Aren't you being schismatic by recommending that Catholics attend parishes which are not under the diocesan bishop, and by casting doubt on the papacy of Benedict XVI?
Let us start by reviewing the definition of what it is to be schismatic. There are two parts of the definition of the term. The first pertains to one's relationship to the Supreme Pontiff and the second pertains to one's relationship to fellow Catholic believers. With regards to the first, refusal of subjection to the Supreme Pontiff is schismatic as is giving such subjection, proper to that for a pope, to an imposter. Since there is legitimate doubt as to whether the Church even has a living pope at this time, only those who opine that Benedict XVI is a pope are obliged to submit to his authority, and that only insofar as it is not contrary to Faith or Morals or detrimental to their faith. Sedevacantists refuse submission to Benedict XVI for precisely the same reason they refuse submission to Reverend Sun Myung Moon. If a man isn't a pope, as the sedevacantists have reason to believe that Benedict XVI is not, then he cannot rightly receive the submission lawfully due to the Successor of Peter. In such times where there is confusion as to who, if anyone, is the pope (as the Church was so confused during the First Great Western Schism of the 1300's), it is the second part of the definition of schism which most applies.
This second part of the definition of schism is "refusal of communion with other members of the Church." By the word "communion" in this context, it is fellowship or association which is being referred to, not the Eucharist. It is the person who says to his fellow Catholic "I cannot eat with you; I cannot pray with you; I cannot discuss spiritual matters with you," who is being schismatic, not the one who is so snubbed. Contrary to the often repeated big lies of those who are critical of the traditional Catholic movement, it is not the traditionalists who are being the "separatists," but the Novus Ordo People of God.
Traditional Catholics do indeed separate themselves from the world and sinful, worldly associations, but from fellow Catholics, and even "Catholics-at-heart," they never separate themselves. It is the Novus Ordo People of God members who always schismatically separate themselves from traditional Catholics, oftentimes while refusing to separate themselves from the worldly associations. Traditional Catholics are all supremely and serenely confident that they have the Truth and know they have nothing to fear from the stupid and ignorant arguments of the Novus Ordo. It is not and never has been the traditional Catholics who have retreated from religious discussions, dialogue, or debate with the Novus Ordo People of God, but always the Novus Ordo People of God who cannot face traditional Catholics in religious debate.
It is always the Novus Ordo People of God who are obliged take the position of "Don't confuse me with the facts; Bishop Beezlebub has already made up my mind!" The only thing even remotely schismatic within the traditional Catholic movement is those few (and rapidly growing fewer) voices who continue to argue for only one's own faction at the expense of all other groups. As the traditional Catholic movement continues to grow and gather momentum, the voices of those schismatic few are increasingly getting drowned out by the Song of Praise rising from those traditional Catholics who have come to realize, at least on an unconscious level, that the traditional Catholic movement is the Roman Catholic Church. At any rate, that is a "schism" which is entirely internal to the Church, just like the fourteenth century schism, and not at all comparable to the schism between East and West which puts the East Orthodox completely outside the Church.
Aren't traditional Catholics acting just like the Old Catholics by setting up their own hierarchy and separating from Rome?
"Once upon a time there was a group of Catholics who wanted to reform the Church, claiming it should return to the purity of the 'ancient faith' as practiced by the early Christians. Their platform included planks to prepare the way for the reunion (not conversion) of all Christian confessions, a reform of the position of the clergy, a reform of the Church with constitutional participation of the laity, the forming of parish communities, the abolition of celibacy (due to the shortage of priests), the abandoning of confession and the use of the vernacular in the 'service of the altar.' Protestants were included in their theological faculty. Their congress was attended by three Anglican Bishops and members of the Russian clergy. They also refused to accept the infallibility of the Pope in defining dogmas. Now my question for you is this: does the above description describe Old Catholics, New [Novus Ordo] Catholics, or both? It certainly doesn't describe Catholic Catholics."
