Dear Malaysian Faithful,

1. First, the Malaysian association was not set up by the sspx, because if it were, it would be in its hand and no attempt to take it over would take place. So one cannot do as if the situation in Malaysia is comparable to other sspx run associations.

2. There is what is called a "petition of principle", namely if the association is in the hands of the sspx, it will necessarily be in the interest of the faithful.
How can they be so sure?
On the contrary, both the sspx and lay run association can succeed or fail. Only the Catholic Church is indefectible, and now that the sspx is getting more and more connected canonically with the novus ordo, it is heading towards failure.

3. The priests of the sspx, at least before 2012 operated in virtue of supplied jurisdiction, so their authority while real, is not unlimited. If they are in the right they ought to be followed, otherwise no.
Again, petition of principle, who s your daddy on the five continent, and if the priest is wrong, his superior knows even better. Fr Pagliarani should also admit he could go wrong.

4. Here, for instance, in Cebu, the local St Pius V church is served by the sspx, is not in the hands of the sspx, but of the hands of the daughter of Lola Bertha, who still has a decision as to how the building will be used.
Granted, in the world the sspx has full control of most of its premisses, but that is not always the case and Fr Pagliarani knows that.

5. The CÖVÌD19 is a hoax, a very limited flu type disease, that killed one or two million, while ordinary flu kills 20 millions a year. The abusive restrictions are abuses of power we all have to endure and the ναccιnє identity passes are a foretaste of ƈσmmυɳιsm, or more likely, actual ƈσmmυɳιsm.
So it would have been better, in these troubled times, not to have staged a coup on the association in KL, not just to cool things down, but, more importantly as local independent entities escape better the grip of Big Brother.

As to Fr Summers,

1. If the deal was to have the sspx have all the controls from day one, why was it not stated explicitely from day one?
In the real world, there is no implicit reality taking over an explicitly stated contractual commitment.

2. We the priest of the so called "so called Resistance" are working in many places on facilities still in the legal hand of the faithful.
That is no democratism.
When a difference erupts, we get thrown out, and it happened to us early on in Batangas Leyte. In Australia we were thrown out... and taken back!😉

Nevertheless we are kings, because the faithful remain our dependents sacramentally and respect our priestly authority (A limited one as per canon 209).
Unlike the sspx, we are quite aware and insist we can fail the faithful one day, because, again, these are dangerous times and indefectibility belongs only to the Catholic Church.
Nevertheless, knock on wood, we are not jeopardizing the work of Archbishop Lefebvre by joining Rome before it has converted back to tradition. Let Rome behave like the good Archbishop Vigano.

So in a way we are hedging our bets and not putting all our eggs in the same basket by welcoming lay legal work and ownership on a local basis. Bishop Williamson is kind of particular about this policy of independent clusters of Tradition and has earned a lot of flak from Fr Pfeiffer and the neosspx for it, but facts are proving him right.
This has served us very well in many places, and we look forward doing the same with you now.

3. The priest can expel people who are causing scandal, but what we mean is actual scandal like immodesty, talk against the faith, sedevacantism (even there, no sede should be disturbed if he is courteous) etc.

The terms "against the common good" or "endangering by bad behavior the pastoral work of the priest" are too vague... there are precise guidelines to bar people from sacraments, but not these.
- Is the desire to retain the association in its current membership a grave offence that warrants the privation of Sacraments, especially in this time of sacramental drought?
- Are regrettable conversations excuses to do the same?
As Fr Pagliarani would have implied, but did not conclude rightly, the situation should have been left as it was until calmer and better times.
Tempers can flare, but we can always forgive one another, and good leaders, for the common good, must be able to endure certain things, while standing strong on DOCTRINAL and gravely moral principles (not difficult to solve ownership principles).

● Dear Fr Summers, whom i know so well, I can t understand how the newsspx can have such an arrogant persistence as to refuse to return to the status quo ante with the malay comittee. We are now obliged to move to the assistance of these people because they are blackmailed sacramentally. I m not sure they understand our doctrinal position entirely, but we have to help out of Charity.

