The motu proprio was about granting the Indult. The comment about "schism" was an aside--and was wrong. It was wrong because it contradicted the Pope's own canon law which provided for exceptions--which the Archbishop appropriately evoked. The exception was the allowance for disobedience during a state of necessity.
Just as when a house is on fire it is all right to break and enter to save the souls inside, so in a time of crisis in the Church it is all right to disobey the Pope. It is a self-deception to think Lefebvre was wrong and the Pope was right about the state of the Church. Of course Lefebvre was right--there WAS a state of necessity--and there still is. The faith is being assaulted--by Rome herself.
If you were honest with yourself, you would recognize the obvious--that this Pope is wrong about many things and it is doing great damage to the faith. But you are not honest. You pretend there's nothing wrong with a pope who opposes Catholic Tradition and punishes it, but approves the worship of false gods in Catholic chapels. But surely you must realize this attitude is unique in all the history of the faith for two thousand years. It is exceedingly shocking and strange--and ultimately inexcusable.
You are ignoring the facts. He declared Lefebvre and his bishops schismatic, spending a paragraph explaining why that was so.
It was wrong because it contradicted the Pope's own canon law which provided for exceptions--which the Archbishop appropriately evoked. The exception was the allowance for disobedience during a state of necessity.
An "exception" which the PCILT has explained does not exist. The PCILT is the authentic interpreter of Canon Law - not you.
You ignore the fact that the schismatic bishops consecrated by Lefebvre lack formal apostolic succession and are therefore non-Catholic bishops. Your own Bishop de Mallerais admits this problem but holds an infallible faith in all of Lefebvre's acts:
IN AN "INTERVIEW" given by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais (one of the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre and by Bishop de Castro Mayer) in the French magazine of the Society of Saint Pius X, Fideliter, (n. 123, pp. 25-29), candid and baffling admissions were made. Bishop de Mallerais confronts one of the first difficulties, which is that of jurisdiction. Bishop de Mallerais admits that his consecration was "accomplished against the will of the Pope" and that he has not received jurisdiction either from Archbishop Lefebvre ("he was not able to give it to us") neither from the Pope ("the Pope refused to give it to US"). He claims to have jurisdiction from the Church. "It is the Church which gives it to US" as if there could be opposition between the Church ( which concedes the jurisdiction) and the Pope (who denies it), or as if the hierarchical Church were not, in the ultimate analysis, the Pope.Nevertheless, for Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, there is a problem yet more serious than that of jurisdiction. Let us hear Bishop de Mallerais speak: "Are these bishops who are not recognized by the Pope legitimate? Do they enjoy formal apostolic succession? Are they, in a word, Catholic bishops?" This problem, Bishop de Mallerais explains, "concerns the very constitution of the Church, as all tradition teaches: there cannot be a legitimate bishop without the pope, the head by divine right of the episcopal body. Therefore the answer is less clear, and in fact it is not absolutely clear..." Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, therefore, ten years after his consecration, does not know whether his consecration or his being a bishop is a legitimate act!
For a moment, he seems to evoke the sede vacantist "solution." "...unless one were to suppose...it is necessary to recognize that if we were able to affirm that owing to heresy, schism, or some secret problem in the election, the pope would not be truly the pope, if we were able to pronounce such a judgement, then the response to the delicate question of our legitimacy would be clear..." If, according to Bishop de Mallerais, ''sede vacantism'' is the only clear explanation to justify his own consecration, we would expect a public adherence to sede vacantism, or a reasoned refutation. But such is not the case. Sede vacantism is refuted only because Archbishop Lefebvre refused it: "The problem, so to speak, is that neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor my confreres, nor I myself, have been or are sede vacantists....Archbishop Lefebvre was not of this opinion, nor did he have the sufficient principles in order to make such a judgement. It is very important to take this into account." (The Candid Admissions of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais)