One might suggest that an influential prelate with so much fame and credentials like +Vigano might be seen as a THREAT by certain sedevacantist bishops....who are currently kings, or de-facto popes if you will, in their little domains.

Just saying...

To deny that a very real moral hazard exists here would be the height of naivete, and quite foolish. Unless a bishop has the humility/charity to keep his Catholic bearings (to rejoice for a conversion, think firstly about the good of the Church, downplay one's own livelihood and fame, imitate St. John the Baptist's "He must increase but I must decrease", etc.) this could be a real trial for some sede and other Trad bishops.

Not saying anything about any PARTICULAR bishop, but it's a FACT that +Vigano entering the scene is a threat. That doesn't mean +Vigano is above scrutiny or even criticism -- but we have to be careful. We should consider the source, and what +Vigano represents to that source.

The Trad world is small. There is not "enough money for everyone". There are only so many rich donors. Trads are NOT notorious for their wealth! Especially the REAL Trads, who have been Trad long enough to have big families, etc. They are more likely to adhere to sede, Resistance, or SSPX, rather than something more mainstream like Indult.

Bishops are men. They worry about the future. They could easily be attached to various "white rabbit(s)" until they free themselves from them and achieve sanctity. Some might be attached to security (financial or otherwise), some might be attached to staying at a given place or congregation, some it might be music, food, art, friends, or many other things not sinful in themselves. But they are things that are non-God and thus an imperfection to their sanctity.

What I'm saying is: a bishop has to be a saint in order to not be tempted in a case like this.

You would be a fool to not always consider the political ramifications in situations like this. Two-party America politics are a complete farce. But "politics" in the classical sense? The only thing that SHOULD be considered, actually. Politics in the classic sense is almost a synonym for "human nature".

Very thoughtful. Solid.

Dear Mathew and Mark 79,

How does one bring all those saintly bishops together to elect the true Pope?

Ok, I'll bite.

Here are +McKenna's objections:

1) 60 years in novus ordo, 2) pleas for donations, 3) his possible conditional consecration by Bishop Williamson (16:57), 4) where is his "mea culpa"? (33:57 - 35:16).


1. The Conciliar Church is unique among all other (objective) heresies and objectively false religions in that IT ALONE CARRIES THE NAME "ROMAN CATHOLIC". Which, if you look up ANY source, you will find that "the Roman Catholic Church" is the Church founded by Jesus Christ in 33 AD. Vigano's parents would have been horrified if he became anything OTHER than a "Roman Catholic" priest. So what's the problem? He wasn't born with a redpill in his gut? He didn't know the right people? He was ordained in 1968. So it's not like he got to see the drama of Vatican II up close and personal, like +ABL did. +ABL was considerably older than +Vigano -- he was an experienced bishop with a long illustrious career during Vatican II rather than a seminarian!


2. This point is ridiculous. Vigano is a man; he has to survive. The laborer is worthy of his hire. Also, Vigano is older, he has so many years in the Church, he doesn't exactly have a rolodex or e-mail list of Trad benefactors like pretty much EVERY OTHER TRAD BISHOP who have been Trad bishops for decades. He is now cut off from ALL his support, including HEALTH CARE, ability to travel, housing, you name it!
I would also point it it's not fitting for an Apostle, a bishop of the Catholic Church, to be reduced to dire circuмstances such as homelessness. He should be able to live at least a lower-middle class lifestyle. A roof over his head, adequate food, a vehicle so he can travel, some kind of health care in case he gets sick, etc. He shouldn't have to push a cart around town, collecting aluminum cans so he can buy his next meal (one per day).

But at the very least, there is NO issue with a priest or bishop soliciting support from the Faithful. A priest, by definition, is not a "grifter". He has given his life for the Gospel; he deserves financial support IN JUSTICE, not charity. Recall that any cleric is forbidden to engage in any money-making activities. So he relies on the Faithful for support.

This weak argument dies on the vine.

3. I didn't watch the video, but what's the problem here? +Vigano sought out and found a based Trad Bishop with spotless Orders and got conditionally consecrated by him. He gets 10/10 for this move. Again: I say "based" because +Williamson is "infamous" for his redpilled status on the Jews. That's who +Vigano sought out!

