Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: josefamenendez on January 04, 2024, 08:08:55 PM
-
Moderator edit:
I have confirmed this news story as well. Status: TRUE.
Archbishop Vigano being conditionally consecrated by a valid Traditional bishop is no longer open for debate, at least not on this forum. Contrary "opinions" (against reality, known fact) are not welcome or permitted.
(https://twitter.com/FlatTrads)Trad Cath HQ
@FlatTrads
2·h (https://twitter.com/FlatTrads/status/1743056331593191527)
For the information of all, Archbishop Vigano
@CarloMVigano (https://twitter.com/CarloMVigano)
, it is confirmed is now conditionally consecrated and is a Bishop of the Resistance with Bishop Williamson. We welcome his excellency to our ranks!
(https://i.imgur.com/0Wrnh2Q.png)
-
Moderator edit:
I don't allow outright, proven errors on CathInfo, things that are "not open for debate".
This news story has since been verified to be true, so I won't permit statements contrary to known fact.
NOTE: I'm not blaming this member, as he posted it BEFORE it was confirmed by multiple sources.
I AM moderating this objectively erroneous post, however.
-
Really?? How do you know??
https://twitter.com/FlatTrads/status/1743056331593191527
Here- read the comments
If it is fake, I apologize but I think it's legit
-
It's real. One of my friends has Bishop Williamson's number, and they talk often, and he asked +Williamson if +Vigano was conditionally re-consecrated, and +Williamson said yes.
-
From what Lad said weeks ago here on Cathinfo, I figured it was true but this seems to be the public confirmation. At least I hope so.
-
It's real. One of my friends has Bishop Williamson's number, and they talk often, and he asked +Williamson if +Vigano was conditionally re-consecrated, and +Williamson said yes.
Same here. Bishop Williamson personally confirmed it to someone who's in direct contact with him (and who told me). That's where I got my information from a couple weeks ago or so. It was also directly confirmed directly to this individual by Father Chazal, and in a letter (that I saw) from Bishop Faure to this individual.
-
Really?? How do you know??
https://twitter.com/FlatTrads/status/1743056331593191527
Here- read the comments
If it is fake, I apologize but I think it's legit
I'm not sure what a "Bishop of the Resistance" is, since there's no formal group. I think that Father Chazal listed the criteria that would qualify someone to be part of the Resistance, so it's more of a standard than membership in some group, society, or formal organization.
Interesting that it comes from "Flat Trads", since Sean always used to insult me for my "Flat Earth" position. :laugh1:
God bless Archbishop Vigano. Ad Multos Annos
-
It's official when Bishop Williamson and Vigano make it public. Why don't they?
-
Since Vigano was made a priest in 1968 I assume this he is a valid priest to begin with. Overall this is good news. I am still keeping my eyes open however.
-
Really?? How do you know??
https://twitter.com/FlatTrads/status/1743056331593191527
Here- read the comments
If it is fake, I apologize but I think it's legit
Having heard it from several credible sources, I believe that Bishop Williamson definitely did conditionally consecrate Vigano.
That being said I wouldn't base this as "official news" just because it showed up on Twitter by a person using a fake name.
I believe it more because of trustworthy sources such as Fr. Chazal, and the other traditional priests who have confirmed this.
Now... If Bishop Vigano was to proclaim this from his own personal Twitter page... Then I think that could be considered news. :popcorn:
-
Has he made a public abjuration of error for his public heresies and apostasy such as these?
See this video at the 7:31 mark
https://youtu.be/nES89qnv9x8?t=450 (https://youtu.be/nES89qnv9x8?t=450)
He says:
(https://i.imgur.com/dvIGKrZ.jpg)
Or here:
ARCHBISHOP VIGANÒ OMITS FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH IN LETTER TO RABBI
(from the comments)
Vigano not only failed to mention Christ, the true Jєωιѕн Messiah but falsely stated that Israel is NOT looking for an anti-Christ, when it is exactly what Israel is looking for!
https://www.fromrome.info/2020/05/27/archbishop-vigano-omits-faith-in-jesus-christ-and-the-church-in-letter-to-rabbi/ (https://www.fromrome.info/2020/05/27/archbishop-vigano-omits-faith-in-jesus-christ-and-the-church-in-letter-to-rabbi/)
Or here:
ABVigano to Jєωs, Protestants, Catholics and whatnot at the Zionist
ʝʊdɛօ-Christian Jericho Rally:
“We are the silent army of the children of Light
As a community of believers, we take our petitions to heaven, and we know that our mighty and powerful God answers and can move mountains."
Believers in what exactly? What did the crowd of Jєωs and New Agers and Protestants and whatnot there believe in?
Did they share the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith? No.
They all believed in Trump.
From Novus Ordo Watch:
By speaking in the first person plural — “we” — he is making clear that he considers himself one of them and one with them. This is only consistent with the nature and purpose of the event, which the organizers had announced would be “comprised of ʝʊdɛօ-Christians collectively praying to God"
See the whole post for details about his heresies and apostasy committed at that event:
https://novusordowatch.org/2020/12/vigano-and-marshall-in-ecuмenical-prayer-rally/
Here is a flyer from the event. It's a clear contradiction of the quotes from councils, saints and popes.
It makes it clear that it is promoting the ʝʊdɛօ-Christian faith and communal prayer.
(https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=9c53f93926&attid=0.15&permmsgid=msg-a:r1220938473283050763&th=1884b9ed7a0cfd75&view=fimg&fur=ip&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ-urV2df_WWMNJHvfsNqjrPSoMGSFXb6IEauthaED7FepUkuXk16O0rn3UnvTJlDsWA_dg5X0DLKXMMfbRqUZoxKgAmTvRYZovLIOPRFgB_v0CpO8-QWzqwA74&disp=emb&realattid=ii_li130vm115)
What does the Church say?
The Council of Laodicea in 365 AD stated, “No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics.”
St. Cyril of Alexandria echoed these same sentiments when he said, “It is therefore unlawful, and a profanation, and an act the punishment of which is death, to love to associate with unholy heretics, and to unite yourself to their communion.”
Council of Carthage in the fifth century decreed, “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, said, “To know whom to avoid is a great means of saving our souls…Thus, the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith by corrupting it, such as heretics, or by renouncing it, such as apostates.”
They presuppose the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, inasmuch as all give expression, under various forms, to that innate sense which leads men to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule… to favor this opinion, therefore, and to encourage such undertakings, is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God.”
Let us focus attention on the phrase “tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God.” This phrase is another definition of the word “apostasy.” According to Pope Pius XI, to hold to false ecuмenism and to encourage it, is equivalent to apostasy.
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/the-last-days-and-false-ecuмenism/
Since Vigano is very close friends with Chabadnik, Rabbi Schneier, he would probably know that the blowing of Shofars means calling forth the anti-christ:
"Blowing the shofar speaks to us of the coming of the Moshiach (AC) and the great good toward which the world is moving."
