I’ve never understood why canon 1382 was made so severe, especially given the relatively mild penalty prescribed by canon 1383. Under the old code, ‘only’ suspension (without the one-year expiration date) was prescribed. This makes it pretty clear that illicit consecrations are not inherently schismatic, but only become such when there is a schismatic intent—in such a case, the excommunication would be incurred for schism, not the consecrations themselves. If there was no schismatic intent, then suspension would seem to make more sense, given that it’s the usual censure when abuse of authority is involved. The wide gulf between the penalties for ordinations vs episcopal consecrations doesn’t seem logical, IMO.
[/quote]
I just know that when Lefebvre and Castro Mayer consecrated the four bishops, Cardinal Gantin called it a “schismatic act”, though as you point out, in and of itself, it is not schismatic. Meriting latae sententiae excommunication, yes. Ipso facto schismatic, no. My understanding is that the Church later back-pedaled from using the “s-word” to describe the SSPX, in tandem with lifting the excommunications.
Still, though, I can understand the difference in penalties. Just ordaining a priest, that doesn’t introduce a line of apostolic succession. I know it is far-fetched, but I can foresee how a bishop could, of his own accord, make the misguided decision to ordain a priest outside of his authority — perhaps the ordinand’s bishop was dragging his feet (can’t imagine why) and the other bishop said “I think this man needs to be ordained”. That wouldn’t be good, but it would be neither schismatic, nor would it create a new line of AS. On the other hand, once a bishop consecrates another bishop, he’s created a whole new line of AS that, if that bishop would then start consecrating bishops, there could be no end to it. Again, look at what happened in the case of Thuc and Duarte Costa — you’ve got more vagante bishops running around out there than you can shake a stick at, and there’s no way to stop it, it’s like a slow-motion runaway train. Some of those bishops, well, let’s just say that things have gotten interesting.
The Cyprianic view of orders that the Orthodox hold, takes care of this very easily — you’re disconnected from the Church, your orders don’t work, they’re like an unplugged appliance. The Augustinian view, simply put, that orders are “sticky”, holds that these orders, ceteris paribus, are valid, efficacious (though gravely illicit) and can be passed down the line indefinitely.
