No, it clearly states that not every sin severs as do the sins of heresy etc,. 

Salza and Siscore have not done great work.  What they have done is confuse the minds of Traditional Catholics.  It is, rather, Fr. Paul Kramer that has done great work, and has shown the multiple errors of Salza and Siscoe.

What source does Fr. Kramer use to justify his insistence that Fr. Chazal atributes the distinction of "per se" and "quad nos" to St. Thomas Aquinas? My copy of "Contra Cekada" does not mention this at all when referring to "per se" and "quad nos." No mention at all in the book of John of St. Thomas attributing it to St. Thomas Aquinas.

Here are the paragraphs in question in Fr. Chazal's 'Contra Cekadam', pages 93, 94:

"Mgr. Gerard des Laurier should have adhered to the theological distinction held by his Dominican predecessors; PER SE/QUOAD NOS. Things that have happened before God may not have yet happened before men, while something happens immediately when a Pope proffers a heresy. Should phenomenon happen per se, suapte natura, ex natura, ipso facto, by itself, from the very fact, yet we remain human, social beings, carrying on in a visible society endowed with a public life and a juridical bond. That is the way we are: social beings.

Quoad Nos

"We stand against the opposite notion which is anarchy, and anarchy breeding; an almost protestant high opinionatedness. We are Catholic, not Protestants, especially because when a difference emerges amongst us, we wait patiently and charitably, until it can be resolved by an instrument established by Our Lord to prevent the fragmentation of the Church. Luther was surprised, disappointed, that after having thrown the Pope out, many popes immediately proliferated: a similar chaos reigns over the sede movement as a whole. Who can make the extensive list of sects sedevacantism has bred since the days of Fr. Saenz? (At least the sedeplenists are divided only in three: the Ecclesia Dei, the neo-SSPX, and the Resistance). Without denying that our present Popes are insane, why not wait patiently for the juridical order of the Church? Why not accept that the situation is not in our hands, begging God to return the public life of the Church to the normalcy it enjoyed for so many centuries?"

I know that you "do not say that every sin severs per se a man from the Church." I am the one who is saying that, I am saying it because first, it is true and second, that is what PPXII is saying when that sentence is read in context. I am saying that sentence takes on a whole new meaning when it is taken out of context, which is what you are doing, which means you are giving new meaning to the teaching of PPXII.

See, it's been a week since I last checked this thread, and you are STILL repeating this nonsense, which you've been repeating for years and which you'll be repeating years from now.

There's nothing "out of context," and the meaning of Pius XII is obvious.  Hersy / Schism sever from membership in the Church; other types of sins do not.  It couldn't be more obvious, and every Catholic theologian understood it precisely that way.  It's not even debated, but you keep wasting everyon'es time with this nonsense.  Most R&R argue about what TYPE of heresy sever from the Church, i.e. whether it has to be heresy that's been declared and officially judged heresy by the Church.