something correct when Fr Couture is so riled. Let's offer solidarity and full support to Fr Chazal.

Lastly, I would like to complete my defense with Our Lady. To this day, I still do not understand how the piety of our faithful towards Her was chosen as an instrument for the reconciliation plans. And is there an awareness that the man who will process the reconciliation plans is the prefect of the CDF, a man notorious for his denial of Mother Mary’s virginity? I have heard from the Horse’s Mouth (the First Assistant) that we cannot build our plans on a miraculous triumph of Our Lady above the institution of the Papacy; I remember that Benedict XVI is the most recent chief plotter of the burial of the message of Fatima, and, in the end, instead of Our Lady choosing the time and nature of Her Triumph, we will tell Her what the circuмstances are that She must follow and supposedly this is how the papacy will convert.

Indeed, if you choose to deny me proper trial and examination, I shall rejoice at the fall of the blade.

Reverenter ac devote,

In Iesu et Maria,

Francois Chazal+

 :applause:

To make a donation to Padre Chazal, Padre Pfeiffer, and other Faithful Priests, send your tax deductible donations to:

Father Joseph Pfeiffer
c/o Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church
1730 N. Stillwell Road
Boston, Kentucky 40107

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I ACCUSE THE COUNSEL

On Bastille day, July 14th, the General Chapter of the SSPX elicits a declaration, for public consumption, which is at times sentimental but does not look too bad at first sight.

But it is much weaker than the 1974 declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre, which I do recommend you to read now to see the erosion for yourself.

The venom of this declaration is in its tail, that is, in the mention of some necessary conditions for the SSPX to have a canonical recognition from the new rome. Later distributed in an internal letter on July 18th, these six lamentable conditions, thankfully got leaked, and merit your special consideration.

3 SINE QUA NON (or necessary) CONDITIONS:  The liberty to keep, transmit and teach the good doctrine of the constant Magisterium of the Church and the immutable truth of divine Tradition; the liberty to defend, correct, reproach, even publicly those guilty of errors or novelties of modernism, liberalism, of the council of Vatican II and their consequences. To use exclusively the 1962 liturgy. To keep the sacramental practice we do have nowadays (including: orders, confirmation, marriage). The guarantee of at least one bishop.

& sound nice at first. But this claim of liberty for ourselves to teach condemn or keep things is not the fight of Archbishop Lefebvre. He clearly expressed that the first sine qua non condition would be the return of Rome to Tradition.

We are faced with the Dom Gerard, FSP and Campos syndrome. Dom Gerard said in July 1988 “No hindrance shall be put to our antimodernist predication”, then we saw what happened to that liberty one hopes to get from the enemies of the truth… they were deceived, time and over, who can deny it? Therefore the most grievous sin of this first group& is implicit. It is an

official sin of OMISSION of a request we have always made for 40 years: that the new rome stops crucifying the Church.This smacks of liberalism that always says “Live and let live” “Disagree but don’t be too judgmental and controversial” “Free Church in free state” “Liberty to one’s opinion and liberty to disagree with other without condemning them” etc. Secondly, those guilty persons referred to in , who are they?... simple and easy lay or priestly targets or bishops, cardinals and Popes?

In 1974 and after, the Archbishop consistently nailed the new rome, ie. the pope especially. He talked about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ reigning in Rome. Look at DICI; see a change of stance: we are careful of not disagreeing too badly with the Pope.

Thirdly one is perfectly entitled, in a liberal democracy, to defend correct and reproach the others, just as some French bishop said recently: “Let them come; let them join us, and disagree with Vatican II, for we disagree also with twenty other councils!” The catholic truth will be reproached in its turn, or simply diluted, or, as the Archbishop feared in 1988, by the mere mixing of our faithful with bad Catholics.

 Then how can a single bishop ensure the future of Tradition (600 SSPX and possibly 400 other priests)? Who will choose him; the Pope, the Commission or the SSPX? Shall we be guaranteed he is no liberal?

3 WISHABLE CONDITIONS (“conditions souhaitables”, a very weak word in French): Proper ecclesiastical tribunals in first instance Exemption of the houses of the SSPX from the diocesan bishops Pontifical Commission in Rome for Tradition in the dependency of the Pope, with the majority of its members and its presidency for Tradition.

 Archbishop Lefebvre ordered the SSPX to avail itself of tribunals in order to dodge the malpractice of novus ordo ones, and now we are left to just wish to keep only the smaller type of them, implicitly handing over, already, the dealing of serious matters to the new rome. And which code is all this leading us to use: the heavily tainted new one of 1983, or the code of 1917?

 Any faithful should jump with horror at the prospect of this: the SSPX is no longer an operation survival, putting the faithful entirely out of reach of the local modernist dioceses, but it merely wishes to be exempt from them. Do we just wish St Nicolas du Chardonnet, St Mary’s, Kansas, OLVC , Manila and our other houses, to be exempt from the influence of the modernist bishops, or do we exclude them from directing us until the crisis of the Church is over?

