aipirc,
It is certainly true that all acts of disobedience toward the Holy See do not equal schism. In fact, most probably don't. However, consecrating a bishop without a mandate is an act of schism according to canon law, no?
No:
A person who violates a law out of necessity is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity, if one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70), and if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic penalties (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).
Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated the priests out of necessity to keep Apostolic Succession and Traditional Catholic theology in the Church. Even if there was no necessity, he wouldn't have incurred a penalty because he thought it was necessary.
Also, the consecrations without the Pope's permission aren't schism because the Archbishop accepted the authority of the Pope as the head of the true Church. Now if Archbishop Lefebvre gave the four bishops jurisdiction, that would be schism because only the Pope can do that and he would be rejecting that exclusive authority.