By Rabbi Nochum Mangel, Chabad
https://daytonJ (https://daytonj/)єωιѕнobserver.org/2018/08/one-shofar-many-faces/ (http://observer.org/2018/08/one-shofar-many-faces/)
Aren't public heretics/apostates barred from taking office?
Bull of Pope Paul IV — cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559
“Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:
— “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.
— “It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all.
— “Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of tune in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way . . .
— “Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected —and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.
— “Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”
I hope Lad and others are able to address these grave concerns and the evidence provided rather than derailing the conversation with ad hominems and misdirection.
-
Now... If Bishop Vigano was to proclaim this from his own personal Twitter page... Then I think that could be considered news. :popcorn:
I have seen people on X (including myself) ask him if it was true. And yet he never responds. When will they stop playing games and make an official public announcement rather than continuing to let the information seep out to this and that "special" person in private?
And I'll repeat other unpopular and inconvenient questions: Why did Vigano publicly announce his new seminary BEFORE publicly announcing his conditional consecration? And why did he proclaim it the ONLY Traditional Catholic seminary in Italy when that is just not true?
-
Has he made a public abjuration of error for his public heresies and apostasy such as these?
Oh, get lost. No Traditional group requires public abjuration for those coming to Traditional Catholicism from the Conciliar Church. Cf. the explanation of Bishop Sanborn for why, and his criticism of SGG for also not requiring one (despite considering the Conciliar Church to be a non-Catholic sect). But you know better than every Traditional Bishop and priest out there, right?
-
Has he made a public abjuration of error for his public heresies and apostasy such as these?
I hope Lad and others are able to address these grave concerns and the evidence provided rather than derailing the conversation with ad hominems and misdirection.
Well, assuming it's true about Bishop Williamson conditionally consecrating him a true bishop, then given Bishop Williamson's views, I would think he would have "vetted" him before doing so. I would think any Catholic bishop would make sure that the consecrand (?) is truly worthy of the orders. Perhaps that will come out too when it truly goes "public".
-
Well, assuming it's true about Bishop Williamson conditionally consecrating him a true bishop, then given Bishop Williamson's views, I would think he would have "vetted" him before doing so. I would think any Catholic bishop would make sure that the consecrand (?) is truly worthy of the orders. Perhaps that will come out too when it truly goes "public".
As I mentioned, no Traditional group requires public abjuration from those coming over from the Conciliar Church, not even a couple that outright consider the Conciliar Church to be a non-Catholic sect simpliciter. Bishop Sanborn has articulated his reasons why ... but Miser always knows better. "Public", as defined by theologians is something that's no longer confined to an individual but is in a position to become widely known. There's no definition of "Public" that requires a formal announcement on someone's blog. Bishops Williamson and Faure, and Father Chazal, have all told individuals about the conditional consecration. That qualifies as "public" under any theological definition of the term.
-
As I mentioned, no Traditional group requires public abjuration from those coming over from the Conciliar Church, not even a couple that outright consider the Conciliar Church to be a non-Catholic sect simpliciter. Bishop Sanborn has articulated his reasons why ... but Miser always knows better.
Well, "vetted" doesn't necessarily have to mean "public abjuration".
-
Well, "vetted" doesn't necessarily have to mean "public abjuration".
Right. I wasn't referring to anything you said, but to Miser's comments. From what I understand, +Vigano and +Williamson have had many conversations and I'm sure that +Williamson is convinced of his sincerity and orthodoxy.
-
"Public", as defined by theologians is something that's no longer confined to an individual but is in a position to become widely known. There's no definition of "Public" that requires a formal announcement on someone's blog. Bishops Williamson and Faure, and Father Chazal, have all told individuals about the conditional consecration. That qualifies as "public" under any theological definition of the term.
Whether something is "required" by theologians in the past and whether something is appropriate and necessary under the current conditions of the Church are two different things. Does phone tag with certain people really suffice in this day and age? Why would newsletters, websites and blogs be sufficient for publicly announcing a new seminary, but not an episcopal consecration?
-
I don't know better than learned Traditional clergy.
I just ask questions that people should be asking.
Some people want universal acceptance of Vigano with no questions asked.
They excoriate anyone who dares to ask questions.
Anyway, seeing as how he was promoting this Zionist rally just 3 months ago we should be asking where he stands.
Does he still stand with Israel?
Will that be part of the training in his seminary?
(https://i.imgur.com/i8doEuj.png)
-
Every time Bishop Williamson consecrated a bishop, there was a public announcement.
The lack of one here is concerning.
The Church is a visible society, and it's members have the right to know about the reception of Holy Orders among the clergy.
I will wait for a public announcement. If they refuse to issue one, there is a serious problem. Such a refusal is tantamount to wearing a mask.
-
I don't know better than learned Traditional clergy.
I just ask questions that people should be asking.
Some people want universal acceptance of Vigano with no questions asked.
They excoriate anyone who dares to ask questions.
No, Miser, you've gone FAR BEYOND merely "asking questions". You've gone on a campaign to smear and slander +Vigano, making absurd allegations (that you have yet to retract) regarding "So mote it be ..." and Sol Invictus and "Noahide laws" and every other thing you want to throw at the wall hoping some of it might stick. When you take this attitude of coming up with one piece of nonsense after another to throw at him (without evidence), that crosses well beyond the line of merely "asking questions". You have a demonstrable contempt for +Vigano and are on a campaign to attack him. There's no thread here on CI that even mentions +Vigano in passing where you haven't spammed in your nonsense against him.
Thus far, apart from some disagreements people have had with +Vigano's statements (whether on Russia/Ukraine or his attitude toward Trump), and which they're entitled to have (though +Williamson agrees with +Vigano on both these points), really the only legitimate "questions" that remain standing (after all the nonsense) are his possible connections to Opus Dei. In that regard, one would need to see evidence that his agenda is being informed TODAY by Opus Dei. For a high-ranking Conciliar prelate, some connections with OD members would be unavoidable, since they're everywhere. Problem for the OD conspiracy is that what +Vigano's has been doing and saying the past 3.5 years runs counter to the OD agenda. So even that is extremely week and is nothing more than in a state of "negative doubt". Also, while OD at a high level seems to have some kind of nefarious agenda, OD operates like most secret societies (having all the characteristics of one), where not everyone at every level is "in on" the agenda at the top. There are layers of initiation, like with the Masons, and, like with the Masons, those who aren't in the "inner circle" tend to be employed as "useful idiots" who at least hand over large amounts of their paychecks to them. There are probably man well-intentioned individuals who belong to OD.
It's very easy to see the progression. You have such a deep hatred of Trump that you despise +Vigano for saying some positive things about him (without understanding the context of why he was saying those things ... to possibly influence Trump).
-
I don't know better than learned Traditional clergy.
I just ask questions that people should be asking.
Some people want universal acceptance of Vigano with no questions asked.
They excoriate anyone who dares to ask questions.
Anyway, seeing as how he was promoting this Zionist rally just 3 months ago we should be asking where he stands.
Does he still stand with Israel?
Will that be part of the training in his seminary?
