As I mentioned, no Traditional group requires public abjuration from those coming over from the Conciliar Church, not even a couple that outright consider the Conciliar Church to be a non-Catholic sect simpliciter.  Bishop Sanborn has articulated his reasons why ... but Miser always knows better.

Well, "vetted" doesn't necessarily have to mean "public abjuration".

"Public", as defined by theologians is something that's no longer confined to an individual but is in a position to become widely known.  There's no definition of "Public" that requires a formal announcement on someone's blog.  Bishops Williamson and Faure, and Father Chazal, have all told individuals about the conditional consecration.  That qualifies as "public" under any theological definition of the term.

Whether something is "required" by theologians in the past and whether something is appropriate and necessary under the current conditions of the Church are two different things.  Does phone tag with certain people really suffice in this day and age?  Why would newsletters, websites and blogs be sufficient for publicly announcing a new seminary, but not an episcopal consecration?  

Every time Bishop Williamson consecrated a bishop, there was a public announcement. 

The lack of one here is concerning. 

The Church is a visible society, and it's members have the right to know about the reception of Holy Orders among the clergy. 

I will wait for a public announcement. If they refuse to issue one, there is a serious problem. Such a refusal is tantamount to wearing a mask. 

I don't know better than learned Traditional clergy. 

I just ask questions that people should be asking.

Some people want universal acceptance of Vigano with no questions asked. 

They excoriate anyone who dares to ask questions.

Anyway, seeing as how he was promoting this Zionist rally just 3 months ago we should be asking where he stands. 

Does he still stand with Israel?

Will that be part of the training in his seminary?

I have had my doubts in the past as you know.  I believe I'm the one who posted the photo above.  I have since come to believe that +Vigano is not personally in control of his "brand" in the US.  I believe it has been co-opted by Taylor Marshall et al for financial gain and promotion of Marshall's pan-religious beliefs.  

The announcement must come from +Vigano himself, not +Williamson who is an underling.  I'm certain it will come in God's good time, not instant TikTok clout chasing.

Not so.  Bishop William has done a couple of consecrations that were kept under wraps, one of them for a couple years.

I also thought of the fact that in the case of conditional ordinations, the news seems to travel more by word of mouth than by official proclamation. I've never given thought to the possible reasons for doing this, but now that I do consider it, it seems most probable that the obscurity boils down to wanting to "save the appearances" of the novus ordo, and not tick off the Vatican apparatus. Bishop Williamson, who is so vehemently against categorically invalidating the novus ordo, may well fall into the category, particularly as he may have been instrumental in setting up SSPX policy in the first place.

Secondly, this is novel. This is not the case of a conditional ordination. This is the case of a conditional consecration; and the case of a high profile ecclesiastical celebrity, who ever surrounds himself with intrigue and controversy. Furthermore, there's talk of opening up a seminary, with Vigano as Rector. This distinction creates an objective requirement for a rigorous formality. As Rector, Vigano sets himself up as a member of the hierarchy, who will receive men for formation. He will teach, sanctify, and govern in that capacity. If he wears a mask, or conceals perhaps the most important reality of his competence to perform such an office, then what else is he concealing?

You held Dom Tomas' feet to the fire in another thread. Be consistent. Vigano is not above scrutiny. In fact, given his history and rank, he must be scrutinized all the more. Does not the history of the horrors of the trad movement give you even a little pause?

P.S. Wow, you added to your thread while I was typing. And now I add to mine! We are along the same lines.

I also thought of the fact that in the case of conditional ordinations, the news seems to travel more by word of mouth than by official proclamation. I've never given thought to the possible reasons for doing this, but now that I do consider it, it seems most probable that the obscurity boils down to wanting to "save the appearances" of the novus ordo, and not tick off the Vatican apparatus. Bishop Williamson, who is so vehemently against categorically invalidating the novus ordo, may well fall into the category, particularly as he may have been instrumental in setting up SSPX policy in the first place.

