I think many people missed the real story here. Didn't you notice that an SSPX priest is denouncing a bishop, because the bishop is going against the teachings of Vatican II? This is a real ``man bites dog'' story. SSPX- the defenders of Vatican II. Who knew?
Here we have a fairly obvious example of a bishop teaching explicit heresy - for which pehaps the most shocking element is in its lack of subtlety rather than its substance, since we've almost come to expect it.
He's called out on the heresy - but not by one of his own priests. Heaven forbid those should value Christ's eternal Truth above the favor of their bishop! But rather by a priest many Catholics consider a schismatic.
Could lead to an interesting discussion of where God wants his Church to go. Bishops being explicitly heretical is hardly a minor matter, and ought to call for some sort of serious response. But schism is rightly considered a very serious matter as well.
But instead it quickly devolves into the typical "schismatic" versus "modernist" nonsense.
Getting back to basics, what is worse? A heretical bishop, or a schismatic priest? Which is the greater danger to the faith?