How is it that...?

Marcel Lefevre was excommunicated after he ordained some Bishops in direct defiance of the Holy See, but Hans Kung says the things he does, and is still a priest in good standing? How does Lefevre, who recognized John Paul as Pope gets ex-communicated, but Kung denies Papal Infallibility all together and is not cut off?

Whether you think it is just or not, the act of ordaining bishops against the command of the Apostolic See has been seen as a very, very grave offense–since it essentially sets up a particular Church or Churches independent from the one Catholic Church.A bishop doing this has traditionally been treated harsher than a single priest dissenting on one point of faith. As I said before, you or I may find this unjust, but it is just the way it is.

Both schism and heresy, if formal, carry automatic excommunication anyway–regardless of whether the proper authorities say anything about it. In addition, canon law (1336) prescribes other penalties that can be given to clerics. Kung receive just such a punishment, the stripping of his title as a Catholic theologian and his privilege of holding himself out as one. Lefebrve was not stripped of anything as far as I know. Both could have been stripped of the clerical state, but as far as I know, neither were.

Two different people commit two different offences and get two different punishments. Excommunication is a last resort, and whilst personally I might want to kick people like Kung out, it is understandable that the Pope would keep him as a Catholic if at all possible. Kung just says things, after all. Lefevre was building up his own church within a church, which was much harder to tolerate.

Not to mention the penalty of excommunication (latae sententiae) is specifically prescribed for such offense.

Can. 1382 Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.


Question: Was Antônio de Castro Mayer (of Campos) also excommunicated with Archbishop Lefebrve?


As an accomplice? (He himself did not ordain any bishops or was he himself ordained in 1988.) Where is this in canon law?

Repeat the question: Why was Antônio de Castro Mayer (of Campos) also excommunicated with Archbishop Lefebrve? I can’t seem to find an adequate answer.

[post=2493201]Did you read the link?[/post]

Sorry, didn’t see it. I guess I use the underline for different reasons. Should have known better.


Co-consecrator? Isn’t this tantamount to co-celebrant, which is an informal adherence/acceptance to post-Vatican II standards?

He wasn’t excommunicated for denying the legitimacy of Vatican II. He was excommunicated for consecrating the bishops without approval by the Holy See.

I would imagine that Abp. Lefebvre was excommunicated for an open act of defiance—publicly opposing the Holy See.

Kung, on the other hand, hasn’t done anything overt; he simply hides in his university in Tubingen and pontificates, rather like Martin Luther did when he was hiding out in the Wartburg Castle.

Please keep the discussion charitable. Thank you.

Granted but something just doesn’t add up. Those bishops would have been consecrated with or without him. Would anyone else being present have been subjected to the same punishment?

Would they? Had those men been designated to be ordained bishops by the Holy See?

I honestly do not know the details of the event – Please educate me.


Only one if I remember. But to clarify my question, wouldn’t the 4 bishops have been consecrated/ordained without Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer? Were two bishops actually required to consecrate four bishops? But if the Pope was determined to excommunicate Mayer for just being there, isn’t the term co-consecrating just some legal way to justify it? What else did Mayer do?

Inquisitive minds want to know the details. :slight_smile:

If I recall correctly, 2 bishops are required to consecrate a new bishop. That was the reason Abp. Lefebvre did not follow the deal that was only giving him one new bishop. If he died, there wouldn’t be enough bishops left to consecrate more.

Yours in Christ,

Ah, as Daffy Duck would say: “pronoun trouble”. By he/him I had thought you (and [user]Windmill[/user] before you) to be referring to Archbishop Lefebvre.


And Can. 1014 calls for a principal consecrator and at least 2 co-consecrators, unless a dispensation has been granted by the Apostolic See.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit