Strange.

CatholicKnight, please correct those people.  1) Vigano did say that from Paul6 onwards, they are heretics and anti-catholic.  2) Vigano did get conditionally consecrated.

Strange.

Fr. Kramer is mistaken. He obviously is not aware of the facts.

Proof that his consecration has not been made public to the world.  There is no tweet, writing, video, Eleison Comment from Vigano and Bishop Williamson that can be provided to Fr Kramer to show him that it is not a false rumor.

Dear 2Vermont,

Yes. As of now, the consecration of Fr. Vigano remains in the sphere of belief. We have credible sources referring to it, but no evidence. 

Fr. Kramer is mistaken. He obviously is not aware of the facts.

Indeed.  Fr. Kramer is also mistaken about what +Vigano said.  While he did not say explicitly in so many words, "Ronclli - Ratzinger" were also non-popes, he obviously said it implicitly, where he rejected the authority of the V2 "magisterium".  It's just in the nature of +Vigano to take everything one step at a time so as not to lose people or, as Bishop Sanborn said, not to "shock" them.

THIS ^^^

I'm still waiting for an answer why certain gossipy individuals need to even know whether +Vigano was conditionally consecrated.  Even before V2 conditionals were often done privately, without much fanfare, somewhere in a rectory or small chapel somewhere, and the information released on a "need to know" basis.  Where's the need to know here upon those who keep harping on the lack of a public announcement?  Are you being served by priests who were ordained by +Vigano or receiving holy oils consecrated by +Vigano?  Conditional ordinations were done very quietly at STAS even during the time of +Lefebvre.  Then typically what happened is that if you encountered a priest coming over from the NO, you'd just ask them or you could ask the bishop, and they'd always tell you, "Yes, I was conditionally ordained by Bishop [e.g.] Williamson."  I've had this happen several times, where there was an NO priest who came over and I asked him, and he just told me.  But it was never announced on the front page of some SSPX publication.

Fr. Ringose, conditionally ordained by +Lefebvre.  Fr. Carlos Casavantes, "ordained" by JP2 Wojtyla in Rome, conditionally ordained by +Williamson.  In both cases, I asked the priest in question as it wasn't public knowledge that was widely broadcast.  In both cases, I accepted the priest's answer without feeling the need to interrogate the bishop who did it (+Lefebvre had already passed away), since I considered them honest men and reliable witnesses and that was all the "evidence" I required.  And I only asked them because I was intended to assist at their Masses and receive the Sacraments from them.  Had I never encountered Fr. Ringrose or Fr. Casavantes, why I would I bother even investigating the matter?  Do we need something posted on the internet now to know if it's real ... as if everything on the internet is true?

There were some cases here on CI even where posters affirmed that "yes, such and was was conditionally ordained by ..." and depending on who the poster was, I would accept that as well and not hesitate to receive the Sacraments from those priests without further investigation.  If I posted here on CI, "Fr. Ringrose" or "Fr. Casavantes" told me personally that they had been conditionally ordained, would you believe me or do you consider me a liar?

Dear Ladislaus,

 I believe you. I do not consider you a liar. It is matter of belief on my part, since there is no objective evidence available to me. Fr. Vigano's conditional consecration would affect more than the people in direct contact with him. It would affect some sedevacantists, all of R&R, and everything novus ordo. The faithful have the right and obligation to know where the Church is.

Also, (and I hate to say it) but this shows the poor thinking of +W (and maybe even +Vigano) on the new rites.  +W/sspx have never drawn a line in the sand on the new rites.  Ever.  They always take the approach of viewing each one, on an individual case-by-case basis.  Which is not only impossible but ignores the larger question of the status of the V2 church, as a whole.  But we know why +W doesn't want to say that "all new rites are doubtful" because then he slides over, ever closer to the evils of sedeism.  (Not really, but that's how he views it).

So here we have a case of Archbishop Vigano, a famous convert, a notable person, of high intellect and who has both status in the V2 church, in the indult community and now, inside of Tradition.  Meanwhile, as this is going on, we have the new-sspx, who day-by-day, is moving closer and closer to new-rome, and accepting more and more of the V2 church.  The new-sspx even took in "bishop" Huonder and had him (secretly) consecrate holy oils.  Which was both a scandal and a propaganda act for the masses.

So in the midst of all of this, with +W having been kicked out of the new-sspx, for "resisting" their continued liberalness and compromises of the Faith, here we have +W who has the opportunity to show the faithful that the new rites are wrong, that the True Rites are to be upheld, and that TRUE CONVERSION TO THE TRUE FAITH REQUIRES THE TRUE RITES.  And what happens?  Nothing.  Crickets. 

Yes, I believe that +Vigano was conditionally consecrated.  But I don't know why.  And that's the problem.
1.  Was it simply for "human/personal" reasons that +Vigano wanted to be conditionally consecrated?
2.  Was it because +W told +Vigano it was "more perfect, but still not necessary"?
3.  Was it because +W expressed to +Vigano that it was only needed (in his case) because of the "bad bishop" who consecrated him?

All of these "reasons" miss the point.  None of them are based on any unchanging principles, but only circuмstantial reasons.  The ultimate reason is that (something both +W and +Vigano have already repeatedly said publicly):
The V2 church is an apostate church and their sacraments are corrupted.  Sometimes valid, sometimes not.  We must treat them as doubtful.

Any reason which is less than the above, is forgetting the whole point of why Tradition exists.  You're "taking your eye off the ball" (to use a baseball term).

And, unfortunately, as much as I hate to say it, if we don't know the reason for +Vigano's conditional sacrament, and if it's not released publicly, then...considering +W's prior wishy-washy attitude towards new-rome sacraments (sometimes they are part of the "poisoned apple" and then sometimes they are "miraculous" and valid and good), then I can't see how +W can criticize the new-sspx for working with +Huonder.

1) For all we know, +Huonder was conditionally consecrated.  Since both the new-sspx and the Resistance deems such a private affair, then how does anyone know +Huonder WASN'T?

2) If the only reason to conditionally consecrate +Vigano/+Huonder is for "personal" reasons or it's more perfect, or there was a "bad" bishop involved, then it stands to reason (arguably) that if none of these issues exist, then +Vigano/+Huonder's conditional wouldn't be necessary at all.
 
3) If the above 2 are correct, then logic says that the new rites are (presumed) valid, and that one could (in theory) save their souls in the indult (or even, possibly, at a "conservative" novus ordo community).  In other words, there is no reason for Tradition to exist.

This whole conditional sacrament issue is NOT a small matter.  It is at the CENTER of the crisis today -- either treat all new-rites as doubtful or accept them all as valid.  And +W keeps dancing around the question, sadly.  After seeing the slippery slope that the new-sspx is on, he still cannot course-correct and learn from their mistakes.  Not good for the Resistance, as a whole.  They are still as wishy-washy as the new-sspx, just changed the name and brand.

At least we have the good example provided to us by the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. When he consecrated the four bishops on June 30, 1988, he did so in the proper public manner, which left no doubts at all as to what had occurred. Even though he knew he was going to be in big trouble with Rome for doing so. He wasn't afraid of them. He cared more about the Catholic Faith than what anyone thought of him.

It's also my understanding that all of the well-known sedevacantist bishops make announcements regarding episcopal consecrations (and typically beforehand).