(https://i.imgur.com/i8doEuj.png)
I have had my doubts in the past as you know. I believe I'm the one who posted the photo above. I have since come to believe that +Vigano is not personally in control of his "brand" in the US. I believe it has been co-opted by Taylor Marshall et al for financial gain and promotion of Marshall's pan-religious beliefs.
The announcement must come from +Vigano himself, not +Williamson who is an underling. I'm certain it will come in God's good time, not instant TikTok clout chasing.
-
Every time Bishop Williamson consecrated a bishop, there was a public announcement.
The lack of one here is concerning.
Not so. Bishop Williamson has performed a couple of consecrations that were kept under wraps, one of them for a couple years.
Interestingly also, even back in the SSPX days, Bishop Williamson tended not to publicize conditional ordinations. There were a few instances where my brother and I were concerned at STAS, and had to use back channels (talking to sacristans) to find out that such-and-such a visiting Novus Ordo priest had been conditionally ordained. I get the impression that they view conditionals as being in a somewhat distinct category. I believe that back in the pre-Vatican II days, if there was a doubt for some reason, it would be taken care of by the bishop without much fanfare, probably just in the bishop's private chapel. I think the same held of other Sacraments, such as Baptism. While normal Baptisms were typically announced, conditionals were probably done to rectify various situations without public announcements.
-
Not so. Bishop William has done a couple of consecrations that were kept under wraps, one of them for a couple years.
I also thought of the fact that in the case of conditional ordinations, the news seems to travel more by word of mouth than by official proclamation. I've never given thought to the possible reasons for doing this, but now that I do consider it, it seems most probable that the obscurity boils down to wanting to "save the appearances" of the novus ordo, and not tick off the Vatican apparatus. Bishop Williamson, who is so vehemently against categorically invalidating the novus ordo, may well fall into the category, particularly as he may have been instrumental in setting up SSPX policy in the first place.
Secondly, this is novel. This is not the case of a conditional ordination. This is the case of a conditional consecration; and the case of a high profile ecclesiastical celebrity, who ever surrounds himself with intrigue and controversy. Furthermore, there's talk of opening up a seminary, with Vigano as Rector. This distinction creates an objective requirement for a rigorous formality. As Rector, Vigano sets himself up as a member of the hierarchy, who will receive men for formation. He will teach, sanctify, and govern in that capacity. If he wears a mask, or conceals perhaps the most important reality of his competence to perform such an office, then what else is he concealing?
You held Dom Tomas' feet to the fire in another thread. Be consistent. Vigano is not above scrutiny. In fact, given his history and rank, he must be scrutinized all the more. Does not the history of the horrors of the trad movement give you even a little pause?
P.S. Wow, you added to your thread while I was typing. And now I add to mine! We are along the same lines.
-
Not so. Bishop Williamson has performed a couple of consecrations that were kept under wraps, one of them for a couple years.
Interestingly also, even back in the SSPX days, Bishop Williamson tended not to publicize conditional ordinations. There were a few instances where my brother and I were concerned at STAS, and had to use back channels (talking to sacristans) to find out that such-and-such a visiting Novus Ordo priest had been conditionally ordained. I get the impression that they view conditionals as being in a somewhat distinct category. I believe that back in the pre-Vatican II days, if there was a doubt for some reason, it would be taken care of by the bishop without much fanfare, probably just in the bishop's private chapel. I think the same held of other Sacraments, such as Baptism. While normal Baptisms were typically announced, conditionals were probably done to rectify various situations without public announcements.
And so what you have confirmed for me here, is that Bp. Williamson was indeed instrumental in formulating the SSPX policy of veils and secrecy surrounding conditional ordinations. Looking back with hindsight, I tell you that this is not a good way to go. Everything should be in the open. Men in charge of seminaries are not working for themselves or for the mere objectives of their organizations. They work for Christ. They have a public ministry. The concealment of conditional ordinations is underhanded at best.
Do you not see how this contributes to a cult mentality? and to all the problems that later arose, and still exist in the SSPX?
-
I also thought of the fact that in the case of conditional ordinations, the news seems to travel more by word of mouth than by official proclamation. I've never given thought to the possible reasons for doing this, but now that I do consider it, it seems most probable that the obscurity boils down to wanting to "save the appearances" of the novus ordo, and not tick off the Vatican apparatus. Bishop Williamson, who is so vehemently against categorically invalidating the novus ordo, may well fall into the category, particularly as he may have been instrumental in setting up SSPX policy in the first place.
Secondly, this is novel. This is not the case of a conditional ordination. This is the case of a conditional consecration; and the case of a high profile ecclesiastical celebrity, who ever surrounds himself with intrigue and controversy. Furthermore, there's talk of opening up a seminary, with Vigano as Rector. This distinction creates an objective requirement for a rigorous formality. As Rector, Vigano sets himself up as a member of the hierarchy, who will receive men for formation. He will teach, sanctify, and govern in that capacity. If he wears a mask, or conceals perhaps the most important reality of his competence to perform such an office, then what else is he concealing?
You held Dom Tomas' feet to the fire in another thread. Be consistent. Vigano is not above scrutiny. In fact, given his history and rank, he must be scrutinized all the more. Does not the history of the horrors of the trad movement give you even a little pause?
P.S. Wow, you added to your thread while I was typing. And now I add to mine! We are along the same lines.
Yes, I suspect that there's a combination of various "political" considerations and the general attitude that Bishop Williamson has always had toward conditional consecrations. I don't think they're actively keeping it a secret (i.e. have told people when asked), but they're not exactly pro-actively publicizing it either. So it's being kept secret, but it's not being kept secret.
We had SSPV hide the Bishop Kelly consecration by +Mendez for several years, and Bishop Williamson keep a couple of other consecrations under wraps for a couple years.
So ...
1) I don't feel that not announcing it on a blog somewhere is the same as keeping it secret
2) +Williamson has done a couple consecrations that he DID keep secret
3) +Williamson has never really publicized conditionals. I know you say this is different because it's a consecration, but until +Vigano actually uses his espiscopal powers, I don't think there's any urgency. Until he starts functioning as a bishop, I don't see what the point is other than satisfying people's curiosity. And that's probably what they're thinking also.
4) This isn't about +Vigano being above scrutiny. Bishop Williamson is involved in this as well. But, again, he's telling people who ask, so he's not exactly keeping it a secret, even if he isn't broadcasting it from the housetops, so to speak.
-
I have had my doubts in the past as you know. I believe I'm the one who posted the photo above. I have since come to believe that +Vigano is not personally in control of his "brand" in the US. I believe it has been co-opted by Taylor Marshall et al for financial gain and promotion of Marshall's pan-religious beliefs.
Hmm..perhaps....but certainly Vigano still has free will and was able to freely choose to participate in that rally, don't you think?
And surely he can read what the rally stands for, right?
They make it very clear they stand with Israel.
And it was barely 3 months ago.
(https://i.imgur.com/gMzZQXY.png)
-
One final thought. Recently Heiner did a video with Bp. Sanborn about the thesis, and they spoke a lot about Vigano.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr6FR3MFKHk&list=PLRMQ0yC2Y7EVah96dFVScLdV1gJ2EUyzq&index=3
I don't have time right now to go into the transcript and pull the quotes, so I'll paraphrase.