4. This point goes together with point 1. It is not customary or required for anyone, lay or cleric, to issue any "apologies" to anyone with regards to being in the deceptive Novus Ordo for a time. I don't know of any Trad priest who requires "confessing" their time in the Novus Ordo upon becoming a Trad. The assumption is that you weren't there for the heresies or to offend God -- you obviously thought it was Catholic, and the right place to be -- until you woke up!
A) Who would be apologized to? Perhaps God, but not every Tom, Dick and Harry layman in the Catholic Church.
B) One might say, "Well, for a cleric, he would need to get conditionally ordained/consecrated to rectify any doubts in his Orders". Um...that's precisely what +Vigano did.
C) "Well he would need to get conditionally consecrated by a Trad bishop, whose orders are not in doubt." Again, that's precisely what +Vigano did. He sought out and found a based Trad Bishop with spotless Orders and got conditionally consecrated by him. I say "based" because +Williamson is "infamous" for his redpilled status on the Jews. That's who +Vigano sought out!

I think point 4 is solidly refuted.

P.S. Why the (Bp?) in the OP? Was that +McKenna's opinion, or just the CathInfo member?
It is totally uncalled for to question Bishop Vigano's episcopacy. This isn't some Conciliar bishop whose orders are rightfully suspect, due to changes in the Rite of Ordination and the Rite of Consecration. This is an ex-Conciliar bishop who has been conditionally consecrated by Bishop Williamson, whose Orders are beyond suspicion.

If I wasn't vehemently against the "multiverse", "timeline", and "mandela effect" nonsense, I would cite this an example.

I thought McKenna was a bishop? I thought he was (one of) the consecrator(s) of Bp. Slupski!

Is that Bishop McKenna a different man? Is his episcopacy on the down-low?

I'd like to see the whole correspondence, to see the context. This could very well be taken out of context.

Yes, it would be a good idea to see the whole correspondence so as to put it into context.

Regarding your previous post about a Bp. McKenna, you may be thinking of Bp. Robert McKenna, who passed away in 2015. I researched some of his work, since he was also an exorcist. It's Fr. Stephen McKenna who is in the OP video. I don't know if they are related. 

Fr. McKenna expressed his concern about +Vigano's supposed conditional consecration, by saying that when +Vigano was asked in an email (if I recall correctly) to say as to whether or not he was conditionally consecrated by +Williamson, +Vigano had included in his reply..."I don't know why you would be asking me such a personal question."

It was a personal question though. It was about +Vigano personally, not some dogmatic or abstract theological point of the Catholic Faith. He didn't SAY that consecrations aren't a matter for the public.

Maybe he meant, "Why are you, a sede priest in the United States with your own flock, so concerned about my consecration? How does little-old-me personally affect you and your flock?" Because Fr. McKenna wasn't asking him a question about the faith, but rather something touching on his person -- specifically, his consecration.

Put yourself in +Vigano's shoes. Shouldn't it seem suspicious to him that a Yankee priest like Fr. McKenna is oddly concerned about this specific Italian prelate? Would he suspect his motivation to be self-serving?

Sure, fans of Fr. McKenna might protest that he is only concerned with the good of the Church. Sure. They all say that. Why should we just trust Fr. McKenna's impartiality and detached interest in this matter, not thinking about his own living at all, or the new "competition" that a Trad +Vigano would represent? Do we have any reason to believe he is merely concerned with the good of the Church? Keep in mind this same Fr. McKenna suggests we shouldn't trust +Vigano, about whom we know MUCH MORE.

But even if we grant the worst possible interpretation to these words -- If +Vigano were as "cagey" about the conditional consecration as this report COULD APPEAR, then why has it been common knowledge for months that he was conditionally consecrated by Bp. Williamson?

Sounds like those who wanted -- or needed -- to know could find out easily with a Google search.

Very few conciliar-turned-Trad priests like to wear their past (and their conditional ordination) on their sleeve, bringing it up at every gathering. Quite the contrary. How many of you laymen like to dwell on your days in the Novus Ordo? (most Trads have such a past). How about sins committed in your youth and/or middle age? Or, how much do you enjoy talking about how dumb and asleep you used to be? I'm sure plenty of Trads used to be bluepilled, blind, sleeping normies.

