It has already been demonstrated that the Tucho "Note" that announces the excommunication of the clergy and laity of the SSPX is canonically invalid. It is very important for people to understand this. I have consulted with multiple canon lawyers (including a judicial vicar of an archdiocese who is very competent) and they all say these analyses are essentially correct:
LOL. “I know a guy who says ‘nuh uh!’ And he’s like really smart and good at his job.” I don’t know man, I think I’ll just go with the Vatican on this one.
Canon law is all about law, which means there's a way things have to be done to have consequences, especially extreme consequences. Please take a moment to read this:
The Holy Father has made this clear by his words. But first:
Vatican II's Lumen Gentium 25 teaches: "the judgments made by [the Pope] are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."
The Holy Father's June 29th letter says "the schismatic act you are about to undertake" and "desist from your intended act". The circumstances and previous acts of the Holy Father make it clear that this is the SSPX's act of unauthorized consecration. We know what he means when he says "to tear the seamless garment of Christ is a sin of extreme gravity." It's classic language for Schism, going back as far as the 3rd Century with St. Cyprian of Carthage (On the Unity of the Church §7).
Further, Canon 16 §1 states:
> §1. Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by the one to whom the legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.
The Pope is the Supreme Legislator. He is above the Law, and by that authority can modify the Law, *and even act beyond it, without it.* (Which renders this discussion moot.) If you want a citation, see the Apostolic Constitution *Predicate Evangelium* Art. 176: "the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Legislator and Interpreter". This is already included in the Pope's "Supreme, full, immediate and universal power" [Canon 331, Lumen Gentium, Vatican I, etc.]
Thus, if the Pope says "what you're going to do is an act of schism", then it's an act of schism - no if's, and's, or but's. Further: Canon 333 §3 says, "§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff." This would block any appeal by the SSPX through Canon 1353, because you can't appeal the Pope's judgement.
Now, the Vatican's DDF (the highest Curial organ) issued the decree of Excommunication; but in Canon Law, the decree announcing something isn't what makes the Law take effect - it merely announces it. That's implicit in this case, too, as the DDF cited latae sententiae excommunication.
Canon 1314 reads:
> Can. 1314— A penalty is ordinarily ferendae sententiae, that is, not binding upon the offender until it has been imposed. It is, however, latae sententiae if the law or precept expressly lays this down, so that it is incurred automatically upon the commission of an offence.
And the SSPX did commit a such a delict, schismatic act that effect latae sententiae excommunication:
Can. 1387— "Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."
So if the Holy Father said (or meant) that consecrating the bishops would be schism, and "a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication" [Canon 1364 §1], then the SSPX schismed and excommunicated themselves in the consecrations.
I hope my explanation was explained clearly enough.
Nothing has been demonstrated. You're out, we're still in. Convert to the Catholic Faith. Worshipping a Liturgy instead of Christ is what got you here.
It's funny neither analysis actually cites canon 1364. The only canon cited in the note. I wonder why?
Maybe because the Canon in question makes it clear that adherence to schism gives automatic excomunication. No need for any canonical decree. It also seperates out the excomunications from canonical penalties which need a trial.
Here is the Canon in question,
§ 1. An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of can. 194 § 1 n. 2; he or she may also be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§ 2-4.
§ 2. If a long-standing contempt or the gravity of scandal calls for it, other penalties may be added, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.
These analysis’s are trying to make the note do more than what it claims to do. Nowhere does it formally declare an excomunication nor apply penalties. The analysis’s are a strawman.
The decree already declared that formal adherence to the SSPX is Schismatic and the older note explained and defined formal adherence. So the new note only needs to point out that the sin of schism occurs and the Church has never needed a canonical trial to say someone sinned.
You can also note that the tense is correct since the the note came out contingently after the decree and a day after priests and some laity adhered to the SSPX and their consecrations.
You're no canon law expert, that's clear. I suppose the other five (yes, five) canon lawyers I spoke to, all of whom work for diocesan tribunals, just don't know what they're talking about. That's a good one!
An appeal to authority is no refutation but is in fact a logical fallacy. I'm also not denying that their canonical analysis is wrong per se, more they are strawmaning the note by making it say what it's not trying to say.
