Replies

No he didn't impose Schism, he observed Schism. The erst wile Bishop, Mons. Fellay laid out these conditions:
Bishop Fellay: We are firm but not unreachable. Doubtless doctrine is fundamental, but we do think there are some preliminary stages to go through. That is the reason why, from the very beginning, we proposed two preliminary conditions to the Roman authorities. These conditions would make it possible to create an atmosphere of confidence which would be favorable to solving the problem of Ecône. These conditions are: the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication against the bishops of the Society and the acknowledgment of the right for every priest to celebrate the traditional Mass.

In them he acknowledged the excommunication, something you would not do. He made no mention of schism, but the Pope and Ratzinger used the term "schismatic mentality", this seems to be a limbo like state between union and schism.

The decree of excommunication is a legalism only. It is morally a nullity. This is why the SSPX can move forward with equanimity. It knows there is no real truth behind the accusations. Here are the words of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Excommunication is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty. Here, of course, it is not a question of excommunication latæ sententiæ and in foro interno, but only of one imposed or declared by judicial sentence. It is admitted by all that a null excommunication produces no effect whatever, and may be ignored without sin."

Notice that the encyclopedia does not include a latae sententiae in this explanation PRECISELY because it is an internal matter--in foro interno--which no one on earth may interpret except the individual in the forum of his own conscience. But if the Pope's motu proprio is interpreted as a legitimate judicial sentence--as you are claiming--then the explanation would apply, i.e., the excommunication produces no effect and may be ignored without sin.