To me, here the pope is explaining R&R, but I'm interested in finding out what does this mean to you Gray:

1.In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted. - Pope Paul IV, cuм ex Apostolatus Officio 1559

That was dated in 1559.  I am not sure our current situation could be imagined.

If I believe that the Pope is the Pope then I must attend his approved masses.  If I believe that there is something really wrong with the Pope and the new masses, I must find a solution.  My family and I have decided that as long as the priest has Apostolic Succession and is Catholic, then we are able in this confusing time to go to their Masses.

A future Pope will fix this.

I think those who believe that Pope Francis is the Pope and attend churches outside jurisdiction are technically in schism with the Pope.  I understand that these are trying times, so I think God will show greater mercy for many souls who are doing the best they can.

Apologies, I have a bunch of questions;

Who is the "Church's authority" right now? Do you believe all judgements must be suspended at this time - and no one can arrive at any sort of morally binding certainty about these things? Is it all just subjective and internal forum?

There's a vacuum of authority in terms of rendering judgments.  Obvioiusly, some groups believe there's no pope, but even R&R would consider the putative pope Bergoglio to be bereft of any CREDIBLE/BINDING authority.  In other words, if Bergoglio were to declare X, Y, or Z schismatic, no Trad would accept that as a legitimate exercise of authority.

Not ALL judgments must be suspended, but only judgements regarding matters not already decided by the Church.  So, for instance, I can judge the Orthodox to be schismatics (already decided), but I can't judge CMRI to be schismatics (not decided by the Church, and disagreed upon by Traditional  Catholics).  And by "judgment" here, I do not mean simply making a determination of fact, as an opinion, but a judgment that I would then consider objectively binding upon all Catholic consciences.  So, for instance, if I were a priest and I did happen to make the assessment that CMRI are schismatics (I personally disagree), I might opine that way about it, but I would not withhold Communion from someone simply for assisting at CMRI Masses or even for being formally part of the organization.  Since no one in a position of authority to bind consciences has determined that CMRI are schismatics, even if I personally think they are, my opinion means nothing and I can't impose it on someone else.

I'll get back to the other questions later.

No reason to start a whole new thread just to avoid answering the question, simply answer the clear question with a clear answer. 

In one sense, schism can be a "social sin" if the acts of the schismatic are shared communally. In another sense, it could only be internal and/or expressed externally by removing oneself from all other Catholics and refusing communion with them or say secretly hating the pope and refusing submission to him in spiritual matters. Do you agree with this?

As previously mentioned, receiving Sacraments from a schismatic group might render one "suspect" of schism, but it's not necessarily objectively the case ... and ESPECIALLY since the groups we're talking about here haven't even been authoritatively declared to be in schism.  You keep speaking of this as if a declared schismatic group like the Orthodox are in the same category as various groups Trads have "declared" to be in schism.  Even IF it were a declared group, it's not certain ... but then in the case of a group who has not been declared and the assessment is based merely on your own private judgement, there's not a chance that merely assisting at those Masses would constitute schism of any kind.

So your premise seem to be not only that declared (and professed) schismatic groups are in the same category as groups that profess to be Catholic and about whom the Church has not authoritatively determined otherwise.  That's apples and oranges.  Not only that, but then you're implying that this putative schism (based on your private judgment) is even somehow contagious or communicable.  So, if someone whom you do not consider to hold schismatic positions attends a chapel of a group that does in your opinion hold to schismatic opinions, even though he himself does not adhere to the schismatic posiiton, but has merely judged it licit to attend the chapel (for reasons, say, such as those I articulated) ... now that person is schismatic not for actually holding the schismatic opinion but merely for holding that it's OK to go there for Mass since the Church hasn't been declared schismatic.  Or, as some groups do, you hold a position to be heretical, so that even if I don't hold that heretical position, I'm a heretic for just disagreeing with you that it's heresy?  In other words, I don't agree with the alleged heresy, but you judge me a heretic for disagreeing with your assessment of the theological note.

These dogmatic types of opinions and positions are in fact the primary tendency to schism among the majority of Traditional Catholics, i.e THIS thinking is precisely the closest thintg to schism, where ironically it's those who declare many/most other Trads to be guilty of schism that are actually most in danger of being schismatics themselves.

Here's an example.  You hold that the CMRI are schismatic.  I have nothing to do with the CMRI and disagree with many of their positions.  But I disagree with your judgment that the CMRI are schismatic.  Therefore, you delcare that I'm a schismatic for not considering the CMRI to be schismatic, even though I actually have no connection whatsoever to their group or their attitudes or whatever you consider problematic about them.  Where does it end?  If I'm CMRI, I'm schismatic?  If I don't think the CMRI are schismatic, I'm schismatic?  If I don't think that someone who doesn't think the CMRI are schismatic is schismatic, then I am schismatic?  ad infinitum et ad absurdum