Yes, yes, you proudly state that fact in your every other post.
Roger Mahoney is also a Roman Catholic and NOT a schismatic, at least according to Rome, the "Living" Magisterium. You are not necessarily among a select few.
You are defined by your acts and not by your self-serving imagined self-descriptions.
Since when has assistance at FSSP Masses been defined as an "act" of schism?
Is being Catholic somehow not a source of pride? What is not a source of pride is adherence to the SSPX schism. If you do not adhere, you are being waaaay tooooo sensitive. The pope said they are in schism and so they are until some future pope reverses Ecclesia Dei's sanctions (may that never occur!).
If you are attending FSSP Masses and NOT adhering to the SSPX, then you too are in the same Church as Roger Mahoney and not in schism. As the Superior Court of California will probably determine in the pending cornucopia of pedeasty lawsuits against Mahoney and the LA Archdiocese, adherence to SSPX is not the only sin that Church leaders might fall into. The answers to discovery in those cases should cook Mahoney both personally and as ordinary of LA.
Rome is a "Living Magisterium" or no papal pronouncement or dogmatic definition since the Resurrection would have any force whatsoever. I don't think you want to defend such a proposition.
I am by no means sinless but I submit to Church teaching. On that score, as to Mahoney, and charitably speaking, there is no proof that Mahoney submits. Call his an undeclared schism or, perhaps, the old heresy of Americanism as defined by Pope Leo XIII of happy memory.