Umm… does anyone know if the Conditionally ordained Bp. Vigano is publicly backing Trump for 2024?

Ha ha, good on you Incredulous! You're not going to let him live that down are you? I think it is understandable the position he took, I was taken in for a time too. Should we not be thankful that +Vigano is courageously condemning errors both in Church and world? Remember where he came from and where he is now. His conversion was not exactly Damascus style but it was close. For those who are against +Vigano I would say this: Do you pray for the conversion of the Pope (with or without inverted commas), the bishops and the priests? What do you expect the answer to your prayer to look like? What would you say if tomorrow every prelate in the Conciliar Church was talking like +Vigano? Would you not praise God? Would you not thank Him for answering your prayer?

It would be very easy to confirm if it were true.

It seems based off this comment:

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?

.
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.

.

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.

Yeti, Archbishop Lefebvre never really addressed the issue of the new rite of episcopal consecration, but you will find that almost all in the Resistance hold to the opinion of Fr Calderon that there is doubt over this new rite 'which cannot be tolerated at the very root of the sacraments' and must therefore be repeated sub conditione.

.

Thank you for explaining this, and, while I understand that the resistance is not a unified body and can't be expected to have principles that are universally agreed upon, I have trouble with your claim here inasmuch as the only statement I have ever read by any resistance priest or bishop is the one by Bp. Thomas Aquinas, in which he said the new holy orders could be valid, and were in fact valid in the case of the novus ordo-ordained Fr. Jahir, and also the fact that none of the resistance priests or, especially, bishops ever made a public objection to Bp. Aquinas's claims if they had an objection to it, and in the absence of such a public rejection of his words I must conclude that they agree with them.

Another reason I have trouble believing that the resistance almost universally reject the new holy orders as always doubtful is Bp. Williamson's claim that the Holy Eucharist can be validly confected in the Novus Ordo mass, which brings us to the next point:

This is the opinion clearly expressed by Bishop Williamson in his ECs, and the reason why there was such an outcry over Bishop Huonder celebrating the Chrismal Mass on Holy Thursday this year.

I never noticed this, but if Bp. Williamson believes the new mass can be valid, then why would he have doubts as to the validity of the holy oils consecrated by Bp. Huonder?

We are distinguishing here between the new rite of episcopal consecration (Fr Calderon says there is doubt regarding the form as contained in the new rite itself, and most in the Resistance agree) and the new rite of priestly ordination which Archbishop Lefebvre, and the SSPX following him, including Bishop Williamson, declared certainly valid (that is, the essential form in the new rite). The issue with the new priestly ordinations for ABL, the old SSPX, and the Resistance, is the intention (not being guaranteed by the prayers surrounding the form in the new rite), the minister (whether or not it was a doubtful new-rite bishop ordaining), and potentially the form and matter due to the spirit of innovation/improvisation/adaptation, not following official formulae etc...

.

Are you sure about this? I've never heard of any distinction between Novus Ordo priests who were ordained in the Novus Ordo rite by a traditionally-consecrated bishop, and priests who were ordained by a Montini-rite-consecrated bishop. If there is any public statement from an SSPX or resistance priest or bishop explaining this distinction and the reasons for it, I'd love to see it.

 In any case, since the great majority of Novus Ordo priests today were not ordained by a bishop consecrated in the old rite, I'm not sure how far this gets us.

Certainly Fr. Jahir was ordained by a bishop "consecrated" in the new rite, no?