But if you truly want a Canon Lawyer my argument is better given by John Salza and Robert Siscoe, not to mention it was put forward by Vatican canon law experts. But given one of your sources you cited was Kennedy Hall who likewise is not a canon lawyer nor expert you are also a hypocrite.
You make some very excellent points. As a catholic I feel like this whole situation is very messy. I like your arguments and I'd love to hear someone respond to them. Either way, unity in Christ my brother!
I urge all to read lefebres 1987? Letter to catholics . This is not just about the changes to mass .
Heresy is ubiquitous since modernists hijacked Vatican 2 replacing the orthodox schema ( lefebre produced some ) and even committee chairs with their modernists using knowingly ambiguous language to suit their ends .
Read it .
Even Catechesis of children and religious formation of priests wilfully corrupted . Sacraments diluted or renoved , heretical practises and that was even back then .
It is beyond dispute that both liturgy and bishop selection was done by active Freemasons , who appointed their own , and as cardinals and by limiting age and so removing conservatives the modernists renoved Benedict apppinting apostates Francis and Leo .
This is the apostasy foretold by our lady at la sallette garabandal , and is the true third secret of Fatima
Since being a mason is instant excommunication neither the bishops appointed by them or the popes are licit .
All lefebre could do was rewind back to proper tradition.
It is clear heretic leo who also bowed to pachamama and will embrace any heretic as ecumenism or even appoint them as bishops but not embrace the faithful - he deliberately wanted to kill pf sspx by starving them of bishops
So we are in a battle against the devil of masonry embodied all through the hierarchy , so we are not only in an emergency but we have almost lost
We should view it as a repeat of athanasius contra mundum - then as in Portugal pre Fatima it was the laity kept the faith alive
So Leo cannot order anyone contrary to the deposit of faith nor can he claim Vatican 2 as dogma it was not a dogmatic council
So for me , bravo sspx keeping the true faith alive in the time of heretic popes
Progressive catholicism is not my faith the church has been infiltrated to accept modern society its just like the anglicans. The words of Jesus and the lord are my following not man who are corruptable
Thank you Fr. Calvin, even not being a Roman Catholic you made a thorough and correct analysis on the Roman Catholic Church, the means of its existence and the reality of its crisis.
I am a revert Catholic who was granted a new life in Christ thanks to Evangelic Pentecostal Christians in 1990 and Jesus showed me to stay in the Catholic Church. I joined the Charismatic Catholics and tried many other Catholic groups (Opus Dei, Fokolare, etc.), and even went many times to Medjugorje. Moved be a fire within I had to experience rejection in the parish when I demanded sound Catholic catechism for my children and thus we became parish nomads. Mother Mary guided me to the FSSPX in 2014 and after a time of discernment I stayed with them since. The FSSPX are built on solid ground, on the Deposit of Faith laid down by the apostles and Fathers of the Church. They became the nest where my soul is fed with the truth of the Catholic faith and doctrine and where I can grow spiritually to serve the Lord and His Church. God through His Word has never deceived me and therefore I will continue the way Divine Providence has shown me, even in persecution.
There is a parallel with the story of Joseph and his brothers, they wanted to kill him and finally sold him to nomads. God was with Joseph and lifted him up in Egypt. Then the time arrived, where the brothers in need were humbled and reconciled with Joseph. May God have mercy on us all.
First Canterbury tries to send all her members to Rome, then Rome tries to send a million of her members to Hell. Perhaps Constantinople will be the next to shoot herself in the foot?
Father Calvin, being Catholic means to be faithful to Christ’s teachings and God’s laws, the false pope Leo, like the false pope Francis were and are not Catholic or even remotely Christian. They were/are wolves in sheep’s clothing that Christ warned against.
