I think calling this a schism is probably inaccurate (ik you weren't the first person to call it that but i don't have access to bbcs tumblr. or like. the pope.) The Schism capital T capital S was such a big deal because both the Catholics and the Orthodox have a claim to being the First Church. Whereas a group breaking off from the catholic church is just New Protestants. If you want to call yourself Catholic you HAVE to obey the pope. Its the #1 rule. They can throw themselves a hissy-fit all they want but if they break off from Catholicism they're just. Not Catholic. (im rambling but you get the idea)
I think you said it best yourself:
To be fair I was calling it that for dramatic effect because this blog is 50% info and 50% The Bit so you know, got to keep the people fed
The pope did call it a 'schismic act' which was really just to get the point across but yes, you're totally right. they'd just tear off from the church entirely but until this point they still have some things that were approved by the church (but mainly to try and close the gap, but that's another story)
I don't think they want to openly turn away from the pope (I mean, they do but they don't want to be separate as an entity ). There are a lot of sections that tore off from the Society and some of them ARE sedevacantists (although I'm not sure that's still applicable after the death of Pope Francis) so those are more schismic than the original Society. Not really a Schism
I know you're referring to The Schism and you have a point but there is no reason there can't be a new one (not with that attitude!). Is this a Schism? No. But purely from a technical standpoint I don't see why there couldn't be another one. It'll never be as iconic as the first one though
