So, perhaps the greatest irony here is that the REASON some Novus Ordites don't consider SSPX to be "in schism" is because ... Bergs and these others actually include open schismatics and heretics such as the Orthodox, Anglicans, and many others in their definition of "Church", the "Church of Christ" and claim they have some ecclesial reality. "Hey, SSPX ... you're no more schismatic than the Orthodox are."

In TRADITIONAL Catholics terms, these are all schismatic as would the SSPX.
I love their nonsense about their three criteria for being Catholic, and where they claim that they are in submission to the hierarchy because ... get this ... they pray for "the pope" and consider him "pope", in other words, simple lip service suffices to create a state of "submission" to the hierarchy.

This is an absolute hot mess.
But, where it's the most scandalous is that by acknowledging the Conciliar hierarchy as the Catholic hierarchy, what they're saying is that you can be Catholic and be perfectly on board with the entire Conciliar agenda, all the errors, the New Mass, everything ... contradicting the infamous quote from +Lefebvre that to whatever extent people adhere to the Conciliar religion they are schismatic.
Either one is a heretic and/or schismatic and displeases God by following Vatican II and accepting the NOM, or one is not. Period. If one is not, they'd better get their schismatic asses back in the Conciliar Church, since there's no actual reason to remain separateted. If one is, then they too are guilty of the same errors and heresies by asserting that it's OK for Catholics to adhere to heresies.
It's also ironic how they twist Ratzinger's words about how the disagreement is about doctrine, as if that were nothing particularly serious, but even spinning it as something positive. So, if you can't be united with the Conciliar hierarchy due to doctrine, that's a big deal ... where you're saying that their doctrine is so alien to Catholic doctrine that it's impossible for Catholics to co-exist with them.