Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Vigano allegedly consecrated sub conditione  (Read 20911 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Yeti

  • Supporter
Re: Vigano allegedly consecrated sub conditione
« Reply #20 on: December 20, 2023, 01:44:22 PM »
If not publicly announced...how has it been confirmed?
.
I second this question, and also, may I add, why has it not been publicly announced, assuming it has taken place?

Re: Vigano allegedly consecrated sub conditione
« Reply #21 on: December 20, 2023, 03:57:22 PM »
.
I second this question, and also, may I add, why has it not been publicly announced, assuming it has taken place?


Re: Vigano allegedly consecrated sub conditione
« Reply #22 on: December 20, 2023, 04:28:57 PM »
.
I second this question, and also, may I add, why has it not been publicly announced, assuming it has taken place?

Apparently, Bp. Williamson is following the SSPX custom, which dictates that conditional ordinations are kept secret. Conditional consecrations must be even more secret.

Online Yeti

  • Supporter
Re: Vigano allegedly consecrated sub conditione
« Reply #23 on: December 20, 2023, 04:33:10 PM »
It seems based off this comment:

.

That's what I was afraid of. Someone asked Fr. Chazal point blank, and Fr. Chazal declined to answer the question, instead saying that "the necessary has been done", when we have no idea whether he would consider a conditional consecration necessary for someone consecrated in the new rite. In fact, the resistance does not consider the new rite of holy orders to have a doubtful form, as has already been shown in this thread.

Is there any other confirmation besides that video?

Re: Vigano allegedly consecrated sub conditione
« Reply #24 on: December 20, 2023, 04:50:12 PM »
.

That's what I was afraid of. Someone asked Fr. Chazal point blank, and Fr. Chazal declined to answer the question, instead saying that "the necessary has been done", when we have no idea whether he would consider a conditional consecration necessary for someone consecrated in the new rite. In fact, the resistance does not consider the new rite of holy orders to have a doubtful form, as has already been shown in this thread.

Is there any other confirmation besides that video?
So...  As far as I can tell, what was "necessary" was the founding of a new seminary.

I've seen no evidence at all that there's been a consecration, conditional or not.