Essentially Bp. Sanborn believes that Vigano is sedevacantist in his heart, though Vigano hotly insists that he is not SV. Sanborn is perplexed by the fact that Vigano cannot "go all the way."
I'm not even remotely perplexed. And I take Vigano at his word. I do not attribute to him any position he categorically and publicly denies.
There is growing inside the foul novus ordo beast yet another novel intellectual paradigm, of a particularly monstrous character - which is itself the deformed offspring of bennyvacantism - itself a wicked and vile fruit of the false council. And the entirely of such an ideology is to "save the appearances" of the false church of Vatican II.
Altman is a poster boy for this new wave, and, I caution you, there is a very good possibility that Vigano is of the same stripe.
How can Vigano pretty much affirm that Bergoglio is not the Pope, and yet continue to insist that he himself is not a sede? It is because this vile new monster divides Bergoglio from the rest of the gang, but especially from Ratzinger and possibly Wojtyla. Bergoglio is portrayed as the problem. A few complaints are issued against the "deformations of the council," de rigeur speech for any pseudo-trad trying to gain traction with the unthinking hordes.
Yet the sacred cow is never touched. One must always "save Ratzinger's appearances." The pseudo-trad world is Ratzingocentric.
Vigano cannot come out as a full sede, without smashing the reputation of Ratzinger. Vigano cannot anathematize the Council without anathematizing Ratzinger, its rotting radix.
Vigano is a Ratzinger partisan. Please provide me with some proof that Vigano has ever criticized and exposed Ratzinger's disgusting infidel "theology." Has Vigano ever blamed Ratzinger for the persecutions and horrors that have come upon the Roman Church? If he did that, I'd think him a righteous man.
Is this the man that should form tomorrow's priests? A man who cannot admit the integral truth.
Lad, you are very uncompromising on this issue. Are you giving Vigano a pass that you don't give to others?
-
Interesting and instructive comments about Ratzinger here, which must be applied to the Vigano question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jY76Zcm2O0
-
Lad, you are very uncompromising on this issue. Are you giving Vigano a pass that you don't give to others?
I'm giving Bishop Williamson a pass. I didn't make much of a fuss about his prior "secret" consecrations (those were actually kept secret in every sense of the word), nor do I care about the +Mendez secret consecrations, except to point out Bishop Kelly's inconsistency, since that was one of his beefs about the +Thuc line.
-
This is great news, but I pray vigano stops affiliating with the kremlin and Dugin.
-
How can Vigano pretty much affirm that Bergoglio is not the Pope, and yet continue to insist that he himself is not a sede? It is because this vile new monster divides Bergoglio from the rest of the gang, but especially from Ratzinger and possibly Wojtyla. Bergoglio is portrayed as the problem. A few complaints are issued against the "deformations of the council," de rigeur speech for any pseudo-trad trying to gain traction with the unthinking hordes.
Yet the sacred cow is never touched. One must always "save Ratzinger's appearances." The pseudo-trad world is Ratzingocentric.
Vigano cannot come out as a full sede, without smashing the reputation of Ratzinger. Vigano cannot anathematize the Council without anathematizing Ratzinger, its rotting radix.
Nonsense. This isn't about Ratzinger. +Vigano has extensively criticized Ratzinger, and Sean Johnson cited the source material the last time this false accusation was made.
+Vigano has said he's not a "sedevacantist" in the sense that he has not (at least yet) come to the conclusion that Roncalli - Ratzinger were also non-popes, and the term "sedevacantist" is generally construed to include that entire list (except arguably Roncalli, since I think there's some division about him among SVs). This isn't about Ratzinger specifically but about the entire group of them.
+Vigano has been taking one step at a time, and he thinks through each step carefully. It took him a good long while to conclude that Jorge wasn't pope, and it'll take him an additional amount of time to consider the others.
-
Nonsense. This isn't about Ratzinger. +Vigano has extensively criticized Ratzinger, and Sean Johnson cited the source material the last time this false accusation was made.
I'm happy to learn that I have made a false accusation, if that is what I have indeed done. I won't ask you to provide the links because I myself am too lazy to look for them. I'll ask you a question instead.
Vigano provided an explanation for the invalidity of Bergoglio's election. Bp. Sanborn speaks at length about there being a mens rea, a criminal intention to use the office to destroy the Church, which would preclude any and all possibility of the Lord Jesus Christ conferring upon him the Petrine authority.
In your recollection, has Vigano ever applied this criteria to Ratzinger's election? For it most certainly applies to him and to all the fakers since Roncalli. And if Vigano has not, then why not? Is Vigano applying different standards to different men, who are yet in identical circuмstances?
In your recollection, has Vigano ever questioned Ratzinger's papacy? Or has he limited himself to criticizing Ratzinger's theology?
If anyone knows the name of the thread where Sean posted, I'd be much obliged if they could provide it.
-
I'm happy to learn that I have made a false accusation, if that is what I have indeed done. I won't ask you to provide the links because I myself am too lazy to look for them. I'll ask you a question instead.
Vigano provided an explanation for the invalidity of Bergoglio's election. Bp. Sanborn speaks at length about there being a mens rea, a criminal intention to use the office to destroy the Church, which would preclude any and all possibility of the Lord Jesus Christ conferring upon him the Petrine authority.
In your recollection, has Vigano ever applied this criteria to Ratzinger's election? For it most certainly applies to him and to all the fakers since Roncalli. And if Vigano has not, then why not? Is Vigano applying different standards to different men, who are yet in identical circuмstances?
In your recollection, has Vigano ever questioned Ratzinger's papacy? Or has he limited himself to criticizing Ratzinger's theology?
If anyone knows the name of the thread where Sean posted, I'd be much obliged if they could provide it.
No, +Vigano has not (YET) applied his thinking to the pre-Bergoglian V2 papal claimants. I think that it's a matter of time before he does, but he's been taking his time at each step. At some point I think he's going to have to go there. Perhaps in his mind there's no urgency with the others because, well, they're dead, and no longer around or directly relevant. He'd only have to think back on the others if he wants to come to terms with a theological explanation for Vatican II.
I have said that I find the vitium consensus position to be unsatisfactory (whether it's how +Vigano or +Sanborn have articulated it) ... except that +Vigano alluded to the fact that this was likely a deliberate infiltration effort from those consciously trying to destroy the Church, and we know where that goes logically.
I will not be fully satisfied until +Vigano starts to consider the greater problem this poses for the Church's indefectibility, and frankly, until he comes out with the Siri Theory, that this all goes back to Siri's election as the legitimate pope. But I'm not holding my breath either, nor am I going to berate him for not doing that. If there comes a time where he articulates principles that contradict the indefectibility of the Church, as many modern R&R types have done, you can be sure that I'll be critical of that. I already felt he was a bit soft on Ratzinger when the latter died, probably with the mentality of "nothing but good about the dead", but, then, Ratzinger became irrelevant once he died, so what would be the point.
