I've read all these arguments and these non sequiturs before - and the recommended remedy is always: commit the mortal sin of schism!
No sale.
Card. Mahoney isn't a schismatic, so are you going to worship every word out of his mouth, or Bishop Thomas Gumbleton for that matter?
As a Roman Catholic, the only word I worship is the Incarnate Word.
Gumbleton and Mahony will pay the price for their misrule in due time and this fake bishop will pay the price for his as well.
Both Mahony and Pivarunas assault the Body of Christ even though they both know that what they are doing is evil.
One is no better than the other.
How about St. Athanasius or St. Maximos the Confessor who stood up against the heresies of the church of their day?
A pope can become a schismatic if he falls into manifest heretic? What about the so-called Papal Schism of the 14th century? Who was the schismatic then because there were rival claimants to the papacy?
Sometimes, resistance to heresy is preferable to submission to heterodox bishops and clergy.
Besides, your argument is one of an ad hominem attack that doesn't rebut the substance of Bishop Pivaruas's arguments.
Sometimes schism is a necessary evil if it preserves the faith of the faithful.
That necessity, thus mitigates the mortal sin of schism.
He is a valid, but illicit bishop.
Where the bishop is there is the Catholic Church. (St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Symrneans.)
Amen.