Sean,
For rejecting a manifest heretic?
As Ladislaus has pointed out, the NO conservative has better grounds for calling you as a schismatic for rejecting a valid popes' liturgical reforms and canonizations, even though you hold the NO "valid."
Mind you, I'm not saying I agree with Lad's position, which has its own problems . . . as almost all "solutions" do btw.
DR
I can’t find a definition for schism which includes Lad’s minutiae.
What I do find is that one who rejects the authority of the pope to govern the universal Church is schismatic.
This would seem to include by definition all those who deny the legitimacy of Francis, does it not?
PS: And since the Church has not determined his pertinacity, by definition he is not a “formal manifest” heretic (as has been repeatedly discussed).