That's the beauty of principles and law -- it takes the emotion out of the equation.

An indult "priest" can convert to Tradition very easily and quickly.  He doesn't have to "admit he was wrong", he simply follows the law.  All he has to say is, "The new rites are doubtful and canon law requires I must get conditional sacraments in cases of doubt."

Done.  No explanation needed.  No introspection, no guilt, no self-loathing, no temptations, no distractions.  Follow the law, fix the situation, and move on.

The same thinking is used for confession, when you have a doubt about whether you forgot to confess a sin.  You just tell the priest, you have a doubt, you (re)confess it, and move on.  There's no need to analyze it.  In fact, that's often dangerous.

The method of introduction of the Anglican rite is a blueprint for the Novus Ordo rite. At the time of Julius III and Paul IV there was no official declaration (just as today about Novus Ordo), but the Church had already taken the necessary steps to assure the validity of the Sacrament of Order (as She does today).

Theologians can find similarities between schismatic/false rites and *guess* as to which ones are valid or not.  But until the Church rules, we can only label the novus ordo doubtful.  The Modernists knew this would buy them time, that's why they didn't impose the new mass until they had control of the papacy.  God has allowed all this and He will clean it up in due time.

Are they both sedevacantist?
Considering the side of the sede "world", having two priests with the same last name who AREN'T related would be an insane coincidence. Almost as big a coincidence as the Sun and Moon being the same size in the sky, even though the Sun is 400 times bigger and 400 times further away (according to the Globe model).

Imagine if the Resistance, with its current number of priests, ended up with a new priest named Fr. Williamson, unrelated to the famous bishop. It would be a bizarre coincidence.

The SSPX had Fr. John Peek and Fr. James Peek -- but the SSPX is several times larger than the sede world. When you have 700? priests, such things become more possible.

Not sure if this was ever answered, but Fr Stephen McKenna is NOT related to Bishop Robert McKenna.

...so, we go from "not public enough!"
to
"You shouldn't have even witnessed to the fact or confirmed it publicly on CathInfo!"

O.....K.....


Of course, these are the same people who don't believe in ANY KIND of steps in a process. They think that if Vigano isn't opening a Trad chapel tomorrow, complete with a public listing in some Trad chapel directory(ies), then he should have stayed in the Novus Ordo somehow -- I guess that would include going against the truth and his conscience, since he had to speak up about certain grave matters...

I don't recall any discussion of the other recent (about 2 years ago?) "secret" consecrations by Bishop Williamson until he made a public announcement.

These were different, because 

1) it was during covid, when travel was restricted and no one knew when these restrictions would stop.  It is understandable, under heavy govt scrutiny, to keep things quiet.  Nobody knew if persecutions would start happening for those who continued with church activities.

2) These were Trad priests, and the new rites were not involved.  The new-rites complicate things because of the doubt involved.  +W is wishy-washy on the new rites, so i'm not even sure why a conditional consecration was even needed (in his eyes).  But a novus ordo "bishop" who converts puts the controversy of the new rites into the public sphere (once again) and it needs to be addressed (just like Vigano addressed the heretic Francis papal question).

You can't have it both ways.  You can't say that Francis is a heretic, anti-pope and all the V2 popes from Paul6 were heretics too.  But then say that the new rites are "probably valid" (or should be treated as valid).  In the former case, you use canon law to deem the pope is a heretic and also a reason for Tradition to exist, and the permission to ordain/consecrate without papal approval, etc.  In the later case, you ignore canon law's prohibition on attending, condoning, and using doubtful sacraments and just make up your own mind on if they are doubtful "enough".  Either follow canon law every time or not at all.

Also, let's not forget canon law ALSO prohibits use of, condoning of, and attending at ILLICIT sacraments (which all the new rites are, per canon law and also per Quo Primum), even if you make the argument that they are "probably valid".  Thus, the new rites have 2 major strikes against them.  And these strikes involve mortal sin, per the law.

And the failure of +W or +Vigano (or any other Trad org...i.e. +Fellay) to tell people in the indult that attending, using or promoting either doubtful or illicit sacraments is a grave and damnable offense, then these clerics are liable for their sins of omission and negligence in instructing the faithful.

And +Vigano's conversion and conditional consecration is another opportunity for both +W and +Fellay (and now +Vigano) to speak the truth on these matters.  The clock is ticking...I hope they eventually do it.

These were different, because

1) it was during covid, when travel was restricted and no one knew when these restrictions would stop.  It is understandable, under heavy govt scrutiny, to keep things quiet.  Nobody knew if persecutions would start happening for those who continued with church activities.

2) These were Trad priests, and the new rites were not involved.  The new-rites complicate things because of the doubt involved.  +W is wishy-washy on the new rites, so i'm not even sure why a conditional consecration was even needed (in his eyes).  But a novus ordo "bishop" who converts puts the controversy of the new rites into the public sphere (once again) and it needs to be addressed (just like Vigano addressed the heretic Francis papal question).

You can't have it both ways.  You can't say that Francis is a heretic, anti-pope and all the V2 popes from Paul6 were heretics too.  But then say that the new rites are "probably valid" (or should be treated as valid).  In the former case, you use canon law to deem the pope is a heretic and also a reason for Tradition to exist, and the permission to ordain/consecrate without papal approval, etc.  In the later case, you ignore canon law's prohibition on attending, condoning, and using doubtful sacraments and just make up your own mind on if they are doubtful "enough".  Either follow canon law every time or not at all.

Also, let's not forget canon law ALSO prohibits use of, condoning of, and attending at ILLICIT sacraments (which all the new rites are, per canon law and also per Quo Primum), even if you make the argument that they are "probably valid".  Thus, the new rites have 2 major strikes against them.  And these strikes involve mortal sin, per the law.

And the failure of +W or +Vigano (or any other Trad org...i.e. +Fellay) to tell people in the indult that attending, using or promoting either doubtful or illicit sacraments is a grave and damnable offense, then these clerics are liable for their sins of omission and negligence in instructing the faithful.

And +Vigano's conversion and conditional consecration is another opportunity for both +W and +Fellay (and now +Vigano) to speak the truth on these matters.  The clock is ticking...I hope they eventually do it.

Good post.  Yes, I see how this is different than the others.  I still think that not offending "Brother Bishops" and/or NO clerics/candidates to Vigano's seminary could be the reason why it's remaining secret from the world at large. 

Not sure how long you can keep that up though when both Bishop Williamson and Vigano are in their 80's....

I still think that not offending "Brother Bishops" and/or NO clerics/candidates to Vigano's seminary could be the reason why it's remaining secret from the world at large. 

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.