That fine bit of wisdom from the pen of Frank Denke (Angelus, July 1990, pages 8-14) shows well where the true division lays. On one side of the great divide are the schismatic East Orthodox, the Eastern heretics, the Moslems, the Protestants, the Old Catholics, and the Novus Ordo, and on the other side of that same great divide is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, taught by all the reliable popes, and today existing as the traditional Catholic movement. One feature which only the traditional Catholic movement has which no dissenting group can ever have is an actual and well documented change in "the Church" one could point at, and which is a well known and widely witnessed event in the memory of hundreds of millions now living, coupled with a stand taken by its members to hold fast to the traditions they and their parents were brought up in which all knew existed prior to that well-known change. By contrast, all these dissenters were forced to posit a fall from grace on the part of the entire Church so long ago that no one remembers it, followed by a long period during which there was no Church, during which Christ had no Mystical Body.
You "traditionalists" seem to me to be acting just like the Modernists who want to change the structure of the Church and feel free to disagree with the Pope.
Anyone who thinks that the traditional Catholics of whom I have written about in this book are being in any way even the least bit disobedient to the Pope, or trying to undermine the authority of his office, has entirely missed the point and must go back to square one. The whole point and purpose of the traditional Catholic movement (as such) is that its people are Catholics who refuse to disobey the Pope. It is our solemn and irrevocable attachment to the Barque of Peter which compels us to attend the traditional Catholic Latin Masses, even though many of them go unrecognized by the local diocesan "bishop." If that happens to entail anything which could be construed as being "disobedient" to Benedict XVI (or whoever), so what?
When such an individual (as Benedict XVI) speaks against the traditions of the Church, allowing bishops or priests to impose communion in the hand and altar girls, or even going so far as to push the bogus new "liturgy" and other "reforms" in the positively Satanic "Spirit of Vatican II," such an individual is clearly not functioning in the role of Peter confirming his brethren. If the post-Conciliar leadership of the Vatican institution is Peter at all, then it is Peter denying his Lord, and if not, then the Chair of Peter is empty and the sedevacantists are right.
In the absence of any clearly and uniformly Petrine voice, the entire Vatican hierarchy have become collectively like Aaron when he set up the golden calf for the Israelites to worship (Exodus 32). Traditional Catholics are simply those modern Israelites who refuse to worship the golden calf of the Novus Ordo Missae.
The notion that any traditional Catholics would wish to preserve their present leaderless state and lack of regular jurisdiction is patently absurd, merely a lie spoken by the Novus Ordo enemies of the Church. Traditional Catholics know all too well the exact function of each ecclesiastical office in the Church as Christ intended it to be, and merely await the time those offices come to be filled again. It is the villains of the Novus Ordo Church of the People of God who are redefining the offices of the Church and thus destroying them. It is they who reduce their "Pope" to mere "President of the College of Bishops," they, who practically force their "Bishops" to run their dioceses in whatever manner has been voted on and approved by their "Bishop's Congresses," and they, who force their "Parish Priests" to run their parishes by the whims of their "Parish Councils," their "Liturgical Committees," and their "Finance Committee."
Isn't it schismatic to set up a parallel hierarchy?
In actual fact, all of the traditional Catholic priests and bishops presently operating outside the Vatican institution (with a possible exception of Bishop Vezelis and what few priests are in association with him) are currently far too circumspect to actually set up any parallel hierarchy. Neither supplied jurisdiction nor delegated jurisdiction (such as that granted by Vatican II) provide any basis for setting up a parallel hierarchy. Many also retain the hope that the Vatican hierarchy might one day repent and return to their ostensible offices and Sees.
However, even a parallel hierarchy need not be considered a schismatic thing. For example, the Eastern Rite Catholics already have their independent parallel hierarchy. The Eastern Rites have their own dioceses, many of which overlap Latin Rite dioceses. An example would be someone living in the Archdiocese of New York (according to the Latin Rite), but also living (at the same time and place) in the Byzantine Archdiocese of Pittsburgh. In a sense the Novus Ordo has already created its own parallel hierarchy, a hierarchy which refuses to recognize many Catholic priests and bishops in its geographical midst.
What truly would make such a parallel hierarchy schismatic would be to become a hierarchy which is not answerable to Peter, as for example the English hierarchy under Henry VIII who in effect said to the Pope and the Roman hierarchy he ruled, "We will be the hierarchy of England; you can be the hierarchy of Europe!" They just wanted to get out from under the authority of someone who was clearly and indisputably the Voice of Peter. We on the other hand neither intend nor accomplish any such thing, nor even come close.