4. As to the goods, again, it was a precipitous action to seize them when legally they belong to the place, no matter the intention of the different donators may have been.
My advice is that the comittee retains them and if in fairness and charity something should be returned (like a personal chalice of Fr so and so etc.), let it be returned when the dust has settled.
For our part, we spent 500k pesos on the premises of Mrs Julie Cordova, she threw us out a bit unfairly, but all we spent to revamp her property is hers, unfairly perhaps, but legally and there is nothing we can nor will do about it.
I m not sure i can refuse her Sacraments if she shows up one day, because the only ones offended are us, so, we are glad to forgive her.

I hope this helps.
God bless you all, dear new friends.
In Iesu et Maria,
Francois Chazal+



On Sun, May 2, 2021, 3:09 PM <redacted> wrote:

   Almost everything [Fr. Summers] claims here is false, half truths or a twisting of the facts and the priest has done it in the most shameless manner.

   Its too many to provide a proper objection and rebuttal for now but Father if you have any questions regarding any of these claims by the district superior please let me know and i will provide the answers to them.







   Friday, April 30th, 2021

   The Current Situation of the SSPX in Kuala Lumpur

   Dear Faithful,

       I hope to clarify a few important principles in this letter to avoid confusion and to make clear the position of the SSPX in Kuala Lumpur. There have been far too many text messages, letters and unnecessary arguments in these past months. I do not intend to make this letter comprehensive and long…I would much prefer to speak with you all in person about certain questions as is normal and more in accord with our human nature. Debates and harsh words on “Whatsapp” do not produce any good results and are often liable to confuse the matter or lead to misunderstandings.
   There are two issues: firstly: about the relationship between SSPX and the local association, and secondly: about who is allowed to attend SSPX Masses currently in Kuala Lumpur.

   1. Relationship between SSPX and local associations:

       I will paste directly below the principles laid down by our General Superior, Fr Pagliarani, in his letter to a Malaysian who wrote to him recently. He encouraged me to share this extract with the faithful so that it may help everyone to understand how we operate.

   Fr Pagliarani = “Coming now to the present situation, please try for the moment to forget about Malaysia and to understand how the Society uses the different associations it established all over the world. In every country, our apostolate — our material goods, as well as our activities — are justified legally through the associations. This tool is necessary to enable the priest to do his work and to enable the faithful to have Mass and pastoral care. All over the world, the Society controls this kind of association, not only as a matter of fact, but as a principle which was clearly established from the beginning and confirmed by the different experiences the Society has had. This is not a personal idea of Fr. Summers or of anyone else. This reality must be observed not only from the side of the priest who needs freedom to do his work, but also from the side of the faithful who need the guarantee that the association is used for their benefit. In fact, an association made of 7, 10 or 15 people is not a community of 200 or 400 people, but just a tool to make the apostolate possible for everybody: it means, for the 200 or 400 faithful who are expecting it, pastoral care and guidance from the priest and not from anybody else. To give you an example: if one day the members of any association are divided with different opinions; if the same association no longer expresses the needs of the faithful; if any kind of division arises among the faithful themselves, like it happens sooner or later in every community, who is supposed to have the last word and settle the issue? It is the pastor and nobody else. Not only does he have both the authority and the responsibility, but he also usually knows confidential elements and details that he cannot reveal. Of course, he can make errors, likewise every human being. But in such a case, he is accountable before his superior and not before lay people. I cannot change this reality, and the distinction you made between places where the priests are residents and the places where the priests are just visiting does not fit with the policy of the Society. Again, this universal principle is valid for the Society on the five continents.
       Regarding the future, as I said at the beginning, I will do my best to remind every priest of the Society, and in particular the priest in charge of Malaysia, that they have to listen and always to show care, concern and kindness. But whenever there is a decision to be made concerning the apostolate (because we 2 are not interested about anything else), after having consulted all those who can give good advice, the final decision must be made by the priest in charge who, at the same time, will bear the responsibility of the decision he is making. And this priest — whoever he is — must assume responsibility for his actions before his superior, and not before a group of lay people, neither the members of the community nor of the association. Concretely speaking, it is the priest who is deciding when he can say Mass, who can come to Mass, who can serve Mass, who the sacristan can be, and so on. This is not particular to Malaysia; this is the policy of the Society all over the world. This is what I have I received from my predecessors, and I am not going to change it because I cannot do so.
       Finally, please allow me to give a personal suggestion, including a consideration. The difficulties you mentioned are somewhat related to the crisis due to cσɾσnαvιɾυs: when a new situation arises, new decisions or measures have to be taken. It is important to evaluate all this as it deserves and to keep calm. All over the world, this crisis created a lot of problems; at the same the Society received a lot of new faithful because our churches remained opened, and our priests did their best to ensure the sacraments whenever it was possible, even for people dying of cσɾσnαvιɾυs. I do regret that the priests were not able to travel to KL for a long while.
       Here is my suggestion: if there is a common good to preserve (which is the possibility for the faithful to have Mass and pastoral care); if the present members of the association – or some of them – are not willing anymore to assume the risk and the liability related to their office (their personal fear can be understandable and even legitimate on a personal basis), why do they not step aside – for the time being – and leave their place to other faithful, carrying on simply as members of the community and with the commitment of any other good faithful? What is most essential? How could this jeopardize the future?”
   (extracts from an April 14th email of Fr Pagliarani to a concerned Malaysian)