Secondly, this is novel. This is not the case of a conditional ordination. This is the case of a conditional consecration; and the case of a high profile ecclesiastical celebrity, who ever surrounds himself with intrigue and controversy. Furthermore, there's talk of opening up a seminary, with Vigano as Rector. This distinction creates an objective requirement for a rigorous formality. As Rector, Vigano sets himself up as a member of the hierarchy, who will receive men for formation. He will teach, sanctify, and govern in that capacity. If he wears a mask, or conceals perhaps the most important reality of his competence to perform such an office, then what else is he concealing?

You held Dom Tomas' feet to the fire in another thread. Be consistent. Vigano is not above scrutiny. In fact, given his history and rank, he must be scrutinized all the more. Does not the history of the horrors of the trad movement give you even a little pause?

P.S. Wow, you added to your thread while I was typing. And now I add to mine! We are along the same lines.

Yes, I suspect that there's a combination of various "political" considerations and the general attitude that Bishop Williamson has always had toward conditional consecrations.  I don't think they're actively keeping it a secret (i.e. have told people when asked), but they're not exactly pro-actively publicizing it either.  So it's being kept secret, but it's not being kept secret.

We had SSPV hide the Bishop Kelly consecration by +Mendez for several years, and Bishop Williamson keep a couple of other consecrations under wraps for a couple years.

So ...

1) I don't feel that not announcing it on a blog somewhere is the same as keeping it secret
2) +Williamson has done a couple consecrations that he DID keep secret
3) +Williamson has never really publicized conditionals.  I know you say this is different because it's a consecration, but until +Vigano actually uses his espiscopal powers, I don't think there's any urgency.  Until he starts functioning as a bishop, I don't see what the point is other than satisfying people's curiosity.  And that's probably what they're thinking also.
4) This isn't about +Vigano being above scrutiny.  Bishop Williamson is involved in this as well.  But, again, he's telling people who ask, so he's not exactly keeping it a secret, even if he isn't broadcasting it from the housetops, so to speak.

One final thought. Recently Heiner did a video with Bp. Sanborn about the thesis, and they spoke a lot about Vigano.



I don't have time right now to go into the transcript and pull the quotes, so I'll paraphrase.

Essentially Bp. Sanborn believes that Vigano is sedevacantist in his heart, though Vigano hotly insists that he is not SV. Sanborn is perplexed by the fact that Vigano cannot "go all the way."

I'm not even remotely perplexed. And I take Vigano at his word. I do not attribute to him any position he categorically and publicly denies. 

There is growing inside the foul novus ordo beast yet another novel intellectual paradigm, of a particularly monstrous character - which is itself the deformed offspring of bennyvacantism - itself a wicked and vile fruit of the false council. And the entirely of such an ideology is to "save the appearances" of the false church of Vatican II. 

Altman is a poster boy for this new wave, and, I caution you, there is a very good possibility that Vigano is of the same stripe.

How can Vigano pretty much affirm that Bergoglio is not the Pope, and yet continue to insist that he himself is not a sede? It is because this vile new monster divides Bergoglio from the rest of the gang, but especially from Ratzinger and possibly Wojtyla. Bergoglio is portrayed as the problem. A few complaints are issued against the "deformations of the council," de rigeur speech for any pseudo-trad trying to gain traction with the unthinking hordes.

Yet the sacred cow is never touched. One must always "save Ratzinger's appearances." The pseudo-trad world is Ratzingocentric. 

Vigano cannot come out as a full sede, without smashing the reputation of Ratzinger. Vigano cannot anathematize the Council without anathematizing Ratzinger, its rotting radix.

Vigano is a Ratzinger partisan. Please provide me with some proof that Vigano has ever criticized and exposed Ratzinger's disgusting infidel "theology." Has Vigano ever blamed Ratzinger for the persecutions and horrors that have come upon the Roman Church? If he did that, I'd think him a righteous man.

Is this the man that should form tomorrow's priests? A man who cannot admit the integral truth.

Lad, you are very uncompromising on this issue. Are you giving Vigano a pass that you don't give to others? 

Lad, you are very uncompromising on this issue. Are you giving Vigano a pass that you don't give to others?

I'm giving Bishop Williamson a pass.  I didn't make much of a fuss about his prior "secret" consecrations (those were actually kept secret in every sense of the word), nor do I care about the +Mendez secret consecrations, except to point out Bishop Kelly's inconsistency, since that was one of his beefs about the +Thuc line.