"The Popes I cited would have given their support to a schism, huh?"
1. No, they would have recognized it was impossible that Marcel Lefebvre was guilty of what JPII said he was. They could distinguish between protecting the traditional faith and rejecting the papacy. Neither you nor the people you emulate can do so.
2. There never was a schism. What you imagine was a schism was merely a fit of pique expressed by the Pontiff who could not stomach anyone standing up to his stupendous errors--not even when this was done simply to defend the Catholic faith from his destructive agenda.
OK. Now for the nitty gritty. Ecumenism is a process. A mechanism. It can't be an article of faith.OK. Here is the faith. Jesus founded one church. Not a thousand. The Church is one, holy, Catholic and apostolic. He also prayed that all may be one. ECUMENISM IS THE PROCESS BY WHICH WE ATTEMPT TO BRING ABOUT THAT UNITY FOR WHICH GOD PRAYED.
The disrespect of that false opinion is amazing to me. As if Our Lord's prayers aren't efficacious enough to grant his wishes. As a process, it's a pointless process considering Our Lord's prayers are fulfilled. From Mortalium Animos.... 7. AND HERE IT SEEMS OPPORTUNE TO EXPOUND AND TO REFUTE A CERTAIN FALSE OPINION, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. FOR AUTHORS WHO FAVOR THIS VIEW ARE ACCUSTOMED, TIMES ALMOST WITHOUT NUMBER, TO BRING FORWARD THESE WORDS OF CHRIST: "THAT THEY ALL MAY BE ONE.... AND THERE SHALL BE ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD,"[14] WITH THIS SIGNIFICATION HOWEVER: THAT CHRIST JESUS MERELY EXPRESSED A DESIRE AND PRAYER, WHICH STILL LACKS ITS FULFILLMENT. -- Pius XI Mortalium Animos
In your posts overall, there is an absence of understanding that the Church is a living Church.
That's just your perception. What I see is your lack of understanding is that the Saints and Popes and Magisterial teachings of the past are still living in Christ and part of the Church.
Truth is immortal and unchanging but the Holy Spirit constantly inspires the Church to present that truth to men in many ways in many different ages.
There is a difference between legitimate development of the understanding of doctrine like St. Augustine referring to the Blessed Sacrament's existence as a "latent mystery" which leads to Thomas Aquinas categorizing it in transubstantiation and JPII contradicting pre-conciliar (heck even post conciliar) Popes. His idea of Ut Unum Sint is exactly the FALSE opinion condemned by Pius XI. THAT is not the work of the Holy Ghost.
It is sad enough when people lose their faith and leave the Church; but it is much worse when those who in reality have lost their faith remain within the Church and try -- like termites -- to undermine Christian faith with their claim that they are giving to Christian revelation the interpretation that suits "modern man." --Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand, Trojan Horse in the City of God, p. 265