I had always liked and believed in the SSPX until......please look at their suggested Examination of Conscience. The usual list of common sins, id est, have you stolen, lied / borne false witness, etc. BUT then, have you attended the New Mass!!!!! If they truly consider all of us who have indeed attended the "Novus Ordo" , whether done in Latin or English, to be in mortal sin, and they believe that we did NOT receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord in Holy Communion, then no longer can I take them any more seriously than I would a Pharisee who would happily damn to Hell anyone who did not do as he said. I certainly do not follow the various blasphemies often endorsed, explicitly or implicitly, by the last two Popes! But neither can I agree with anyone who thinks that the millions of souls who have attended the "New Mass" for the last fifty years or more, are all either heretics or imbeciles. All that said, I certainly do not hold any hard feelings toward any who choose to attend the SSPX, and as always, pray daily for the preservation of the holy Faith. Pax tecum, Father C.
As a Roman Catholic former Altar Boy who was required to learn the Latin Mass by heart, at a very young age, around 9, I do miss it, profoundly. There’s a spiritually elevating solemnity to it, which imbues awe & deep respect, much of which is missing in the contemporary Mass.
As time passes, most younger people are increasingly denied that experience.
I also observe that my saying grace before meals, which I’ve recommenced recently, is increasingly embarassing to even my Catholic friends. God help us if Catholics are now too embarrassed to express their faith to others. I suspect that there is more than a little of that happening. In more casual circumstances, the Selkirk Grace works well.
This embarassment contrasts with those in eg the Russian & Greek Orthodox Faiths.
The actions of Leo XIV are disturbing in that they erode hope when the Church needs it most. It’s extraordinary that he preaches “diversity” & “inclusion”, yet disallows the Traditional Rite of Mass.
Likewise HMKCIII, & the Archbishopess of Canterbury, who apparently favour Islam, at the expense of the Anglican Tradition they purportedly lead.
The left-leanings of the Pope were clearly evident given his undignified public argument with Trump.
We must pray for these three Church leaders, & indeed all Catholic clergy, before it’s too late.
I agree with many points here. I have long attended the TLM. My husband and I were married in the TLM back when it was considered the indult with Pope Benedict XVI, and our children have received most of their Sacraments in the old rite. I sympathize with the SSPX. There are so many problems in today’s Church. However, wherever there is a FSSP, there seems to also be a SSPX not too far away (as we have discovered with our many military moves), and my interactions with them or people who I was once considered friends who left for SSPX over the years have been… sad and heartbreaking. I find that they are usually the ones with the Pharisaical mindset and are so easily damning of others when something doesn’t perfectly align not only with their beliefs but also their lifestyle. It leaves me breathless every time b/c I cannot understand how a community and groupthink can be so merciless and ostracizing. When our TLM priest would admonish problematic ideologies, both privately and then publicly, these individuals, rather than taking correction in humility, will just leave and break away (loudly) to the SSPX. I find it easier to talk about the great love of God to a homeless person struggling with addiction than with a radical traditionalist (or a Southern Baptist fundamentalist… which oddly, I feel the later two are akin). And I know I am not the only one who thinks this. I cannot speak for the Pope or other powers that be in the Church hierarchy, or why certain things happen in the Church, but I can speak from my personal experience and the fruits I have seen from the SSPX community.
The disgusting insulting remarks made towards you, show how low some people are, but with regard to what is happening in the Catholic Church, coincides with the destruction of everything else that the NWO wants to destroy and smacks of demonic influences.
The problem is that the SSPX is being disobedient to the man whom they say is Pope. Catholics must be obedient in the Roman Pontiff, even in the case of an unjust excommunication.
The only way out of the mess is to declare sede vacante, that Leo is not the true Pope.
I pray that the SSPX takes this final necessary step.
Thanks, Fr. Robinson.
It has already been demonstrated that the Tucho "Note" that announces the excommunication of the clergy and laity of the SSPX is canonically invalid. It is very important for people to understand this. I have consulted with multiple canon lawyers (including a judicial vicar of an archdiocese who is very competent) and they all say these analyses are essentially correct:
https://infovaticana.com/en/2026/07/02/the-formula-used-by-tucho-to-excommunicate-priests-and-laypeople-lacks-penal-effectiveness/
https://meretradition.substack.com/p/the-formula-that-failed-why-tuchos
LOL. “I know a guy who says ‘nuh uh!’ And he’s like really smart and good at his job.” I don’t know man, I think I’ll just go with the Vatican on this one.
