[Polycarp]

There was no schism. You must face the facts: Lefebvre was right, the Pope was wrong--as he has been about a lot of things. There never was any attempt to break with the Church or to deny the papacy. There was a single act of disobedience--which was not schismatic. Not.

The Church defines the schism, not you. You are incorrect. It was disobedient to elevate 4 bishops, not one, and to refuse Rome the right to decide who would be elevated. No mental or linguistic gymnastics, no appeal to necessity or emergency, can change the fact that the Pope can and does decide who will be a bishop and how many bishops may be consecrated.

To argue otherwise is simply...schismatic.

[ultima ratio]

Wrong. There are objective conditions which define actions. An act of disobedience to a pope is not of itself schismatic. Check with any canon lawyer. All schismatic acts are acts of disobedience, but not all acts of disobedience are schismatic acts. Lefebvre never set up any separate jurisdictions or usurped any jurisdictions--as, for example, is done illicitly by the Chinese routinely. There was no attempt to set up a separate parallel church. What he did was simply disobey. Check this out, you will see I am right. Rome speaks now of a "gray area", pretending the matter is obscure. But it's not. The Pope spoke incorrectly in his Ecclesia Dei Afflicta letter. Fallible again, I'm afraid.