Oh, sure, like +Vigano's been all about "not offending", declaring Jorge an Antipope, calling him a "Servant of Satan", etc.  +Vigano has never shown any signs of human respect.  He was about to go to Matt's conference and stir things up.  He went to Barnhardt's conference and undercut their Bennyvacantist hypothesis, later referring to Bennyvacantists as "Montinians" (like our friend Catholic Knight here), declare the See vacant despite knowing that it would alienate not only the SSPX but to some extent also the Resistance.

+Vigano, as +Sanborn pointed out, is taking it a step at a time (+Sanborn admitted that he was a bit impatient) because of his audience and what he's trying to accomplish, namely, to lead the conservative Novus Ordites closer to Tradition.  He's going to have NO impact on Traditional Catholics.  His coming out declaring the NO Sacraments to be of doubtful validity will not change the minds of a single Trad who's already made up his mind about the matter.  Anything he does that appease his Traddie critics would only constitute preaching to the choir and would have no effect, but it could have major effects among the Conciliar conservatives.  Consequently, he's obviously taking it a step at a time.  In his latest, he clearly lays out in principle that Roncalli-Ratzinger were also non-popes, but he doesn't say it explicitly yet.  I expect that to be his next step.  Sometime after that he'll go into the validity NO Orders.

In the meantime, until he exercises episcopal orders somehow where it would impact people, there's absolutely no compelling reason to make the declaration other than so that Trads can high-five each other, though his most vocal critics the entire time will just find something else to attack him for anyway, so it's utterly pointless.

If I were in his position, I'd do EXACTLY the same thing ... and it's working wonders in terms of opening the eyes of the conservative Conciliars, and the contrary approach would serve no purpose among legacy Trads.

Who said I meant human respect?  I meant that it would turn them off.

Another one who can't bring himself to offer any positive feedback to anyone who isn't as giddy about Vigano. False accusations in 3...2...1....

And I said that it's perfectly reasonable to hold off on receiving orders from +Vigano until you're certain, as Bishop Sanborn indicated.  What I'm referring to is the people insisting on needing to know when they have absolutely no stake in it.  Since you're evidently talking about your son again and his quest for the seminary that suits him, given his circuмstances, he could very likely approach +Williamson and +Vigano and ask them both, and given the scenario, i.e. where you actually do have a "need to know," I'm 100% certain that they would not hesitate to tell you (or him) directly.  +Williamson has told people directly with less of a need to know.

Even if you confirm the conditional consecration, there would potentially be other reasons to "hold off", i.e. because you seem to be in quest of the Bishop who perfectly matches your own positions on various issues, since the position of +Vigano is clearly still evolving.  For all you know, 3 months from now he might adopt +Sanborn's dogmatic non-una-cuм position ... to which you object and it's why you said your son (or you, hard to say) wouldn't go to +Sanborn's seminary.

5 out of the 7 sacraments are PUBLIC events.  Clerics have no right to decide who "needs to know".  They have an obligation to make the knowledge public.


We're not living in persecution times; canon law must be followed.

100% false and made up out of thin air.  Sacraments are all inherently public, but there are many scenarios of prudential judgment that could justify and even require keeping them somewhat quiet, especially, as Matthew pointed out, has always been the case with CONDITIONAL Sacraments.

"We're not living in persecution times; canon law must be followed."  Do you not realize that you're condemning yourself out of your own mouth here?  If there's no persecution, then why are you assisting at Mass in violation of Canon Law?

We're absolutely in a persecution, with people being excommunicated for being Catholic, etc.

As you should know, salus animarum suprema lex, as +Sanborn outlined.  If in +Vigano's judgment, he's doing more good by holding back on that for now because he's in a better position to influence people out of the Conciliar Church, that's more than ample justification for keeping quiet about it for now.  Weddings were often regularized/confected in a low-key manner just to prevent scandal (if a couple had been together for some time).  Conditionals were usually kept low key for reasons Matthew articulated.  In this information age you are operating under the warped definition of "public," somehow equating it with a news conference or a post on the internet.  That's absurd.  Bishop Williamson has in fact told people when asked.  I've seen a copy of an e-mail written by Bishop +Faure also affirming the conditional consecration.  That is not keeping it "secret" even, but simply low-key, where they're telling people on a need to know basis, and you have no need to now.  Period.  Cf. St. Robert Bellarmine's definition of manifest/public vis-a-vis the pope issue.  It's something that is either known or in a position to become known.  Secret/occult would be where Bishop Williamson refused to answer and +Vigano refused to answer, or when +Mendez was telling Father Peter Scott that the ordinations of Fr. Greenwell and Fr. Baumberger were "an ugly rumor".

When asked, both Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure and Father Chazal (who got it from Bishop Williamson) have told people that it's taken place.  That is no longer secret/hidden, since the opposite of secret/hidden is not widely publicized, much less posted on the internet or declared in a press conference or Youtube video.

If Gray's son here went to +Williamson, with the obvious need to know, +Williamson would undoubtedly tell him ... as would +Vigano if he's contemplating entering his seminary.

And I said that it's perfectly reasonable to hold off on receiving orders from +Vigano until you're certain, as Bishop Sanborn indicated.  What I'm referring to is the people insisting on needing to know when they have absolutely no stake in it.  Since you're evidently talking about your son again and his quest for the seminary that suits him, given his circuмstances, he could very likely approach +Williamson and +Vigano and ask them both, and given the scenario, i.e. where you actually do have a "need to know," I'm 100% certain that they would not hesitate to tell you (or him) directly.  +Williamson has told people directly with less of a need to know.

Even if you confirm the conditional consecration, there would potentially be other reasons to "hold off", i.e. because you seem to be in quest of the Bishop who perfectly matches your own positions on various issues, since the position of +Vigano is clearly still evolving.  For all you know, 3 months from now he might adopt +Sanborn's dogmatic non-una-cuм position ... to which you object and it's why you said your son (or you, hard to say) wouldn't go to +Sanborn's seminary.

To set the record straight, not me.  I tell him to email +Williamson and +Vigano, but he won't.  And he is not looking for the perfect bishop.  I would go into details, but  I am not at liberty.

All of your reasoning is based on a hypothetical (which no one can know), that +Vigano has some "master plan".  In absence of this, canon law does not allow occult sacraments, except to avoid scandal (as you rightly point out).  Ironically, as I've pointed out, keeping this event on the "down low" is causing scandal, not avoiding it.  The scandal is for +W and +Vigano to assume that new-rites are "probably valid" which is to deny the facts which point to positive doubts.

I think you have a very good point. 

Whereas I can see why/can understand why this might be on the "down low", none of us really know the why.  We are only pre-supposing.  It makes me think of the idiom "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

It seems to me that this should have been handled all or nothing.  Either keep it quiet until it's ready to go fully public.  Or make it fully public out of the gate.  Instead, we have this or that person who supposedly had "the right to know".

Just to be clear.  My son would have followed the two seminaries rules.  He wouldn't have caused conflict,  but I think that at this point in the game Bishops had been jaded so much that they won't take chances on people they do not know well.

God will guide your son to His seminary because we are living during times of persecution from within.  With God, all things are possible.