https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/romd-anglican-archbishop-to-offer-mass-in-romes-basilica

I've got a busy night here caring for my mother, who is gravely ill and in distress (more psychological than physical), so I don't have time to watch a 17-minute video, but my question --- is Francis concelebrating the "Mass"?  Or is he merely present as a sort of presider?  The subject title doesn't make that clear.

Here is Vigano's tweet regarding this:

Bergoglio has false ministers celebrate a heretical "mass" (the Anglicans do not have valid Orders), desecrating the Basilica of San Bartolomeo, which after this celebration will have to be reconsecrated along with the Basilica of San Pietro, already profaned by the unclean idol of the Pachamama. At the same time, he prohibits true priests from celebrating the Holy Sacrifice according to the apostolic rite, and to those who ask him why, he simply refers them to the reading of Traditionis Custodes. We are faced with the subversion of the Papacy, and no Cardinal objects at all.

Although he mentions the "false ministers" and the heretical "mass" of the Anglican Church (and makes a point of saying their Orders are not valid), he goes on to say that the Novus Ordo priests are "true priests".

But he was conditionally consecrated. 

Where does he refer to Novus Ordo priests?  Nowhere.  He just says that true priests (whoever these might be) are forbidden by Jorge from offering the Tridentine Mass.

There are priests who are not in the Bergoglian church being forbidden to offer the Tridentine Mass?  The only priests being forbidden are in Bergoglio's Church.  

Are you suggesting he's only speaking of the very small minority of Novus Ordo priests that might have valid orders through the FSSP or ICKSP? 

And do you think that those who read that tweet are going to think he's only speaking of that small minority?  Or is it much more likely they are thinking of all so-called "traditional" Novus Ordo priests (ie. "Novus Ordo priests").

He's talking about Bergoglio's prohibition of offering the Tridentine Mass in general rather than as some kind of commentary on the validity (or lack thereof) of New Rite of Orders.  Priests in general are forbidden from offering the Tridentine Mass (including true priests).  +Vigano is making a contrast (hypocrisy) between permitting the invalid Anglicans from offering a non-Catholic liturgy while forbidding (even putative) true priests from offering the Tridentine Catholic Mass.  It's from the subjective perspective of Jorge (who would consider NO Orders to be valid), pointing out that he permits a Prot Rite to be offered by priests who have been declared invalid by the Church vs. forbidding the Catholic Mass from being said by priests that at least Jorge and the Conciliar Church consider to valid.  He's pointing out the hypocrisy in their attitude and is speaking from their perspective.  As per usual, you're digging into any angle you can find to attack +Vigano.  It's getting embarrassing to keep reading these posts.

It's getting embarrassing to watch you continue to defend him.

I'm tired if his game playing.  He doesn't go public with his conditional consecration and now this.

By the way are you the one who keeps downthumbing me?

That tweet was pathetic and it was valid to question it given his supposed enlightenment and his conditional consecration.  But of course you defend him.  Reminds me of the popesplainers.

and remember, this pope has questionable to no holy orders.  He is definitely not consecrated.  Vigano is playing both sides of the fence.  HM?

That tweet was pathetic and it was valid to question it given his supposed enlightenment and his conditional consecration.  But of course you defend him.  Reminds me of the popesplainers.

No, it's not valid to question it.  Matthew unequivocally stated that he has verified the conditional consecration as fact.  You can call Matthew a liar then, but be open about it.  I also have sources who have directly asked Bishop Williamson, and Bishop Williamson confirmed it to them ... and they're not liars either.  Not only that but I've seen it confirmed by Bishop Faure in writing, and it was also confirmed by Father Chazal.

As for his "supposed enlightenment", which you somehow fallaciously tied to positively affirming that NO Orders are doubtful (one can be a solid Traditional Catholic and still hold them to be valid), here you go again bitterly questioning whether he's a Traditional Catholic or whether he's some nefarious infiltrator, without a lick of evidence other than your bitterness and spite.

And, then to top it all off, you're not even capable of distinguishing a rhetorical argument (calling out Bergoglio's contradiction) from some kind of detailed theological analysis about the validity of NO Orders.

Your incessant (often slanderous) attacks against +Vigano are beginning, quite bluntly, to disgust me, as they reek of Pharisaism and lack of charity.  You need to do some examination of your conscience about why you detest this man, especially when you have absolutely zero stake in whether or not he's a valid bishop or whether or not he's a "true" Traditional Catholic by your own twisted cult-like standards.

Your choice of language, such as "supposed enlightenment" gives you away.