That sounds like irrationalism. If you don't bother to think, well that's your choice.
And everything you say sounds defensive, dismissive of any other view but your own, and not a little snarky.
Canon law is all about law, which means there's a way things have to be done to have consequences, especially extreme consequences. Please take a moment to read this:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2026/07/canonical-analysis-2026-ddf-decree-on.html
The Pope decides communion, over and above Canon Law. If he says you're excommunicated, you're excommunicated.
Where has he said that?
Fr. Calvin! The one and only! God bless you.
The Holy Father has made this clear by his words. But first:
Vatican II's Lumen Gentium 25 teaches: "the judgments made by [the Pope] are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."
The Holy Father's June 29th letter says "the schismatic act you are about to undertake" and "desist from your intended act". The circumstances and previous acts of the Holy Father make it clear that this is the SSPX's act of unauthorized consecration. We know what he means when he says "to tear the seamless garment of Christ is a sin of extreme gravity." It's classic language for Schism, going back as far as the 3rd Century with St. Cyprian of Carthage (On the Unity of the Church §7).
Further, Canon 16 §1 states:
> §1. Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by the one to whom the legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.
The Pope is the Supreme Legislator. He is above the Law, and by that authority can modify the Law, *and even act beyond it, without it.* (Which renders this discussion moot.) If you want a citation, see the Apostolic Constitution *Predicate Evangelium* Art. 176: "the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Legislator and Interpreter". This is already included in the Pope's "Supreme, full, immediate and universal power" [Canon 331, Lumen Gentium, Vatican I, etc.]
Thus, if the Pope says "what you're going to do is an act of schism", then it's an act of schism - no if's, and's, or but's. Further: Canon 333 §3 says, "§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff." This would block any appeal by the SSPX through Canon 1353, because you can't appeal the Pope's judgement.
Now, the Vatican's DDF (the highest Curial organ) issued the decree of Excommunication; but in Canon Law, the decree announcing something isn't what makes the Law take effect - it merely announces it. That's implicit in this case, too, as the DDF cited latae sententiae excommunication.
Canon 1314 reads:
> Can. 1314— A penalty is ordinarily ferendae sententiae, that is, not binding upon the offender until it has been imposed. It is, however, latae sententiae if the law or precept expressly lays this down, so that it is incurred automatically upon the commission of an offence.
And the SSPX did commit a such a delict, schismatic act that effect latae sententiae excommunication:
Can. 1387— "Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."
So if the Holy Father said (or meant) that consecrating the bishops would be schism, and "a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication" [Canon 1364 §1], then the SSPX schismed and excommunicated themselves in the consecrations.
I hope my explanation was explained clearly enough.
Have a blessed day, Reverend!
Nothing has been demonstrated. You're out, we're still in. Convert to the Catholic Faith. Worshipping a Liturgy instead of Christ is what got you here.
Spoken like a true ideologue! I will pray that you can break free of your prejudices against the use of faith and reason.
Please ask Mary to pray for me instead, if either of us have any chance of it working.
It's funny neither analysis actually cites canon 1364. The only canon cited in the note. I wonder why?
Maybe because the Canon in question makes it clear that adherence to schism gives automatic excomunication. No need for any canonical decree. It also seperates out the excomunications from canonical penalties which need a trial.
Here is the Canon in question,
§ 1. An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of can. 194 § 1 n. 2; he or she may also be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§ 2-4.
§ 2. If a long-standing contempt or the gravity of scandal calls for it, other penalties may be added, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.
These analysis’s are trying to make the note do more than what it claims to do. Nowhere does it formally declare an excomunication nor apply penalties. The analysis’s are a strawman.
The decree already declared that formal adherence to the SSPX is Schismatic and the older note explained and defined formal adherence. So the new note only needs to point out that the sin of schism occurs and the Church has never needed a canonical trial to say someone sinned.
You can also note that the tense is correct since the the note came out contingently after the decree and a day after priests and some laity adhered to the SSPX and their consecrations.
You're no canon law expert, that's clear. I suppose the other five (yes, five) canon lawyers I spoke to, all of whom work for diocesan tribunals, just don't know what they're talking about. That's a good one!
