So far as I know, all sedes accept the validity of Vigano’s priestly ordination (which was according to the old rite).

His episcopal consecration remains an asterisk in the minds of many, yet even despite that, most sedes do not dispute the doctrine of Vigano (which is what matters most).

And that raises another point.  If he were to start ordaining priests, a lot of people would have issues with the validity of those ordinatioins ... myself included.  But that doesn't mean that his "doctrine" is wrong.

But why would we want yet another rival to SSPX?  That's when he would be accused of setting up a rival controlled opposition group to draw Traditionalists away from the TRUE Traditional movements.  He can't win in this Tradscape here.

Hmm…interesting point.

Maybe +Vigano ought to join the SSPX and be conditionally re-consecrated. 

Do the people on this forum also have Vigano's position?

Do you guys lament the thousands of deaths and millions of injuries caused by Trump but still support him?

What are you babbling about?  +Vigano has been much more outspoken against the jab than the vast majority of Trad clergy.

Yes, I believe he misinterpreted Trump's role in this entire thing.  But so have lots of Trad Catholics.  And, you know what?, that's called a mistake ... but one fact and of interpretation, not of principle or philosphy.

He philosophically and in principle opposed the jab more than the vast majority of the Trad clergy, many of who think it's OK to get the jab.  He was very outspoken about it.  Unlike the vast majority of Trad clergy, he tied the jab directly to the genocidal NWO agent, whereas most Trads are afraid to appear kooky in speaking about such "conspiracy theories" (Bishop Williamson being a refreshing nearly-sole exception).

You left out Vigano's quote to the Trump supporters at the rally last month:
--Vigano to Trump supporters April 2, 2022

I left out nothing.  I just said he didn't mention it at all in this interview, and there's no reason to derail this into yet another "everything I hate about +Vigano" thread.

Did you vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020?  I didn't ... because I suspected him right out of the gate.  I know large number of Traditional Catholics who did vote for him.  I don't somehow consider them to not be good Catholics, just mistaken in their interpretation and prudential judgment regarding who Trump really is.

And what exactly was wrong with that statement he made to Trump supporters?  It's a strong anti-jab statement.

I already explained that I believe he was mistaken in giving Trump too much credit.  Perhaps he believed that Trump himself was bamboozled into believing that the jab was good, and that Trump didn't promote it with evil intentions.  Even though Trump was not what he pretended to be, I could see that being the case.  Neither I nor you have any proof to the contrary.  And +Vigano knows that many Trump supporters were supporting him with the best of intentions.  Why shouldn't he address them?  Trump regularly gets boos from his own crowds when he tries to promote the jab.

You're really out of control.  Despite your denials, you have been obsessed with the jab for the past year and you're also obsessed with Trump.

You edited out the quote when you replied to me.

It's okay, I reposted the quote in #53 and asked the question again.

I edited nothing out.  Quotes don't get carried over in replies.  Now you're making false accusations.  I referred to the "quote above" because I realized the reader could just move their eyes up to the previous post.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with his quote.

Hmm…interesting point.

Maybe +Vigano ought to join the SSPX and be conditionally re-consecrated.

Pagliarani would be against it, seeing the GIRM chapels, them filtering priests who aren't looking at reconciling with Rome etc I doubt they would work with Vigano. Remember that Pagliarani and Frankie are on good terms... More likely +Williamson or +Z or +Thuc line would give conditional consecration. Them controlling the SSPX puts Vigano in a tight spot.