CathInfo.com

This dispute in Malaysia is difficult to assess because the correspondence is posted in reverse chronological order, such that upon beginning reading, you are left wondering what in the world Fr. Chazal is talking about, and only pick up bits and pieces to make sense of it as you continue.  Then, by the time you figure out the problem (reverse chronology of correspondence), you have already read so much, that it is easier to just keep going, rather than start over again from the bottom of the post up.  And of course, by the time you finish, you can’t remember (because of the logical disorder and Incoherence of placing the commentary before the original source) what specifically is being contended.

The second, and more important problem, is that there is no background information provided anywhere (which should have prefaced the post) informing them reader as to the specific nature and facts leading to the dispute.  Instead, all we know is that a disagreement between the association and the SSPX over control of a mission chapel has led on the one hand to the association calling on (or threatening to call on?) the Resistance, and on the other hand, the SSPX interdicting certain faithful in favor of the association retaining/gaining control of the chapel.

But what are the issues in dispute which led to this situation???

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

Fr. Chazal makes no mention of dogmatic; he mentions only sedes, calls their position “real scandal,” and allows them to attend if they keep their mouths shut about it.
Same reason I’m allowed to continue attending SSPX Masses when the Resistance is not around,

Fr. Chazal makes no mention of dogmatic; he mentions only sedes, calls their position “real scandal,” and allows them to attend if they keep their mouths shut about it.

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