An appeal to authority is no refutation but is in fact a logical fallacy. I'm also not denying that their canonical analysis is wrong per se, more they are strawmaning the note by making it say what it's not trying to say.
But if you truly want a Canon Lawyer my argument is better given by John Salza and Robert Siscoe, not to mention it was put forward by Vatican canon law experts. But given one of your sources you cited was Kennedy Hall who likewise is not a canon lawyer nor expert you are also a hypocrite.
You make some very excellent points. As a catholic I feel like this whole situation is very messy. I like your arguments and I'd love to hear someone respond to them. Either way, unity in Christ my brother!
Amen to that. God bless you
I urge all to read lefebres 1987? Letter to catholics . This is not just about the changes to mass .
Heresy is ubiquitous since modernists hijacked Vatican 2 replacing the orthodox schema ( lefebre produced some ) and even committee chairs with their modernists using knowingly ambiguous language to suit their ends .
Read it .
Even Catechesis of children and religious formation of priests wilfully corrupted . Sacraments diluted or renoved , heretical practises and that was even back then .
It is beyond dispute that both liturgy and bishop selection was done by active Freemasons , who appointed their own , and as cardinals and by limiting age and so removing conservatives the modernists renoved Benedict apppinting apostates Francis and Leo .
This is the apostasy foretold by our lady at la sallette garabandal , and is the true third secret of Fatima
Since being a mason is instant excommunication neither the bishops appointed by them or the popes are licit .
All lefebre could do was rewind back to proper tradition.
It is clear heretic leo who also bowed to pachamama and will embrace any heretic as ecumenism or even appoint them as bishops but not embrace the faithful - he deliberately wanted to kill pf sspx by starving them of bishops
So we are in a battle against the devil of masonry embodied all through the hierarchy , so we are not only in an emergency but we have almost lost
We should view it as a repeat of athanasius contra mundum - then as in Portugal pre Fatima it was the laity kept the faith alive
So Leo cannot order anyone contrary to the deposit of faith nor can he claim Vatican 2 as dogma it was not a dogmatic council
So for me , bravo sspx keeping the true faith alive in the time of heretic popes
Progressive catholicism is not my faith the church has been infiltrated to accept modern society its just like the anglicans. The words of Jesus and the lord are my following not man who are corruptable
Not all Anglicans!
Thank you. Will pray for the SSPX. I would love to see you as a Catholic priest too.
Thank you Fr. Calvin, even not being a Roman Catholic you made a thorough and correct analysis on the Roman Catholic Church, the means of its existence and the reality of its crisis.
I am a revert Catholic who was granted a new life in Christ thanks to Evangelic Pentecostal Christians in 1990 and Jesus showed me to stay in the Catholic Church. I joined the Charismatic Catholics and tried many other Catholic groups (Opus Dei, Fokolare, etc.), and even went many times to Medjugorje. Moved be a fire within I had to experience rejection in the parish when I demanded sound Catholic catechism for my children and thus we became parish nomads. Mother Mary guided me to the FSSPX in 2014 and after a time of discernment I stayed with them since. The FSSPX are built on solid ground, on the Deposit of Faith laid down by the apostles and Fathers of the Church. They became the nest where my soul is fed with the truth of the Catholic faith and doctrine and where I can grow spiritually to serve the Lord and His Church. God through His Word has never deceived me and therefore I will continue the way Divine Providence has shown me, even in persecution.
There is a parallel with the story of Joseph and his brothers, they wanted to kill him and finally sold him to nomads. God was with Joseph and lifted him up in Egypt. Then the time arrived, where the brothers in need were humbled and reconciled with Joseph. May God have mercy on us all.
First Canterbury tries to send all her members to Rome, then Rome tries to send a million of her members to Hell. Perhaps Constantinople will be the next to shoot herself in the foot?
Let us hope that our Orthodox brethren may not fall into the traps often laid by those in power within the Church!!
Father Calvin, being Catholic means to be faithful to Christ’s teachings and God’s laws, the false pope Leo, like the false pope Francis were and are not Catholic or even remotely Christian. They were/are wolves in sheep’s clothing that Christ warned against.