BUT IN CONCLUSION --
If we saw the context we might understand why +Vigano said what he (allegedly) said. He might have said it for any number of reasons which seemed right to him at the time: to probe or "feel out" his inquisitor, for various political/prudential reasons, to catch him off balance, to nudge him, etc. We know that +Vigano is politically savvy, very prudent, and intelligent. He didn't get to be a Bishop by having an IQ of 80.

The only thing I can't defend is the secrecy of conditional sacraments, especially ordination/consecration.  The Church is a visible society and the sacraments are public acts (aside from confession).  All the 6 sacraments are done in public, with witnesses, etc.  I find it VERY hypocritical that +W wants to "spread the word" on countless "miracles" but he wants to keep quiet a conditional consecration/ordination.  Especially when we are in the middle of a HUGE doctrinal debate over V2 sacraments...this is the CRUX of the crisis we live in today...keeping quiet about such is unfathomable. 

Sorry, +Vigano, a conditional consecration is not a "personal" matter, but a matter for the whole, visible, global Church.  Especially if you want to come out, guns blazing, and attack the pope and reject V2.  That's a lot of fortitude.  But you don't have the gumption to admit that your episcopacy was in doubt for decades?  I find this disappointing.

But I'm more disappointed with +W, who should have required that this event be published.  Maybe not immediately, for prudence's sake.  But it's been a while now.  Too long. 

I hear you, but I'm going to continue to withhold judgment on the matter. I simply am not in possession of all the facts of the case.

How about we pray for our priests and bishops, including +Williamson and +Vigano?

The fact of his conditional consecration is on his Wikipedia page for crying out loud. It's about as public as it gets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Vigan%C3%B2

It was a personal question though. It was about +Vigano personally, not some dogmatic or abstract theological point of the Catholic Faith. He didn't SAY that consecrations aren't a matter for the public.

Maybe he meant, "Why are you, a sede priest in the United States with your own flock, so concerned about my consecration? How does little-old-me personally affect you and your flock?" Because Fr. McKenna wasn't asking him a question about the faith, but rather something touching on his person -- specifically, his consecration.

Put yourself in +Vigano's shoes. Shouldn't it seem suspicious to him that a Yankee priest like Fr. McKenna is oddly concerned about this specific Italian prelate? Would he suspect his motivation to be self-serving?

Sure, fans of Fr. McKenna might protest that he is only concerned with the good of the Church. Sure. They all say that. Why should we just trust Fr. McKenna's impartiality and detached interest in this matter, not thinking about his own living at all, or the new "competition" that a Trad +Vigano would represent? Do we have any reason to believe he is merely concerned with the good of the Church? Keep in mind this same Fr. McKenna suggests we shouldn't trust +Vigano, about whom we know MUCH MORE.

But even if we grant the worst possible interpretation to these words -- If +Vigano were as "cagey" about the conditional consecration as this report COULD APPEAR, then why has it been common knowledge for months that he was conditionally consecrated by Bp. Williamson?

Sounds like those who wanted -- or needed -- to know could find out easily with a Google search.

Very few conciliar-turned-Trad priests like to wear their past (and their conditional ordination) on their sleeve, bringing it up at every gathering. Quite the contrary. How many of you laymen like to dwell on your days in the Novus Ordo? (most Trads have such a past). How about sins committed in your youth and/or middle age? Or, how much do you enjoy talking about how dumb and asleep you used to be? I'm sure plenty of Trads used to be bluepilled, blind, sleeping normies.

BUT IN CONCLUSION --
If we saw the context we might understand why +Vigano said what he (allegedly) said. He might have said it for any number of reasons which seemed right to him at the time: to probe or "feel out" his inquisitor, for various political/prudential reasons, to catch him off balance, to nudge him, etc. We know that +Vigano is politically savvy, very prudent, and intelligent. He didn't get to be a Bishop by having an IQ of 80.

Sorry....I should have said previously that Fr. McKenna said that it was a news agency who sent an email to +Vigano, to ask about the consecrations. Perhaps +Vigano didn't want to discuss the matter with a news agency.

Incidentally, the Wiki page for +Vigano says that it has been conjectured that +Vigano was conditionally ordained by +W. Meaning that it is an opinion, or there's incomplete information about the matter.