I'm not in the camp of those who decide that +Vigano had to go from 0 to 60 in 1 second, from Conciliar to full-blown Roncalli-Bergoglio sedevacantist, and then be excoriated when he didn't.
-
+Vigano has said he's not a "sedevacantist" in the sense that he has not (at least yet) come to the conclusion that Roncalli - Ratzinger were also non-popes, and the term "sedevacantist" is generally construed to include that entire list (except arguably Roncalli, since I think there's some division about him among SVs). This isn't about Ratzinger specifically but about the entire group of them.
It is not unreasonable to expect from a man of Vigano's caliber, that he is competent to apply one standard to all men capable of being judged by that one standard. I can understand that it takes a lot of time to sort through these questions. It took me many years.
In my case, the standard I devised resulted from long deliberation on the R&R versus SV controversy. Once I "came to rest" by taking possession of a worthy measuring stick, my applications of the measure to the evidence proceeded at a much more rapid pace.
The expanse of time in coming to the correct standard of measurement is generally a laborious front-load; whereas the application phase is normally "with the wind in the sails."
Vigano's measuring stick is as good as any. If he delays in applying his new instrument, I'd say he could be deliberately "sticking to the oars," because he does not relish the inevitable experimental results.
-
No, +Vigano has not (YET) applied his thinking to the pre-Bergoglian V2 papal claimants. I think that it's a matter of time before he does, but he's been taking his time at each step. At some point I think he's going to have to go there. Perhaps in his mind there's no urgency with the others because, well, they're dead, and no longer around or directly relevant. He'd only have to think back on the others if he wants to come to terms with a theological explanation for Vatican II.
Thanks for answering the question directly. If he is a man of God, then urgency and zeal should be eating him alive.
-
I have said that I find the vitium consensus position to be unsatisfactory (whether it's how +Vigano or +Sanborn have articulated it) ... except that +Vigano alluded to the fact that this was likely a deliberate infiltration effort from those consciously trying to destroy the Church, and we know where that goes logically.
Absolutely. Yet I am of the mind that it is more important to come to the self-evident conclusion at this late hour, than to waste more time yammering about the theological/metaphysical mechanics. I think "mens rea" is quite workable, even if it amounts to a merely temporary tire plug.
Remember Atila's animus delendi? Still works for me!
-
I have confirmed this news story as well. Status: TRUE.
Archbishop Vigano being conditionally consecrated by a valid Traditional bishop is no longer open for debate, at least not on this forum. Contrary "opinions" (against reality, known fact) are not welcome or permitted.
The central rule, and my whole moderating philosophy is summed up in the famous expression:
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
"In necessariis unitas" <----- Conditional consecration of Vigano falls under this category now.
"In dubiis libertas"
For those getting too heated about Vigano himself, please remember the third part of CathInfo's charter philosophy and summary of all rules:
"In omnibus caritas"
-
Absolutely. Yet I am of the mind that it is more important to come to the self-evident conclusion at this late hour, than to waste more time yammering about the theological/metaphysical mechanics. I think "mens rea" is quite workable, even if it amounts to a merely temporary tire plug.
Remember Atila's animus delendi? Still works for me!
Yes, as I said, I'm not too hung up about the WHY, the various explanations for WHY Bergoglio isn't the pope. As far as I'm concerned, if someone wanted to float the theory about Paul VI being drugged, chained up in a dungeon, and replaced by a big-eared crooked-nosed double, while I might not buy it, I'm not going to spend too much time debating it. Nor do I like to debate the "5 Opinions" that much. I believe that we'll never resolve the HOWs or the WHYs until Church authority is restored and the Church resolve it.
-
I have confirmed this news story as well. Status: TRUE.
Archbishop Vigano being conditionally consecrated by a valid Traditional bishop is no longer open for debate, at least not on this forum. Contrary "opinions" (against reality, known fact) are not welcome or permitted.
The central rule, and my whole moderating philosophy is summed up in the famous expression:
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
"In necessariis unitas" <----- Conditional consecration of Vigano falls under this category now.
"In dubiis libertas"
For those getting to heated about Vigano himself, please remember the third part of CathInfo's charter philosophy and summary of all rules:
"In omnibus caritas"
Yes, and as far as I'm concerned, this is tantamount to it now being public, and no longer secret.
And, yes, with regard to +Vigano himself, that's been my big beef. i do not, as has been alleged, consider him beyond criticism ... though the term should more be beyond disagreement. But until such as time as we have some actual evidence that he's "up to" something, i.e. the conspiracy theories, charity requires that we put the best possible construction on all his actions and assume sincere motivations. Some of this stuff reminds me of the types who kept accusing Bishop Williamson of being a Rosicrucian due to his coat of arms.
-
I have confirmed this news story as well. Status: TRUE.
Archbishop Vigano being conditionally consecrated by a valid Traditional bishop is no longer open for debate, at least not on this forum. Contrary "opinions" (against reality, known fact) are not welcome or permitted.
The central rule, and my whole moderating philosophy is summed up in the famous expression:
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
"In necessariis unitas" <----- Conditional consecration of Vigano falls under this category now.
"In dubiis libertas"
For those getting too heated about Vigano himself, please remember the third part of CathInfo's charter philosophy and summary of all rules:
"In omnibus caritas"
I think most of us weren't questioning the consecration itself. Rather, why there hasn't been an official announcement. I also think most of us are questioning other issues/concerns about Vigano. Is that not allowed either? In other words, does Vigano get protected status unlike other clergy members?
-
I think most of us weren't questioning the consecration itself. Rather, why there hasn't been an official announcement. I also think most of us are questioning other issues/concerns about Vigano. Is that not allowed either? In other words, does Vigano get protective status unlike other clergy members?
That's a fair question.
I already made the distinction you brought up: being upset at lack of official press release, any "games" being played, etc. is FINE. PERFECTLY ALLOWED ON CATHINFO.
What is not allowed is further denial that the consecration took place. Since I personally verified it, it is now official CathInfo position that +Vigano was conditionally consecrated, and has moved into the off-limits, not-open-for-debate "In necessariis unitas" category. Said fact is now in "Truth Heaven", relaxing and enjoying drinks with various Catholic dogmas.
Furthermore, members can discuss any cleric they wish, but please keep it charitable. These men haven't been judged by God or condemned to hell, and remember THEY COULD BE RIGHT, HOLY, AND IN A FEW YEARS BE PRAISING GOD FOREVER IN HEAVEN. Be careful who you hate. You don't want to hate God's friend(s) by mistake. Don't say anything you would have to apologize for if you turned out to be wrong. And don't think it's just because you feel so "right" that you couldn't be wrong. We've all been there. That isn't certainty you're feeling, it's emotion. Emotions are a funny thing, they motivate one to do and say all kinds of things, many of them unreasonable in the end. They also cloud one's thinking.
