The SSX church in Manila, Philippines last sunday has distributed a printed sermon of Fr. Laisney (Holy Thursday 2015). So I took a picture of it and share it here.

Is this an admission that the SSPX has been "outside the Church" all this years? If so, are they (SSPX leadership) men of conscience, or Judas goats? What hypocrisy! First, there was "no salvation" outside the SSPX, now that they are "approved" by Rome, there is "no salvation" outside the Modernist church. At least we all know that when Fr. Laisney says "Outside the Church there is no salvation" he doesn't believe in the literal interpretation of dogma but uses dogma to mislead the sheep to the slaughterhouse.

As he has from the beginning. He has come to the place where his sentimentality has flown out of the window.

Is this an admission that the SSPX has been "outside the Church" all this years?

EXACTLY!  He says that it means nothing to acknowledge the Pope without being in submission to and in communion with him.  That's actually QUITE TRUE.  But why the delay, Laisney?  Get thee IMMEDIATELY back into communion with Rome.  You continue right now to be knowingly separated from the Church and, therefore, if you were to die right now you would go to hell.  Or is it just a line of bull that he doesn't really believe?  And it's what the Sedevacantists have always (correctly) stated as well.  Putting up pictures of JP2 and Francis in the vestibule means absolutely zilch, zero, nada.  As I have stated R&R MUST resolve itself into either communion with Rome or an acknolwedgement that their legitimacy must be questioned.

Notice also how Laisney suddenly believes in EENS when he wrote an entire book undermining the dogma.

According to Laisney, to not be in a regular canonical situation is a grave sin.  Consequently, Laisney is in grave sin.

Are they rattled that Fr Chazal may have gone sedeprivationist and may convince others to follow him, so they flew out "Top Gun" Laisney to sort things out?. Did they distribute holy cards of Bergoglio after Mass?. Don't be surprised if they did!

So Ladislaus, why then, according your version of reality, was St Paul not "out of the Church" for resisting St. Peter to his face? And where, pray tell, does it say it is de fide to obey a pope who tells you to commit sin? And the state of emergency — obviously you're okay with Koran-kissing and sacred beach balls and popes bowing to Mecca in a mosque and clown masses, and and and... no state of emergency, nothing to see here folks, move along...

At no time did St. Paul sever communion with St. Peter.  Stop falsely using that lame example or others that don't apply including St. Peter denying Our Lord, popes who led morally-reprehensible lives, etc.

It is indeed very sad to read that sermon. How far the Society has fallen.

Fr. Laisney's equates refusing communion with people who do not confess the Catholic Faith but publicly confess heresy to refusing communion with wicked men (sinners), of which the former is Catholic doctrine, and the latter Donatist heresy. You can find this is the last paragraph on page 1, as well as the last paragraph on page 3 and the first on page 4.

By making this his main argument Fr. Laisney is creating an ecclesiology according to which Catholics and modernists (and modernism is a heresy) are both a part of the Church, a strange church where Catholics must remain in communion with heretics in order to remain Catholic and to remain in the Church. He even recognizes that Francis is a modernist two times, which is so obvious that he couldn't deny it even if he wanted to (you can find all of this in paragraphs 4 and 6 on page 2, and in paragraph 4 on page 4).

That, of course, is totally opposite of the what the Catholic Church teaches and what it is. There are no public heretics in the Catholic Church, only Catholics. Those who commit public heresy are not in the Church and no Catholic is obliged to be in communion with them. In fact, the Apostle explicitly tells us to avoid such men. We are obliged to avoid heretics.

But what Fr. Laisney is actually saying is that public heresy is merely an evil act, a sin, and not enough to separate someone from the Catholic Church. That is an error, and this error enables him to create a Church which contains both Catholics and public heretics, a Church which is therefore not united in Faith, which means that it is neither One, nor Holy, nor Catholic. The Church which he thus created in his mind is actually the Conciliar Church, which he calls "the visible Church", and which contains both Catholics and heretics (you can see this quite clearly in the first paragraph on page 3).

He then invokes Abp. Lefebvre, who would be the first to condemn this equating of the Conciliar Church with the "visible (Catholic) Church", as he already did in 1989:

This talk about the "visible Church" on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the "visible Church", meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.

Fr. Laisney leads himself into such an irony in the second paragraph of page 4 - he affirms that "there are sins of the priests which forbid the faithful to participate with them: and such are the sins against the unity of the Church".
Now, public heresy is also a sin against the unity of the Church. Therefore, what he is actually affirming (without knowing it, obviously) is that Francis' sins of public heresy forbid the faithful from "participating with him".