CathInfo.com

You’ve been fired by a boss for whom you’ve never worked from a job you never held.

SSPX no longer can use a pilgrimage site in South-western France.

https://www.ripostecatholique.fr/2026/07/08/diocese-de-cahors-la-fsspx-perd-lacces-aux-eglises-et-au-sanctuaire-de-rocamadour/
Excerpt: 

...Mgr Camiade, bishop of Cahors, published a long note to condemn the consecrations at the FSSPX, to announce that it is losing access to diocesan churches for its sacraments, to the sanctuary of Rocamadour (in fact, to a chapel within its perimeter where it was confined – strange conception of todos todos todos!) and to indicate that nothing is changing in the Tridentine masses celebrated by the ICRSP in the diocese...."
____
The bishop writes: 
AI translation:
"...The heart of the problem is not the liturgical rite (the Mass of Saint Pius V). The heart of the matter is to accept the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). It is a sine qua non condition for entering into full communion with the Catholic Church..."

Yet another idiotic set of legalistic docuмents ... showing more desperation.

This "requires" a canonical process, and that "requires" there to be schism.

Utter horse manure.

So it requires a canonical process for the Church to declare excommunicate those who participate in abortion, and it requires there to be "schism"?

Pathetic weaklings are concocting these bizarre arguments founded on legal technicalities rather than simply saying that these heretics have no authority to excommunicate anyone for opposing their heresies.

There's nothing to prevent a Pope (an actual real pope) from declaring a "latae sententiae" / "ipso facto" excommunication for actively assisting at an SSPX Mass, no required process or any of the nonsense in the pathetic acts of desperation.

These stupid legal loopholes are not required ... Prevost is a heretic who cannot excommunicate those who oppose his heresies.  That's a matter of divine law, and you don't need to grovel pathetically like this through pretended loopholes.

And those who are looking for legal loopholes and "fret" and then are "relieved" to find loopholes ... just shows that your faith is weak.

Of course. Yet the point was that more than a few conciliarist talking heads have concluded that Tucho dropped not a fiat but a fiasco. So much for unity! unity! unity! in the ranks over on their side.

Also -- re Prevost not Tucho -- I wouldn't underestimate the number of anonymous SVs/SPs floating around in non-SV/SP chapels (and even in diocesan-tolerated places) whose sensus fidei isn't an R&R sort of "Yeah, he's the Pope but he can't do that" but rather a flat out "That's no pope." They may not fully get the implications, but these are not identical statements/sentiments.

Fiasco for Dummies.
______________
https://infovaticana.com/en/2026/07/09/muller-contradicts-fernandez-and-maintains-that-the-confessions-of-the-fsspx-are-valid/

Excerpt:
Müller contradicts Fernández and maintains that the confessions of the FSSPX are valid

  "...has publicly contradicted one of the most controversial aspects of the Explanatory Note published by that same dicastery on 2 July regarding the canonical situation of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX). Against the Vatican docuмent’s claim that confessions administered by priests of the Fraternity are invalid, Müller maintains that these sacraments are “valid, but illicit”.

  The statements were made on 6 July during an interview given to the German Catholic television station K-TV, just four days after the publication of the Decree and the Explanatory Note signed by the prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández.

    The discrepancy is not minor. While the Explanatory Note expressly warned that “the sacrament of penance administered by them and the marriages they witness are invalid,” Müller offered a completely different interpretation of the juridical status of those sacraments.

“Confessions are valid, but illicit”
Directly asked about the validity of confessions administered by priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, the former prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith replied without hesitation:

“Confessions are valid, but illicit. The power to forgive or retain sins is conferred through the sacrament of Holy Orders. Its exercise can only be restricted by the bishop or by the Pope, in accordance with the provisions of canon law.”

  This statement directly contradicts the interpretation upheld by the current prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (my emphasis in red Td.)and coincides, in its practical conclusion, with the objections raised by various canonists, who have maintained that the Explanatory Note does not expressly revoke the faculties granted by Pope Francis allowing priests of the Fraternity to validly absolve.
Müller also did not endorse the Note’s claim regarding the invalidity of marriages celebrated by the Fraternity. He recalled that marriage arises from the consent of the spouses and mentioned exceptional situations in which the canonical form may be supplied. Although he advised against approaching priests of the FSSPX for the celebration of marriage because they are not in full communion with the Church, he avoided stating that such marriages are invalid.

Benedict XVI sought reconciliation

    During the interview, Müller lamented the recent episcopal consecrations carried out by the Fraternity without a pontifical mandate and described them as a wound to the Church.

    At the same time, he recalled Benedict XVI’s efforts to restore full communion with the Fraternity. The German cardinal stated that the Pontiff acted with “great generosity” when in 2009 he lifted the excommunications of the four bishops consecrated by Marcel Lefebvre, in the hope of overcoming the existing impasse and fostering reconciliation.
...
The ancient rite “is not prohibited”
The prefect emeritus also defended the validity of the traditional liturgy and rejected the thesis that it had been abolished.
“The so-called ancient rite is not prohibited. It is permitted under certain conditions and is, of course, valid,” he stated.
He also acknowledged that the application of the liturgical reform following the Second Vatican Council was accompanied by numerous abuses.
“The application of the liturgical reform was marked by many abuses because many did not understand the spirit of the renewed liturgy and neglected its essential elements: the worship of God, the communication of salvation, and reverence before God,” he explained.
Nevertheless, he insisted that these abuses do not justify a rupture with the Church.
The unity of the Church passes through the Pope
Although he admitted that many faithful are drawn to the Fraternity because they believe that Catholic doctrine and liturgical tradition are preserved there with greater fidelity, Müller maintained that this fact is not enough to justify a situation of separation from Rome.

  “Many may feel sympathy for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X because they believe that the Catholic faith and the liturgy are preserved there in the face of many abuses present in modernist circles. But that does not constitute a justification,” he stated.

  The cardinal insisted that ecclesial unity does not depend on liturgical preferences, but on communion with the Successor of Peter.
“There may be errors in the Church, but there is no Catholic unity apart from the Pope,” he declared.
In that context, he expressly defended the legitimacy of the pontificate of Leo XIV.

  “One cannot correct an abuse by using false means. That Leo XIV exists and is the true and legitimate Pope is something that no one can really call into question without calling their own Catholic faith into question,” he concluded..."

Read also: The formula used by Tucho to excommunicate priests and laity lacks penal efficacy
*********************

I have an inkling that the Vatican Authority is unravelling. Expect more "Explanatory Notes", 'cause soon this will be totally nuts > ridiculous.