There aren't many topics I can do this with. cօռspιʀαcιҽs are always hazy and unknown. We don't have any contacts in the WEF or you-know-who's to confirm their plans. Likewise anything touching on the Crisis is 100% hazy, enshrouded in deep fog, rendering everything Crisis related automatically in the category, "In dubiis libertas". That's why there's so much libertas on CathInfo -- we mostly discuss the Crisis.
-
Yes, and as far as I'm concerned, this is tantamount to it now being public, and no longer secret.
And, yes, with regard to +Vigano himself, that's been my big beef. i do not, as has been alleged, consider him beyond criticism ... though the term should more be beyond disagreement. But until such as time as we have some actual evidence that he's "up to" something, i.e. the conspiracy theories, charity requires that we put the best possible construction on all his actions and assume sincere motivations. Some of this stuff reminds me of the types who kept accusing Bishop Williamson of being a Rosicrucian due to his coat of arms.
It's classic hatred, pure and simple. You know how to identify hatred? It's when a man can do nothing right or good in your eyes. Example: the Pharisees hated Our Lord. Even when Our Lord performed good works, they attributed them to evil motives, the power of satan, etc. This hatred is alive and well today, even in the hearts of some Traditional Catholics.
It's also annoying that I don't have a slur to use against such ridiculous tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories. Because you see, I am somewhat against using those CIA terms, which are used against so many truths in the world today, from 9/11, the JQ, recent wars, the h0Ɩ0h0αx, the evils of vaccines, the fakeness of NASA and especially the Apollo "moon landings" and the true shape of the earth. So I can't bring myself to use those evil bludgeons, even when they are SO appropriate.
Just because all those "cօռspιʀαcιҽs" are absolutely true, doesn't mean that you can't come up with actual crackpot, tinfoil hat, CRAZY, kookie, "conspiracy theories" -- and I mean "conspiracy theories" the way the secular world uses that term (to refer to ridiculous, baseless, proof-less nonsense contrary to reason and evidence).
All the jokes they tell about "conspiracy theorists" actually apply to some ideas I've seen put out there --
You know all the jokes, the tropes about "conspiracy theorists" -- the idea that they're crazy, have no proof, have silly reasoning, say stuff like "That's what they want you to think" and using every other logical fallacy in the book
-
Just because all those "cօռspιʀαcιҽs" are absolutely true, doesn't mean that you can't come up with actual crackpot, tinfoil hat, CRAZY, kookie, "conspiracy theories" -- and I mean "conspiracy theories" the way the secular world uses that term (to refer to ridiculous, baseless, proof-less nonsense contrary to reason and evidence).
Right, and the powers that be revel in the kooky conspiracy theories, because they can then say "see, we told you these conspiracy theories were nuts."
I don't dismiss any conspiracy theory out of hand without at least examining its claims, but I do demand some POSITIVE evidence. It's akin to the difference between positive and negative doubt. At the very least I need to see a credible cui bono, who benefits, or what is the benefit? Until I see some evidence about what harm +Vigano might be doing to Traditional Catholicism, it's a non-starter for me. I could entertain the notion that Bishop Athanasius Schneider or Bishop Huonder might be up to no good, since you could see the harm they might do to Traditional Catholicism, the former promoting the notion that there's nothing radically wrong with V2 (just needs a couple minor corrections) and that Bergoglio cannot be deposed no matter what, the latter (with the blessing of Bergoglio, who otherwise despises Traditional Catholicism) "consecrating" oils and churches, possibly acclimating the faithful to perhaps also "ordain" priests in the not too distant future.
There's solid evidence of the Plandemic conspiracy (too much to go into here), but then you had people like this Dr. Carrie Madej making absurd claims such as how she could sense that the "creatures" she saw under the microscope were somehow sentient and were "looking at [her]". Madej became the poster child for the MSM deriding the overall Plandemic conspiracy theories (which were right) and making them seem absurd by association.
Here on CathInfo we've literally seen some accuse +Vigano of being a Satanic/Luciferian Masonic sun-worshipper (those terms were actually all strung together by one poster). "Look, Bishop Williamson has a rose and cross in his coat of arms, and he knew Malcolm Muggeridge, whose sons were Masons." Yeah, lots of people knew Muggeridge (he was a pretty famous guy), and St. Therese is commonly depicted with a crucifix within a bundle or roses "Look, +Vigano had friends who were Opus Dei." OK, so did pretty much every relatively-high-ranking prelate in the Conciliar Church, as OD had its tentacles everywhere; he'd have to have hidden in a cave to avoid them.
+Vigano was accused of being a Mason because the English translation of his letters often concluded with the expression "So may it be.", which was construed as similar enough to "So mote it be." that this was proof for his being a Mason. But a CI member posted pictures of a pre Vatican II Tridentine Italian Missal that translated "Amen" as "So may it be" and indicated that his Traditional Italian priest concluded his sermons with that expression.
+Vigano was accused of being some Satanic/Luciferian sun-worshipper because he made a passing reference to Our Lord as Sol Invictus around Chrismtas time. CI members discovered that not only did some Church Fathers refer to Our Lord with that imagery (St. Clement of Alexandria for one) and that Christian art beneath St. Peter's depicted Him as such, but the Church's Liturgy was replete with such imagery and language.
+Vigano said some positive things about Trump, and so he became a promoter of the Noahide Laws and also a promoter of the jab (because of Trump's "Operation Warp Speed"), despite the fact that he was one of the most vocal and ardent critics of the jab and of the Plandemic in general, while Trad priests who were soft on the jab are not called out with every other post for their position. Many Traditional Catholics were fooled by Trump, at least enough to vote for him (I include myself here in 2016, though not 2020). But +Vigano's language was very carefully worded, and he used the expression that he "dared hope" that Trump was on the side of good (was well intentioned), yet not asserting this as some kind of certainty. +Vigano, a trained diplomat, also knew Trump's personality very well, knowing that he could be easily manipulated by flattery, so he called out and praised the good things Trump has done (and he has done some). But posters expected him to excoriate Trump publicly every chance he got. In fact, +Vigano was criticized for not attacking Trump in a latter that has absolutely nothing to do with the US or politics, but was about an unrelated theological matter. So he's writing about the Conciliar Church and is required by these detractors to add a completely off-topic paragraph in every letter attacking Trump? +Vigano knew that this served no purpose and has the effect, with Trump's yuge but very fragile ego, of having him double down against what he was criticized for. So the trained diplomat, who knew how to read people, understood how to affect Trump for the better. And it worked, as Trump retweeted his letter to him, and the name of +Vigano became widely known even among non-Catholics.
One could attempt to impute sinister motivations to +Vigano, but charity requires that we put the best possible construction on these, since it's ultimately in the internal forum that we cannot read. I had the same reaction against those who made the same claims about Shia LaBeouf, that his conversion was "fake" ... without any evidence. Slander/calumny is never permitted. Detraction is permitted only when the public good requires it. Until either Shia or +Vigano DO something that's contrary to the faith or harmful to Traditional Catholicism or to others, we must presume that they're speaking and acting in good faith ... even if we disagree with them.
