A dispute over the See of Utrecht has nothing to do with a man being consecrated to minster to the Anglo-Catholics of the UK and give them valid orders.  There was absolutely NO need to do that, and this dispute over Utrecht's "right" to select it's own archbishop is a completely separate issue from the consecration of a man who lived in the UK.. Last I checked, Utrecht's See did not extend to the UK.

It seems setting up parallel dioceses and calling yourself an ordinary, without receiving any appointment from the Roman Pontiff, certainly constitutes schism.  The Old "Roman" Catholics continue to do this to this day.  But, what do I know?  I'm an idiot.

So?  What's your point?  I said that Mathew was in schism ... but was denying your assertion regarding his "continuation of Old Catholicism", stating that while both emerged from the See of Utrecht, Mathew broked from the Old Catholics and repudiated their doctrinal errors.

What I stated was that Mathew did go into schism, but he was not an Old Catholic heretic.  So I'm befuddled about what you're going on about, trying to make the case for Mathew being a schismatic, which I had already conceded.

Problem after that, however, was that, as Elwin pointed out, the MODERN-DAY Old Roman Catholics are ... albeit having gotten here by different paths ... currently in a very similar canonical situation.  Again, having interracted a bit with Bishop Meikle on X, there's no sign whatsoever of any schismatic attitude, and I'm 1000% certain that he would immediately submit to a legitimate Traditional Pope.  There's simply no way to regularize the situation until the Church and the Holy See have been restored.  As for marriage, vernacular Tridentine Masses ... while one might disagree with those practices, but neither do those amount to schism, nor do they disqualify someone from being essentially and for all intents and purposes a Traditional Catholic.  So, for instance, most would regard Bishop Slupski as a Traditional Catholic, and he ordained married men.