[ultima ratio]

"You must have the Pope's consent to be in union with him."

Since when is this a doctrine of the Church? Do you just sort of make this all up as you go along? Do you actually believe a pope can state someone is in schism who is really not--and make it a fact? What if the pope doesn't like blonds--can he refuse union with them, even if they affirm allegiance? Your thinking is not only ridiculous--it shows you will argue any extreme to make the Pope appear correct.

Having said this, I will add that of course a pope may STATE somebody is in schism. No one denies that. But his statement would be a nullity if it were not so in fact. Truth must be the basis for any papal denunciation. No pope can CREATE a schism--it abides in another's heart. He can announce it, but his announcement must be based on something real, there must be ample evidence, it can't be simply based on a papal whim.

[Dominick]

Do you actually believe a pope can state someone is in schism who is really not--and make it a fact?

Your argument boils to, "Its not so because I say it is not so."

Nope it is a fact because the Pope is the Supreme Legislator, and the conditions of Union include acceptance of the Novus Ordo, and the Pope could, if he wanted, withdraw the Indult at a date that pleases him. He has the power to demand discipline of the Priests and Bishops, as the Head of the Church, precisely because he has the confidence of the Holy Spirit, and you don't.

The Schism was created when Lefebvre in full knowledge of the Law installed Bishops without permission from the Pope. His actions deride your argument.

Bishop Fellay in wiring has stated a Schism exists, and you say it doesn't. I think you are not making it up, you just have your head in the sand.

[pascendi]

"...even if they affirm allegiance?"

The first time I read that, I thought it said "affirm intelligence".