-
If people are so concerned about not judging the "internal forum", they shouldn't be judging the internal forum of those who have doubts about Vigano. For me, it's suspicion. It's lack of trust. It's not hate, and I'm sick and tired of the hypocrites calling me a hater/saying that it comes from pure "classic" hate. And btw, I HAVE written positive things about him in the past.
-
One could attempt to impute sinister motivations to +Vigano, but charity requires that we put the best possible construction on these, since it's ultimately in the internal forum that we cannot read. I had the same reaction against those who made the same claims about Shia LaBeouf, that his conversion was "fake" ... without any evidence. Slander/calumny is never permitted. Detraction is permitted only when the public good requires it. Until either Shia or +Vigano DO something that's contrary to the faith or harmful to Traditional Catholicism or to others, we must presume that they're speaking and acting in good faith ... even if we disagree with them.
You're correct. +Vigano has DONE nothing evil (let's say since his conversion, to keep things simple) and we have NO reason, excuse, or justification for NOT giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Traditional Catholics are a surly, cantankerous bunch, and they often have the flaw of being too negative and forgetting charity. For example, the idea that YES, you MUST give every child of God a fair chance, assuming they are good until they FORCE us to conclude otherwise. But even then, it should be with sadness and HOPE for improvement -- not anger, resentment, frustration, bitter zeal, and hurt feelings -- which we see SO MUCH OF on CathInfo and any other place you find lots of Trads.
Read a few Lives of the Saints and see how THEY treated those who disappointed them. They prayed and sacrificed for them, had hope for their improvement/conversion, and certainly didn't forget charity, or fail to give them every possible benefit of the doubt.
It's the classic "I've been hurt so much, I can't trust/love anymore" trope. It's incredibly sad, but such is the situation.
-
It's the classic "I've been hurt so much, I can't trust/love anymore" trope. It's incredibly sad, but such is the situation.
So now you're belittling those who have trust issues when it comes bishops coming from the Novus Ordo. How charitable of you! Perhaps you need to take a good long look in that mirror.
-
I have confirmed this news story as well. Status: TRUE.
I believe you, and I now believe it's true. One of the most interesting developments in recent memory.
Certainly it is worth pondering that he chose Bp. Williamson, and not any of the SV outlets. I believe they would have consecrated them if he had asked them. Very interesting indeed.....:popcorn:
-
Yes, as I said, I'm not too hung up about the WHY, the various explanations for WHY Bergoglio isn't the pope. As far as I'm concerned, if someone wanted to float the theory about Paul VI being drugged, chained up in a dungeon, and replaced by a big-eared crooked-nosed double, while I might not buy it, I'm not going to spend too much time debating it. Nor do I like to debate the "5 Opinions" that much. I believe that we'll never resolve the HOWs or the WHYs until Church authority is restored and the Church resolve it.
Yup. Agree. There's no doubt in my mind that we are awaiting a Divine intervention, but in the Order of Providence the Lord usually (if not always?) acts through secondary causes. So wherever there are valid Holy Orders, Orthodox enclaves inclusive, we may find future Divine instruments.
Overall? veddy interesting...
(https://i0.wp.com/tvtonight.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019-07-04_1152.jpg?fit=520%2C350&ssl=1)
-
On a positive note - a very positive note indeed - Vigano is now a role model I can stand behind on a very crucial issue. He was not afraid to question the validity of his novus ordo "consecration," and not afraid of the ramifications of seeking valid episcopal Orders.
This swan dive will send huge shock waves through indult-land, where invalid orders is the big fat giant enormous colossal elephant in the room.
Of course, this is all the more reason to go public in a big way. He has done nothing shameful or clandestine in this. He has done the right thing, the thing required of honesty and Catholic integrity. It is a candlestick that should not be hidden under a bushel.
Please communicate that thought to Bp. Williamson, Matthew.
-
If the reports are accurate, there is absolutely no reason for slyness. He needs to come out slugging and hit the NO fake church hard without cessation.
I’m still puzzled by the fact that Bergoglio has yet to attack him. Why hasn’t he?
-
So now you're belittling those who have trust issues when it comes bishops coming from the Novus Ordo. How charitable of you! Perhaps you need to take a good long look in that mirror.
I don't think Matthew meant it that way. He's merely stating that's how it actually is. IOW, we actually do indeed have trust issues with bishops coming from the NO, it's only normal. At least that's how I take it.
-
On a positive note - a very positive note indeed - Vigano is now a role model I can stand behind on a very crucial issue. He was not afraid to question the validity of his novus ordo "consecration," and not afraid of the ramifications of seeking valid episcopal Orders.
This swan dive will send huge shock waves through indult-land, where invalid orders is the big fat giant enormous colossal elephant in the room.
Of course, this is all the more reason to go public in a big way. He has done nothing shameful or clandestine in this. He has done the right thing, the thing required of honesty and Catholic integrity. It is a candlestick that should not be hidden under a bushel.
Please communicate that thought to Bp. Williamson, Matthew.
Yes, until it becomes officially public "in a big way" (ie. not just on CathInfo), everyone in NO land will still think he is NO-consecrated, including his "brother bishops". Until then every single one of them will still think their consecrations are valid. What is he waiting for?
-
If the reports are accurate, there is absolutely no reason for slyness. He needs to come out slugging and hit the NO fake church hard without cessation.
I’m still puzzled by the fact that Bergoglio has yet to attack him. Why hasn’t he?
His attack would probably be beneficial, since it would give Abp. Vigano greater visibility.
This might be why he's said nothing.
-
I don't think Matthew meant it that way. He's merely stating that's how it actually is. IOW, we actually do indeed have trust issues with bishops coming from the NO, it's only normal. At least that's how I take it.
Then he (along with his bud Lad) needs to quit judging those of us who are not on the Vigano train as "hating" him.
-
Good news for the New Year!
-
I believe you, and I now believe it's true. One of the most interesting developments in recent memory.
Certainly it is worth pondering that he chose Bp. Williamson, and not any of the SV outlets. I believe they would have consecrated them if he had asked them. Very interesting indeed.....:popcorn:
It is curious.
-
I’m still puzzled by the fact that Bergoglio has yet to attack him. Why hasn’t he?
That's very simple. Due to the fact that +Vigano became famous for exposing Bergoglio's coverup of McCarrick's predations, excommunicating +Vigano would likely be construed by the general public as retribution for exposing the coverup, as a continuation of the coverup, etc. Just imagine a news story written by MSM if Bergoglio were to formally excommunicate +Vigano. There's no doubt that the story would recall the McCarrick situation and a lot people reading it (not being theologically astute) would take this move as retribution or punishment for exposing pedophilia. That would simply not play very well in the media for Bergoglio to take that step.
Let's say I'm a bishop who's covering up for predators, and a priest comes out and exposes my coverup. Some years later, the priest says that I'm a heretic and apostate, and not the bishop of my diocese. Now I go ahead and excommunicate the priest for those statements. General public doesn't understand the theological basis for the excommunication. Their takeaway would only be: 1) priest exposes bishop's crimes. 2) bishop excommunicates priest.
-
I believe you, and I now believe it's true. One of the most interesting developments in recent memory.
