He should try to unite all trads. Somebody should.

THIS ^^^

Bergoglio has ironically been the single greatest unifying force of Trads.

I’m sure the question has been posed before, but to those who doubt the sincerity of Vigano’s conversion, do you pray daily for the conversion of Rome and the conciliarists? If yes (which you should be), what do you think that conversion would look like practically? That Viganò wake up one day and instantly hold every single position that you believe to be doctrinally correct? Or that overtime, due to grace, the operation of the Holy Ghost, correspondence and self reflection, his position would become more thoroughly formulated, hardline, and well articulated?

Even the great Archbishop Lefebvre didn’t immediately come to the conclusion that the New Mass could not be attended. AFAIK he initially started out cautiously approving of occasional attendance until he saw the fruits.

Conversion can certainly be immediate and miraculous as in the case of Saint Paul and certain other Saints but can’t it also be gradual, measured, with even certain stumbles and gaffes along the way??

Do I take it that every single person here raised in the Conciliar system woke up one day and immediately embraced and was able to articulate every single position they hold now? If not, why are you holding Viganò to a higher standard than yourself?

It's hard to say.  He may be tuned into Traditional Catholic content online.  At the same time, he probably prepared this days ago and just chose to release it on 6/28 since this is the day that they were supposed to render a judgment against him from Bergoglio's "dicastery".

Wouldn't it be funny if he came to CathInfo at some point? Maybe he's lurking here now.

I haven't seen many "gaffes" or missteps from Vigano. In fact, let me ask it this way:

What difference is there between Bishop Williamson and Abp. Vigano at this point? Besides their PAST HISTORIES, what practical differences is there today, between the positions of these two men?

But those who obsess over "past history" are Pharisees. "We were here first. We bore the burden of the day and the heats. We should get more than a denarius." Our Lord disagrees with that line of thinking. As Bishop WIlliamson pointed out, God works the exact opposite way:


Life-long Trads take note! I sure did.

Neither have I, but I have seen some people on this forum question his past association with Opus Dei, his endorsement of Trump, attendance at some sort of Jericho rally etc as if any of those things make it impossible for Viganò, years later, to have had a sincere conversion. Ridiculous. 

Neither have I, but I have seen some people on this forum question his past association with Opus Dei, his endorsement of Trump, attendance at some sort of Jericho rally etc as if any of those things make it impossible for Viganò, years later, to have had a sincere conversion. Ridiculous.

And I have no problem with any of those things he did.  Jericho was NOT an interreligious service and entailed no communicatio in sacris with anyone.  He simply gave a videotaped address to what was primarily a political rally.  I know Trad priests who go to the "ecuмenical" March for Life every year and take members of their chapels on bus there, and there's a lot of "religious melting pot" there constituting the audience.  Any prominent member of the hierarchy would have had some connections to Opus Dei, since the latter had its tentacles everywhere.  With regard to Trump, +Vigano wrote a carefully-worded letter wherein he praised the good things Trump did, while stating that he "dared hope" that [somewhere deep down] Trump meant to do good, in an effort to encourage him to do more of the same.  There was no categorical endorsement of any kind.  As a trained diplomat, he knew that if he did as many Trads demanded, publicly excoriated Trump, that Trump would simply double down on whatever bad he was doing, since, as a trained diplomat, he was a student of human nature and knew that Trump was driven by his yuge ego and that the way to get him to do anything was by massaging his ego ... and not attacking him.  I've known many people like this over the years.  And we could pitch out the nonsensical accusations of +Vigano being a Mason (for using a Traditional Italian translation of "Amen") and Satanic sun worshipper (by echoing language in the Church Fathers).

People need to be honest with themselves and get to the bottom of why, psychologically, they refuse to give this man a break or any benefit of the doubt, since as soon as one of their objections gets refuted, they immediately move on to the next one.

"+Vigano is an infiltrator who will ordain fake priests."
+Vigano gets conditional consecration.
"I don't believe it."
It's verified.
"But it's secret.  I won't be satisfied until it's made public."
Then, when it gets pubicly announced, it'll be something else.

+Vigano rejects/condemns Vatican II and the NOM.
"He was a Conciliar prelate.  Besides, he thinks Bergoglio is the pope."
+Vigano starts questioning Bergoglio's legitimacy.
"He needs to say it, not just question it."
+Vigano says Bergoglio is not the true pope.
"He needs to say that Paul VI to Benedict XVI aren't popes either."
Then, when +Vigano does so, it'll be something else ... probably back to "but, but he was a Conciliar prelate for many years".

Haven't read through the OP yet, but I thought I'd post Bishop Sanborn's views on Vigano's original notice of his excommunication:

+Sanborn keeps attacking him by saying "Is he the pope?" ... but +Vigano has for quite some time now stated that Bergoglio is not.  I don't get this ridiculous strawman attack.  What in the world is he babbling about, since +Vigano has said Bergoglio is not the pope for quite some time already?

+Sanborn is also incorrect in stating that you must say that he definitively is NOT the pope to avoid schism if you refuse communion with him.  That is incorrect.  Canonists state that you must simply have well-founded doubts.  Besides, +Sanborn himself, being sedeprivationist, says that "Bergoglio is the pope, but he isn't at the same time."  So where's he getting off with that insistence upon a yes or no answer from +Vigano when when he himself can't / doesn't give one, in making a distinction where it's both yes and no?  Here's a sedeprivationist (allegedly) demanding a sedevacantist answer from +Vigano.  +Vigano's language makes HIM sound like a sedeprivationist (prior to this last statement from 6/28/2024, which is more straight sedevacantist).

If Abp. Vigano becomes the leading Sedevacantist bishop, the existing groups will become weaker. There is a lot of "clan mentality" in Tradieland.

Plus, I get the impression that he is not taken very seriously by Traditionalists in general because he is a former Novus Ordo prelate.

I'm not sure who you are criticizing here (posters or clergy), but it is unfortunate that you had to "go there".

As a result, this thread has now gone from what started as a positive thread regarding Vigano's latest declaration to bashing anyone who has ever questioned, criticized, or doubted him. As a result, old concerns have been resurrected and not even by those who had them.

If there are posters who are not posting in this thread, it's probably because they have been silenced from doing so (Simeon was the latest poster who was silenced last week or so). 

Archbishop Vigano Accused by the Vatican of the Crime of Schism - page 3 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com)

Maybe Simeon will chime in again as perhaps his latest declaration may in fact answer her questions.  But the tone in this thread certainly doesn't make it inviting to do so.

A poster could say any number of positive things about Vigano, but if they do not take the party line in all things Vigano, then they are ostracized and oftentimes accused falsely. Until that behavior stops, I suspect that these sorts of threads will only have a handful of posters who will respond.

I had every intention of giving Vigano the benefit of the doubt (and happened to like what I skimmed so far in the OP), but I still hadn't closely read through the declaration.  So the reason I hadn't responded more is because I just hadn't had a good chance yet.  Given where this thread has now gone, I'm now not sure I wish to take part.