Unauthorized episcopal consecrations—i.e., consecrating someone as a bishop without first obtaining/knowing the Apostolic See’s “pontifical mandate”—are treated in Church law as a grave violation of ecclesial discipline and communion, and they carry latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See for both the consecrator and the recipient.

Key legal questions: permission, penalties, and “what becomes of the act”

What canon law foregrounds

Canon law does not present this mainly as a “mere administrative irregularity.” It is framed as:

• a violation of the Church’s governance and communion (the Roman Pontiff’s authority over episcopal appointments), and
• a penal offense (automatic excommunication) for the parties who participate in the rite without the required mandate.

“Validity” is not the main focus in the sources you provided

The specific provisions given here focus on:

• who is permitted to consecrate and under what conditions (mandate requirement),
• procedural requirements for the rite,
• and the juridical consequences (excommunication).

So, from these sources, the safest conclusion is: the act is illicit and gravely punishable, and the penalty is imposed automatically on those described.

The core “mandate” norm

No bishop may consecrate without a pontifical mandate

The decisive rule is:

This captures the canonical meaning of “unauthorized” in the strict sense: not merely “not licensed by a local superior,” but missing the evidence of mandate from the Apostolic See.

Procedural participation in the rite

Canonical law also specifies requirements for the composition of episcopal consecration:

While this concerns the rite’s external requisites and dispensation possibilities, the mandate requirement remains the central marker for the specific offense described below.

Timing of episcopal consecration after appointment

A further rule shows how the Church expects episcopal consecration to follow canonical appointment:

So “unauthorized” consecration is also disordered relative to the normal canonical flow from papal appointment/letter to consecration and possession.

Who can perform consecrations?

Canon law also clarifies the general competence to perform sacred consecrations:

In other words, the sacramental capacity presupposes episcopal character. But the “authorization” in the question is not primarily about sacramental capability; it is about the canonical permission/evidence of mandate.

The penal norm: automatic excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See

The latae sententiae excommunication

Canon law states:

This is unusually explicit because it applies to both sides:

• the consecrating bishop (the “actor”),
• and the bishop who receives consecration (the “recipient”).

Why it is treated as a grave matter for unity

A strong doctrinal framing appears in earlier papal legislation and statements:

• Pope Pius XII taught that when consecrations of this kind are done contrary to law and “the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked,” a special excommunication is established automatically for both consecrator and irresponsible recipient.
• John Paul II similarly described illicit episcopal ordination in the context of Lefebvre as:
  • disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a “very grave matter … for the unity of the church,” and
  • “a schismatic act,” with the “grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.”

So, in Catholic juridical language, the offense is not only “breaking a rule,” but striking at communion anchored in the Roman primacy.

How the Church applies (and limits) the automatic penalty in practice

Personal circumstances and possible mitigation

A major clarification appears in the Dicastery for Legislative Texts’ explanation on applying the relevant canon in cases of episcopal consecration without pontifical mandate:

• Individuals must be considered singularly, according to personal circumstances, to determine whether latae sententiae excommunication is incurred in fact.
• The dicastery notes that circumstances can be attenuating and can exclude the penalty in some cases, referencing canonical principles of mitigation (e.g., can. 1324 §1).

It further highlights one set of mitigating possibilities particularly relevant to such cases:

So, while the canon establishes an automatic penalty in law, the Church’s penal interpretation emphasizes imputability and personal culpability.

The “criminal” framework: what makes a delict

The same dicastery document summarizes the general approach to criminal attribution:

• the delict is the external violation of a law or precept, “gravely imputable” for dolo or culpa,
• and that once external violation is established, imputability is presumed unless shown otherwise.

It also ties the penal provision directly to the mandate requirement in canon law:

• it describes punishment for a bishop who consecrates another bishop “without apostolic mandate” and for those who receive that consecration, and connects the discipline to norms like:
  • the Roman Pontiff’s appointment/confirmation of bishops,
  • and the rule that no bishop may consecrate without mandate.

Further censures for communion and scandal repair

The Dicastery also explains that, independently of latae sententiae, the Holy See can impose censures directly if needed—for example if later conduct or reluctance to explain participation shows an attitude incompatible with communion.

It adds that new and certain information might require declaring the latae sententiae excommunication or imposing other sanctions/penances to:

• repair scandal,
• dissipate confusion among the faithful,
• and safeguard discipline (explicitly mentioning can. 1341 in that context).

Ecclesial characterization: disobedience, rejection of primacy, and schism

Two of the provided sources stress that the underlying issue is not just procedural autonomy but rejection (or practical denial) of the Roman Pontiff’s primacy:

• John Paul II: disobedience implies “in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy” and thus constitutes a “schismatic act.”
• The Dicastery explanation also frames the delict as violating doctrine confirmed and received in the relevant canons, including the canon about the Roman Pontiff’s role in appointing/confirming bishops and the mandate prohibition.

Practical synthesis (what you can conclude from these sources)

From the legislation and explanations you provided, unauthorized episcopal consecrations are characterized as:

1. A grave canonical violation because no bishop is permitted to consecrate another bishop without it being “first evident” that a pontifical mandate exists.
2. Automatic excommunication (latae sententiae) reserved to the Apostolic See for both:
   • the consecrator bishop and
   • the consecrated bishop/recipient.
3. A matter for ecclesial unity: the Church frames it as disobedience to the Roman Pontiff and—when it effectively rejects Roman primacy—as a schismatic act (with grave penalties).
4. Not purely mechanical in culpability: personal circumstances may mitigate or exclude latae sententiae effects; the Holy See may still clarify or impose further disciplinary measures for communion and scandal repair.
5. Linked to the expected canonical process for episcopal consecration after apostolic appointment/letter and before taking possession of office.

One caution about citation scope (canon numbering)

Your materials include:

• the operative text of Can. 1387 on latae sententiae excommunication for consecration without pontifical mandate,
• and a Dicastery document explicitly discussing canon 1382 application.

The Dicastery’s explanation clearly targets the same species of act (“consecration episcopale senza mandato apostolico”) and its penal treatment.
But since your question asks for ecclesiastical law and you gave both citations as separate sources, the safest approach is to treat them as complementary: Canon text = the automatic penalty rule, Dicastery guidance = how the penalty is applied considering personal circumstances and further disciplinary steps.

Unauthorized episcopal consecrations, in the Catholic juridical framework reflected in these sources, constitute a grave breach of communion anchored in the Roman primacy and are punished by automatic excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See for both consecrator and recipient, while the Church also evaluates personal culpability and may take further steps to repair scandal and safeguard discipline.