Since the new rome consistently throws the Ecclesia Dei groups back under the dioceses, how can we, in advance and by ourselves, admit that dreadful possibility and put it on a marble plate, as it is. We had believed, so far, that fighting against the new line imposed by the management of the SSPX had for object the avoiding of placing the SSPX under the fornicating new rome.

Now this fight also aims to rescue the SSPX from the clutches of the novus ordo dioceses!


A Pontifical Commission under the Pope is a pleonasm, because anything pontifical is under a pope. Secondly nothing is précised about the majority and presidency of this commission, because the reigning pope can claim to be for Tradition himself, or can appoint members of Ecclesia Dei groups, nay even conservative novus ordo people who fancy themselves as traditional.

SSPX should have been the precise term. But when we ask from the new rome to be placed in the dependency of it we know already where the ambiguity of the term “for Tradition” is going to lean.

And since we only wish this, if the Pope insists, the majority and presidency of this papal pontifical commission in dependency of the Pope…can be populated with modernists.

Heaven forbid us willing this wishy-washy wish-wash.





I EXCUSE THE COUNCIL

Three months of unretracted 2012 statements of His Lordship Bishop Bernard Fellay

-April 14th : “We must not make of the Council a super heresy” (April 14thMenzingen letter)

- April 15th: “the entire Tradition of the catholic faith must be the sole criteria and guide of the understanding of the teachings of the Council of Vatican II, which, in its turn, enlightens some aspects of the life and the doctrine of the Church that were implicitly present in her but not yet formulated. The affirmations of the Council of Vatican II and of the posterior Pontifical Magisterium concerning the relationship between the Catholic Church and non-catholic Christian confessions must be understood in the light of the entire Tradition.” (Extract of a Menzingendoctrinal declaration quoted publicly by FrPfluger in St Joseph des Carmes on June 05th)

- May 11th: “Many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are in fact not from the Council, but from the common understanding of it. (…) The Council is presenting a religious liberty which is in fact a very, very limited one. A very limited one. It would mean our talks with Rome, they clearly said that to mean that there would be a right to error or right to choose each religion, is false.”(Bishop Fellay, CNS interview in Menzingen)

- June 08th:“As for the Council, when they asked me the question, “Does Vatican II belong to Tradition?”, I answered, “I would like to hope that that is the case.”” (Bishop Fellay, DICI, Interview)

-July 14th: Insinuation that the Council of Vatican II is only tainted with error, but not to be discarded altogether on account of heresy, explicit or latent. (Declaration of the General Chapter in Econe) It is quite weaker than the Declaration of 1974.

It must be said that these quotes are only five, and intermingled sometimes with quotes condemning somewhat the Council of Vatican II. But many similar quotes, for and against Vatican II, can also be found in the past.
So which Bishop Fellay is the real Bishop Fellay?

It is the one that indicates regularly that there can be an understanding of Vatican II in the light of tradition, that the SSPX goes along with 95% of the text of Vatican II (DICI, may 18th 2001), that allows the watering down of the Angelus (compare with the current editions of Fideliter), ordered to Fr Kenneth Novak to expunge the “sspx.org”website and whose mouthpiece is DICI, a website that is becoming more and more similar with other Ecclesia Dei websites.

It is the Bishop Fellay that is constantly pushing for the placing of the entire work of Archbishop Lefebvre under the new and modernist rome without placing the condemnation itself of Vatican II as a sine qua non condition as the Archbishop did after June 1988, but just as a personal liberty to reproach or study the errors of the Council.

------------------

Written by Fr F.Chazal, no rights reserved as long as you don’t touch the text. Both I accuse and I excuse texts suppose the understanding of a clear distinction between the authority of Benedict XVIth and novus ordo bishops, which we recognize, and its actual exercise from which we must stay away, for reasons of Faith, as long as the crisis endures.

Please enlighten me.  Is Fr. Couture of the same ilk as +Fellay?  He has been a guest in my home several times throughout the years and I did have a very good impression of him.  Is it possible that he is carrying out +Fellay's orders, or is he, himself, capable of desiring the expulsion of the very fine priest, Fr. Chazal?

I just learnt from Radio Cristiandad about the ongoing meeting in Washington D.C. of priests faithful to ABL.  August 11th Fr. Pfeiffer will publish the decisions. Among them is also Fr. Chazal.

He's an inspiring priest, soon to be a traditional bishop I hope.

Do you speak French, Tele? It seems to me that you're getting a lot more out of
Fr. Chazal's compositions than I am. I know they're translated from French, but try
as I may I'm just not getting to the bottom of his message. Something seriously is
lost in the translation. Maybe you could help him with turning over a readable text?
I'd really like to get the full value of his works as I do Fr. Pfeiffer's, for I'm sure
they aren't that far separated, but I do need some help with Fr. Chazal.

God bless all good priests and bishops!

It cannot be lost on any of us that Fellay attempted to use Novus Ordo "Canon Law" against Bp. Williamson, law under which he has ZERO jurisdiction and ZERO authority. Now, Judaized hypocrite that he is, Fellay attempts to use the 1917 Code of Canon Law against Fr. Chazal.

Now that Krah has already made aliyah to ersatz-Israel, it is Fellay's turn.

What is next? Kol nidre?  Pulsa d'nura?