As for the question about schism, Murray cites the most authoritative commentators to show that Archbishop Lefebvre’s act does not correspond to accepted definitions of schism. “We should carefully distinguish schism from pure and simple disobedience. A schism presupposes a systematic, habitual refusal to be dependent” (Fr. Mattheus Conte a Coronata). “Schism would be clear if the refusal to obey attacked the authority per se... when someone rejects a precept or a judgment of the pope pronounced in the exercise of his office, not recognizing him as a superior...” (Fr. Congar). “Schism must not be confused with disobedience. The latter is a simple transgression, against papal law, for example; the former is a deliberate, voluntary rejection of communion and therefore a rebellion” (Alphonse Borras)—which is manifestly not the case with the Society of St. Pius X.