   Therefore we can see that it has never been the intention or the understanding of the SSPX priests that the chapel was under the control of a legal association. Rather, the association was established to help with some material matters and to advise the priest. It seems that there is now a fundamental disagreement about this particular issue, namely, “Is the Chapel of the Sacred Heart the same thing as the legal association?” or is it rather “The Chapel of the Sacred Heart run by the SSPX priests with the help and advice of a legal association”. It seems that how someone answers this question gives the solution to our current predicament. Most recently the Association has sent out a message that they do not agree with the position of the SSPX running all aspects of chapel life. After I made the decision to temporarily suspend collaboration due to the question of authority, they have then officially announced that they have taken the decision to no longer work with the SSPX. They have declared that they will call in priests of the so-called “Resistance”. We can argue for many days and months about what different individuals consider as necessary risks and what is possible and what is not possible…but at the end of the day we need to make a decision. Some faithful say certain things can be done and some faithful disagree…there are contrary opinions on several delicate matters. These are all good examples of why a democratic approach to the running of a chapel doesn’t work in the long-run.

       2. The Issue of Mass Attendance:

   There remains then the question of who is welcome at Mass in our chapels and Mass centers. All things being equal, everyone is most welcome and encouraged to participate and attend Mass and receive the sacraments. Obviously, this is a basic Catholic principle.

   However, there are times (infrequently) where the priest must temporarily disallow certain persons from attending the Mass due to public scandal or a danger to the common good of the entire chapel, at least until the public scandal is repaired or the danger to the common good removed. This can happen when a person causes disruption to the operations of the chapel or endangers (by bad behaviour) the pastoral work of the priests. This bad behaviour could be detraction, calumny, sowing of discord or causing alarm/fear amongst the flock. According to the most basic Catholic Moral Theology, this is the situation we find amongst a small group in Kuala Lumpur.

   Due to the “hijacking” of the chapel premises and the items donated for the work of the SSPX (many of which come from the priory in Singapore, or have been donated by faithful who explicitly intended to donate for the SSPX apostolate in Malaysia and not for the legal association), all the current members of the Committee are clearly found in this group.

   There are also several others (non-committee members) who have spread calumnies or discord by their messages sent to many good faithful who are scandalized by these actions. This does not apply to every single member of the “Association”, many of whom just want to have peace and order restored to their beloved chapel.

   Due to the public nature of these actions, this small group of persons need to restore justice and make reparation for the damages before asking to return to the Mass and sacraments. As Fr Pagliarani mentions in his statement above, he recommends that association members or committee members could easily step down from their positions and allow other faithful (who are willing) to take the legal burden upon themselves. This would be a good first step to fixing the problems. These other persons can then calculate the risks and decide for themselves if they wish to operate according to the instructions of the priests of the SSPX.


