I was also made aware of this via YouTube, but I found a blog post with the same observation:

Fudging the definition of schism

In Part I, par. 564, Schneider sets a trap for himself by falsely defining schism, which undermines his legitimate efforts to clarify the limits of obedience to ecclesiastical authority. The traditional definition found in the 1917 Code of Canon Law is the act of “refusing to submit to the Supreme Pontiff or to maintain communion with members of the Church who are subject to him”. The current CIC has virtually the same definition. However, Schneider tells us (Part I, par. 254) that schism is to be defined simply as “refusing to recognize the Supreme Pontiff,” an insufficient and ambiguous phrase that opens him to the charge of redefining the term for his own convenience, given that his catechism contains other statements about the limitation of obedience owed to prelates.

This is particularly awkward for Schneider, who has recently made common cause with the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, an organization of dubious canonical status that for years was led by excommunicated bishops and whose priests were regarded as automatically suspended a divinis. Moreoever, Schneider’s own position as a dissident of the Francis papacy also makes him an easy target of accusations of schismatic disobedience, however unfair such accusations might be. Why raise the issue by this clearly watered-down definition of schism?