Here is some material by Michael Davies on the subject of schism in general and Archishop Lefebvre in particular.  He wrote it around 1990.  The first part of the two-part article was on the scandalous activities of Archbishop Weakland (in this country), but I cut all that.  And I pared down the rest to what was relevant.  Joe Buehler  ...  Schism and Disobedience  According to St. Thomas Aquinas, schism consists primarily in a refusal of submission to the Pope or communion with the members of the Church united to him. On first sight it would appear that, whatever the subjective motivation of the Archbishop, as discussed above, he must be in a state of objective schism as he has refused to submit to the Pope on a very grave matter involving his supreme power of jurisdiction. However, standard Catholic textbooks of theology make it clear that while all schisms involve disobedience not all acts of disobedience are schismatic. If this were so, as was noted at the beginning of this article, it would mean that the number of American bishops who are not schismatic would not reach double figures.  The distinction between disobedience and schism is made very clear in the article on schism in the very authoritative Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique. The article is by Father Yves Congar who is certainly no friend of Archbishop Lefebvre.  He explains that schism and disobedience are so similar that they are often confused. Father Congar writes that schism involves a refusal to accept the existence of legitimate authority in the Church, for example, Luther's rejection of the papacy. Father Congar explains that the refusal to accept a decision of legitimate authority in a particular instance does not constitute schism but disobedience.  The Catholic Encyclopedia explains that for a Catholic to be truly schismatic he would have to intend "to sever himself from the Church as far as in him lies."  It adds that "not every disobedience is schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the command of the superiors, a denial of their divine right to command."Not only does Mgr. Lefebvre not deny the divine right of the Pope to command, but he affirms repeatedly his recognition of the Pope's authority and his intention of never breaking away from Rome. The Archbishop made his attitude clear in the July/August 1989 issue of 30 Days: "We pray for the Pope every day. Nothing has changed with the consecrations last June 30. We are not sedevacantists. We recognize in John Paul II the legitimate Pope of the Catholic Church. We don't even say that he is a heretical Pope. We only say that his Modernist actions favor heresy."  ...  Intrinsically Schismatic?  The principal argument used by those claiming that Mgr. Lefebvre is in schism is that the consecration of a bishop without a papal mandate is an intrinsically schismatic act. A bishop who carries out such a consecration, it is claimed, becomes ipso facto a schismatic. This is not true. If such a consecration is an intrinsically schismatic act it would always have involved the penalty of excommunication. In the 1917 Code of Canon Law the offence was punished only by suspension (see Canon 2370 of the 1917 Code). Pope Pius XII had raised the penalty to excommunication as a response to the establishment of a schismatic church in China. The consecration of these illicit Chinese bishops differed radically from the consecrations carried out by Mgr. Lefebvre as the professed intention was to repudiate the authority of the Pope, that is, to deny that he has the right to govern the Church, and the illicitly consecrated Chinese bishops were given a mandate to exercise an apostolic mission. Neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor any of the bishops he has consecrated claim that they have powers of jurisdiction. They have been consecrated solely for the purpose of ensuring the survival of the Society by carrying out ordinations and also to perform confirmations. I do not wish to minimize in any way the gravity of the step take by Mgr. Lefebvre. The consecration of bishops without a papal mandate is far more serious matter than the ordination of priests as it involves a refusal in practice of the primacy or jurisdiction belonging by divine right to the Roman Pontiff. But the Archbishop could argue that the crisis afflicting the Church could not be more grave, and that grave measures were needed in response.  It appears to be taken for granted by most of the Archbishop's critics that he was excommunicated for the offense of schism, and the Vatican has certainly been guilty of fostering this impression.  There is not so much as a modicum of truth in this allegation. The New Code of Canon Law includes a section beginning with Canon 1364 entitled "Penalties for Specific Offenses" (De Poenis in Singula Dicta). The first part deals with "Offenses against Religion and the Unity of the Church" (De Delictis contra Religionem et Ecclesiae Unitatem). Canon 1364 deals with the offense of schism which is, evidently, together with apostasy and heresy, one of the three fundamental offenses against the unity of the Church.  But the Archbishop was not excommunicated under the terms of this canon or, indeed, under any canon involving an offense against religion or the unity of the church. The canon cited in his excommunication comes from the third section of "Penalties for Specific Offenses" which is entitled "Usurpation of Ecclesial Functions and Offenses in their Exercise" (De Munerum Ecclesiasticorum Usurpatione Degue Delictis iniis Exercendis). The canon in question is Canon 1382, which reads: "A bishop who consecrates someone bishop and the person who receives such a consecration from a bishop without a pontifical mandate incur an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication reserved to the Holy See."  The scandalous attempts to smear Archbishop Lefebvre with the offense of schism are, then, contrary to both truth and charity. A comparable smear under civil as opposed to ecclesiastical law would certainly justify legal action for libel involving massive damages. An accurate parallel would be to state that a man convicted of manslaughter had been convicted of first degree murder.  I must stress that what I have written here is not the dubious opinion of laymen unversed in the intricacies of Canon Law. Canon lawyers without the least shred of sympathy for Mgr. Lefebvre have repudiated the charge of schism made against him as totally untenable. Father Patrick Yaldrini, Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Institut Catholique in Paris noted in the 4 July 1988 issue of Valeurs actuelles that, as I have just explained, Mgr.  Lefebvre was not excommunicated for schism but for the usurpation of an ecclesiastical function. He added that it is not the consecration of a bishop which constitutes schism but the conferral of an apostolic mission upon the illicitly consecrated bishop. It is this usurpation of the powers of the sovereign pontiff which proves the intention of establishing a parallel Church.  Cardinal Rosalio Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, commented on the consecrations in the 10 July 1988 issue of la Repubblica. It would be hard to imagine a more authoritative opinion. The Cardinal wrote:      The act of consecrating a bishop (without a papal mandate) is not     in itself a schismatic act. In fact, the Code that deals with     offenses is divided into two sections. One deals with offenses     against religion and the unity of the Church, and these are     apostasy, schism, and heresy. Consecrating a bishop with a     pontifical mandate is, on the contrary, an offense against the     exercise of a specific ministry. For example, in the case of the     consecrations carried out by the Vietnamese Archbishop Ngo Dinh     Thuc in 1976 and 1983, although the Archbishop was excommunicated     he was not considered to have committed a schismatic act because     there was no intention of a breach with the Church.  ....  It is not simply unjust but ludicrous to suggest that in consecrating bishops without a papal mandate Archbishop Lefebvre had the least intent of establishing a schismatic church. He is not a schismatic and will never be a schismatic. The Archbishop considers correctly that the the Church is undergoing its worst crisis since the Arian heresy, and that for the good of the Church it was necessary for him to consecrate the four bishops to ensure the future of his Society. Canon Law provides for just such a situation, and even if one believes that the future of the Society could have been guaranteed without these consecrations, the fact that the Archbishop believed sincerely that it could not means, as Canon Law states clearly, that he has not incurred excommunication. Furthermore, while the Vatican allows such prelates as Archbishop Weakland to undermine the Faith with impunity it cannot expect Catholics to pay the least attention to its sanctions against a great and orthodox Archbishop whose entire life has been devoted to the service of the Church and the salvation of souls.  Dr. Eric M. de Saventhem, President of the International Una Voce Association, is one of the best informed laymen in the Church, and he knows the Archbishop intimately. Dr. de Saventhem, like myself, has no greater desire than to see a reconciliation between Mgr. Lefebvre and the Holy See during the Archbishop's lifetime. A quotation from a statement by Dr. de Saventhem which was published in the 15 February 1989 Remnant merits careful study: