What does "reject Vatican II" mean? They think it was a lawfully called ecumenical council. They also think it made some mistakes, specifically its tendency toward indifferentism and its teaching on religious liberty.
(The liturgical "reform" came years after Vatican II, and arguably departs considerably from what the council recommended. Rejecting that is not "rejecting Vatican II," no matter what +Francis and Abp Roche may claim. Their claim is an innovation; Pope St Paul VI -- who ought to know about such things -- granted indults to say the Old Mass. Pope St JP2 granted more of them. Benedict, who was actually at the council as a peritus, made the indult universal.)
But "schism" has a specific meaning: "refusal of communion to the Roman pontiff or those in communion with him". SSPX has never done either of those things.
NB: I am not in any way affiliated with SSPX, and my regular parish is a (very traditional) Novus Ordo parish.
Burke’s a lightweight compared to Bishop Schneider, Bishop Strickland, Archbishop Vigano and Bishop Gracida.
Where’s the formal correction of Bergoglio for the heresies in Amoris Latitiae that Burke, and three other cardinals, had promised if Bergolio did not respond to the four cardinals’ dubia that was presented 2188 days ago? That’s almost 6 years ago for those who live in Rio Linda, Murph.
I just checked you link, Murph.
Of course it’s to Church Militant, a site dominated by an ex-homo and Nazi Niles, both of whom will sue anyone dares dares to challenge their lies.
Up until Francis, they always said it was a sin to critique a pope and refused to do so. Low and behold, shortly after Bergoglio’s usurption of the Chair, they changed their “policy”. Like Bergoglio and Barron, CM spins faster than a weather vane in a hurricane.