Mother Church, or Mother of Schism?

 Recently, the Society of Saint Pius X has garnered international attention and criticism, for seemingly going against the Roman Catholic church in consecrating 4 new bishops to serve their numerous parishes, schools, and other institutions.  The Vatican announced that the entire society was now excommunicated; and publicly charged/ accused the SSPX of an act of Schism.  Now anyone who is connected with one of the historical churches understands and agrees that Schism is something that should be avoided at all costs, as it is a division within the b body of the faithful; something which should always be avoided when  possible.  However, when Schism occurs, the blame game begins; and often it is not who is "in the right", but rather who is LOUDEST that gets to accuse the other of the crime. 

I would argue that, far from being the Mother church of Unity, Rome itself is the creator of Schism and division in much of church history.  Now this should not be taken as an expression of hostility toward our Roman brethren, or a condemnation of the Roman church as a distinct ecclesial part of the universal church- but rather a critique of the OFFICE of the Bishops of Rome, and how they have all too often overstepped what authority they do have, in favor of authority they WISH they had.  

After all, the greatest Schism took place in 1014 AD, when the Patriarch of Constantinople refused to submit to the Bishop of Rome, who claimed absolute, universal jurisdiction over all churches in all places. Coupled with the Roman notion of making the Filioque an essential part of the Creed established by the ecumenical council of Niceae, without consulting an additional ecumenical council; the Bishops of Rome were striking out in large fashion, claiming to be the sole arbiters of the church, its teachings, and the definition of Christian faith in general.  During the Renaissance, at the height of the issues prompting the Protestant Reformation; rather than calling a council and considering that there were issues which needed correcting to curb massive corruption which had infiltrated the Roman church, the Popes simply excommunicated anyone who dared raise a voice of protest, thus pushing them into their own organizations. This is not to say that there was not an equal amount of Animus on the part of many 'reformers', however when the goal of the church is supposedly unity, excommunicating anyone who raises a question is a heavy-handed, draconian, dictatorial response.  In the late 1800's, the First Vatican Council (called ecumenical, however few others attended) was called, and the Roman Church defined papal infallibility, as well as ending a practice of general autocephaly for remote dioceses in the church.   Prior to this, most dioceses were able to govern themselves without direct input or interference from Rome, and were allowed to choose their own bishops.  Yet at Vatican 1, the Roman officials had had enough of that.  This caused a break with the church in Utrecht, Netherlands; who refused to allow the Bishops of Rome to determine their bishops for them without their input, and so the Old Catholic Church was born out of Schism in the Netherlands.  

Fast forward to 1960-70's Rome, and the Bishop of Rome orders the implementation of a new order of Mass, to replace all other forms of Mass in the Latin Rite church.  It is important to note that while the Second Vatican Council DID say that the Tridentine Mass should be updated slightly (primarily with the introduction of SOME vernacular, in particular scripture readings), the Council itself did NOT endorse or decree what became known as the "Novus Ordo" mass.   That was created by a secondary body which was instituted by the council, but ignored what the council fathers had said about the liturgy, and created a bastardized new expression of the liturgy; which the Bishop of Rome then gleefully rammed down the throats of the Roman church.  The reason why there was a Schism after this, with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and other (now called) traditionalists, is because at no point in history has the Vatican been given authority to FORCE a new expression of liturgy on the Universal church, without either the decree of a council or the consent of the people of the church.  The liturgy of the church is how the church expresses her unique devotion and cultural identity in the solemn worship of the triune God; how could the church in Rome force a new expression and a new identity on them?  

And so today, we have the SSPX once again accused of Schism, yet the issue behind the scenes is a Roman Hierarchy which cares nothing for voices of concern, nothing for sincere expressions of a culture of faith other than Novus Ordo, and cares nothing for the hundreds of thousands of faithful, religious, and clergy who make up this movement of the church.  Yes, the Vatican would rather hack off an entire limb off its body, rather than administer a wholesome medicine to remedy it and bring the body to completeness.  

Tell me this, who then is the TRUE instigator of Schism in the western church?