   Conclusion

   “Contra Factum non valet argumentum“ – Against the facts, there is no argument. The SSPX is in Malaysia at great expense and after 5 months of hard work to get here. We are visiting homes and celebrating Mass for a majority of the faithful. It is clear that, despite a small group of persons who have personal disagreements with the decisions of the priests, we are doing our best to work for the salvation of souls. This is not the first time in our 50 years history where we have been falsely accused of things and I am sure it will not be the last. Nevertheless, we wish the good for all souls, even if it means a painful correction of certain ones so that the common good may be preserved. As I have told many persons already, I am willing to meet with any individuals who have questions or concerns. I will continue to remember the faithful of Malaysia at the altar of sacrifice each day and I ask for your prayers as well.



   In Christ and Maria,

   Rev. Fr. Patrick Summers

Once again reflecting the true attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre in stating “no sede is to be disturbed if he is courteous”.

I liked this reflection of the true attitude of Lefebvre, acknowledging sedes give grave scandal and can be kicked out of the chapel:
“The priest can expel people who are causing scandal, but what we mean is actual scandal like immodesty, talk against the faith, sedevacantism”

Those two statements are joined in Father Chazal's text, and yet you decide to separate the two to make it seem like he means the opposite of what he just said.  You really are not a very honest man, Sean.  He's saying that they can be kicked out if they are DISRUPTIVE, but not it they are CURTEOUS (i.e. don't cause problems).  In other words, holding the opinion is permitted, but disruption is not.  That was actually the same distinction Archbishop Lefebvre made regarding The Nine.  He didn't kick them out for holding the opinion (in fact, not all of them did at the time) but rather for the disruption they caused.

Lad-
Pull your head out, please.
You accuse me of separating two sentences which you acknowledge were joined, yet it was you yourself who chose to separate them, and reproduce only the latter, in order to create the false impression that Lefebvre never had a problem with sedes attending his chapels (while conveniently omitting the first sentence which declares the sede position scandalous, and that they are only welcome so long as they keep their mouths shut).

It seems to me like fr chazal is saying that a dogmatic sede who insists other people agree with him and causes disruption in a chapel can be expelled but a sede who is willing to fellowship peacefully with non sedes and not cause disruption over the issue should be allowed to participate in the Sacramental life of the church and shouldn't be expelled 

It seems to me like fr chazal is saying that a dogmatic sede who insists other people agree with him and causes disruption in a chapel can be expelled but a sede who is willing to fellowship peacefully with non sedes and not cause disruption over the issue should be allowed to participate in the Sacramental life of the church and shouldn't be expelled

Yes, that's how I read that as well.

But isn't his own position almost indistinguishably close to the same thing?

I don't know what his take is and don't really care, as it his business, but...

Never be surprised by anything within the section of the worldwide asylum known as Traddieland.

Most who resist V2 contend that the Conciliar Church is somehow "IN/distinct" from the Catholic Church, sharing ONE head.  C'est la vie.

.
But isn't his own position almost indistinguishably close to the same thing?

Why yes, yes it is.  Well, at least it was during the first few conferences he gave on video.  I haven't read his book to determine whether he's changed it at all.

Why yes, yes it is.  Well, at least it was during the first few conferences he gave on video.  I haven't read his book to determine whether he's changed it at all.

Well, we all know that the sad reality of Traddieland is to change your position (multiple times) as the years go by and new information becomes available or is seen in a new light, then condemn everyone else just because they don't see things as you do at that particular moment.  Do some whom you now condemn hold your previous position?  Not to worry!  That is how it is done in the Endless-Latitude-for-Me but Zero-Latitude-for-You world of those who cry "SCANDAL!!" while endlessly scandalizing.  Frankly, I find it fittingly humorous that there is apparently some sort of denial of Sacraments (or tendency to avoid them) among the SSPX and the Resistance.  Just like some of the BS they rightly found problematic in Sedeland.