Schism Is a Two-Way Street

There's a very good explanation of the term "schism" at this link.

Here's the fun part:

...After all, despite what some modern-day canon lawyers suggest, it is not impossible to imagine a hypothetical scenario in which the pope commits schism against the Church, such as if he decided to excommunicate the entire Church aside from himself, or if he suppressed all of the sacraments and rites of the Church. After all, theologians from Cardinal Cajetan, John Torquemada, Charles Journet, and even Karl Rahner understood that it is theoretically possible for the pope himself to commit schism by acting against the essential unity of the Church through an abuse of his power. To dismiss these hypotheticals because they are unlikely does not actually address the substance of what these hypotheticals try to work out, which is the proper relationship between the pope and the ecclesiastical common good....

That meets the 'common sense' test, which tells us that anyone can be a schismatic; that there is no reason for a Pope to be exempt from that sin.

Shall we talk about 'abuse of power' in the Seat of Peter?  

Tridentine Rite, anyone?  Anyone???