I had always liked and believed in the SSPX until......please look at their suggested Examination of Conscience. The usual list of common sins, id est, have you stolen, lied / borne false witness, etc. BUT then, have you attended the New Mass!!!!! If they truly consider all of us who have indeed attended the "Novus Ordo" , whether done in Latin or English, to be in mortal sin, and they believe that we did NOT receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord in Holy Communion, then no longer can I take them any more seriously than I would a Pharisee who would happily damn to Hell anyone who did not do as he said. I certainly do not follow the various blasphemies often endorsed, explicitly or implicitly, by the last two Popes! But neither can I agree with anyone who thinks that the millions of souls who have attended the "New Mass" for the last fifty years or more, are all either heretics or imbeciles. All that said, I certainly do not hold any hard feelings toward any who choose to attend the SSPX, and as always, pray daily for the preservation of the holy Faith. Pax tecum, Father C.
Thankyou Father, for this important expose.
As a Roman Catholic former Altar Boy who was required to learn the Latin Mass by heart, at a very young age, around 9, I do miss it, profoundly. There’s a spiritually elevating solemnity to it, which imbues awe & deep respect, much of which is missing in the contemporary Mass.
As time passes, most younger people are increasingly denied that experience.
I also observe that my saying grace before meals, which I’ve recommenced recently, is increasingly embarassing to even my Catholic friends. God help us if Catholics are now too embarrassed to express their faith to others. I suspect that there is more than a little of that happening. In more casual circumstances, the Selkirk Grace works well.
This embarassment contrasts with those in eg the Russian & Greek Orthodox Faiths.
The actions of Leo XIV are disturbing in that they erode hope when the Church needs it most. It’s extraordinary that he preaches “diversity” & “inclusion”, yet disallows the Traditional Rite of Mass.
Likewise HMKCIII, & the Archbishopess of Canterbury, who apparently favour Islam, at the expense of the Anglican Tradition they purportedly lead.
The left-leanings of the Pope were clearly evident given his undignified public argument with Trump.
We must pray for these three Church leaders, & indeed all Catholic clergy, before it’s too late.
✝️🙏
I agree with many points here. I have long attended the TLM. My husband and I were married in the TLM back when it was considered the indult with Pope Benedict XVI, and our children have received most of their Sacraments in the old rite. I sympathize with the SSPX. There are so many problems in today’s Church. However, wherever there is a FSSP, there seems to also be a SSPX not too far away (as we have discovered with our many military moves), and my interactions with them or people who I was once considered friends who left for SSPX over the years have been… sad and heartbreaking. I find that they are usually the ones with the Pharisaical mindset and are so easily damning of others when something doesn’t perfectly align not only with their beliefs but also their lifestyle. It leaves me breathless every time b/c I cannot understand how a community and groupthink can be so merciless and ostracizing. When our TLM priest would admonish problematic ideologies, both privately and then publicly, these individuals, rather than taking correction in humility, will just leave and break away (loudly) to the SSPX. I find it easier to talk about the great love of God to a homeless person struggling with addiction than with a radical traditionalist (or a Southern Baptist fundamentalist… which oddly, I feel the later two are akin). And I know I am not the only one who thinks this. I cannot speak for the Pope or other powers that be in the Church hierarchy, or why certain things happen in the Church, but I can speak from my personal experience and the fruits I have seen from the SSPX community.
The disgusting insulting remarks made towards you, show how low some people are, but with regard to what is happening in the Catholic Church, coincides with the destruction of everything else that the NWO wants to destroy and smacks of demonic influences.
Oops. The Catholics just had a second protestant reformation.
Depressing to read this coming from a non-Catholic. Bravo to common sense, whatever that means
The problem is that the SSPX is being disobedient to the man whom they say is Pope. Catholics must be obedient in the Roman Pontiff, even in the case of an unjust excommunication.
The only way out of the mess is to declare sede vacante, that Leo is not the true Pope.
I pray that the SSPX takes this final necessary step.
Like you, I don’t have a dog in this fight, but am sad for reasons similar to yours.