Certainly it is worth pondering that he chose Bp. Williamson, and not any of the SV outlets. I believe they would have consecrated them if he had asked them. Very interesting indeed.....:popcorn:
I just think they had been in contact generally. I'm not sure when the conditional consecration actually happened. Perhaps it was before +Vigano had come up as a Bergoglio-vacantist (since he denies the broader term sedevacantist), but I imagine that if he did not fully embrace sedevacantism, the various SV bishops would probably not have consecrated him.
-
Then he (along with his bud Lad) needs to quit judging those of us who are not on the Vigano train as "hating" him.
I'm not judging you.
Interesting you use the words "judging" and "hating". You also need to take a long look in the mirror. This is not the first thread you've come out swinging at me in the last few days. You seem to almost hate me -- at least you're taking all my words in the worst possible light, which isn't good. It shows what you think of me right now.
I just said it was "sad" that so many Trads have such a horrible track record of abuse, that they are utterly unable to trust anyone anymore, including good Trad priests and bishops. I've seen it many times, both on and off of this forum.
And each and every time, it's SAD. That's a simple fact. It's not a question of sin or judgment. It's simply a sad situation when anyone becomes unable to love, or trust, again. Don't you agree? It's absolutely tragic.
I never said OR implied that it's their fault they have arrived at such a state. Merely that it's sad. And by sad I mean just that: SAD and tragic.
P.S. I'm male, not female. I have only been stating principles here. I'm teaching the world, not judging this or that individual. I haven't criticized a SINGLE person or name with regards to Vigano. I haven't even named anyone by hint, innuendo, or indirectly. Go ahead, I'll wait while you go find such a case. I'm sure you won't find one.
I'm arguing on the level of principles, morality, and doctrine here. It's usually females who find the need to make absolutely everything personal. (this also happens with men who act like women -- but I digress).
-
This is great news, but I pray vigano stops affiliating with the kremlin and Dugin.
I agree with you if it's true. @JustACatholic1 Alistair McFadden posted this on X. I also find it weird that Bergoglio hasn't shut it down (vigano)
https://twitter.com/JustACatholic1/status/1501149336876601344
https://twitter.com/JustACatholic1/status/1531788867631579136
https://x.com/JustACatholic1/status/1501149336876601344?s=20
-
The real question here why? What is the positive doubt that led to the conditional consecration?
If it was something specific to Abp. Vigano’s consecration then one can understand why there maybe a willingness to keep it private. After all, the Church has always treated conferring “conditional sacraments” as a delicate matter. On the other hand, if it was something more fundamental that affected all consecrations, say, a defect in Form of the N.O. rite of consecration then one would expect this to be stated publicly.
-
I think there are mixed motivations.
1) We know that the Church was infiltrated, and could probably say with moral certainty that the SSPX has been infiltrated. There are indeed infiltrators everywhere. And this can breed a certain amount of paranoia where just about everyone is suspected of being an infiltrator. This is similar to how there are so many predator priests (even among Trads) that if you run into a priest who shows even traces of not being particularly masculine, people start to wonder. I think the difference is that one must be wary of potential predators, lest children be harmed, whereas to date +Vigano is not in any position to do harm.
2) Contempt for all things Conciliar. Because +Vigano spent decades functioning as a high-profile Conciliar prelate, he's viewed as somehow tainted or stained. In reality, he's been far to the right of neo-SSPX right out of the gate, denouncing Vatican II as radically defective, rather than 95% Catholic ... and he's been moving farther right almost with each letter. But he's still considered "tainted" by his time in the Conciliar Church. Can no one convert and be given the benefit of doubt regarding their sincerity? I was largely a liberal in many areas before I was exposed to Traditional Catholicism.
3) Some resentment against the celebrity and fame of +Vigano. Most Trad bishops and priests have labored (often for decades) in relative obscurity, and +Vigano comes onto the scene and is immediately the "star" ... at least in terms of his fame and exposure. +Williamson's letters are not making headlines everywhere, all across Trad, Inc., etc. So there's the resentment typified by Our Lord's parable about the guy who showed up to work at the end of the day and got the same pay as those who labored all day. Lesson of the parable should be taken to heart, namely, that we are all where we're at by the grace of God only and not due to our own merits. It's the same grace that converted these other priests or some of us faithful decades ago that is now converting +Vigano. We're not somehow better or owed more because God converted us a long time ago. We should be grateful that we've had all this extra time to be steeped in the Traditional faith. +Vigano is getting old, and Father Chazal mentioned the regret he has that he's come "late to the fight".
4) There are also various agendas. +Vigano said some positive things about Trump, and one poster who hates Trump with a passion can't let that go. +Vigano basically took Russia's side regarding the Ukraine situation, and one poster who despised Russia couldn't let that go. So did Bishop Williamson, but there's less animosity against him (probably due to some of the other factors above). So the one poster in particular has gone on a slander campaign, attempting to characterize +Vigano as a Satanic/Luciferian Masonic sun-worshipper.
There's some combination of these 4 factors weighing into the hostility that some have toward +Vigano, where the poor man can do almost nothing right in their eyes. I've never said that he's infallible or beyond disagreement with (no man is), but it's simply unjust that he can do almost nothing "right" in the minds of some of these folks.
-
Yes, until it becomes officially public "in a big way" (ie. not just on CathInfo), everyone in NO land will still think he is NO-consecrated, including his "brother bishops". Until then every single one of them will still think their consecrations are valid. What is he waiting for?
The more I think about this, the more I am convinced it is a very bad thing to delay making a VERY public announcement. This a matter of extreme objective importance, with HUGE ramifications.
Agreed, what is he waiting for?
-
The more I think about this, the more I am convinced it is a very bad thing to delay making a VERY public announcement. This a matter of extreme objective importance, with HUGE ramifications.
Agreed, what is he waiting for?
Indeed. Proclaim it from the rooftops and call out the Bogus Ordo fraud for what it is. It's time to wake up the sheeple and give courage to those waiting in the shadows.
-
Maybe +Vigano is praying and waiting for God's time not what the laity think. I mean it is really hard to serve yourself up to your enemies. Even Jesus sweated blood and agonized in the Garden before he gave up His life. I am just saying that heroic virtue looks good on paper, but actually sacrificing all for God, I am guessing, is not that easy. I mean once he makes this statement public, then he will have to look at his pass make whatever adjustments need to be made.
-
It's a matter of prudence, the forgotten virtue among some here. While the armchair warriors here are encouraging some kind of bravado, what good would it do exactly other than so that some individuals here could "high five" one another? "Yeah, take that, Modernists."
Would it convert one person or would it be more likely to shut down those in "Trad, Inc." who might otherwise lend a more sympathetic ear to +Vigano? Probably the latter ... if done abruptly. +Vigano would quickly be demonized as having been conditionally consecrated by the "h0Ɩ0cαųst Denier" and also as having doubt about the great Saint Wojtyla the Great.
It may seem advisable as a matter of prudence to time the public announcement in such a way that it might have the greatest positive (vs. negative) effect. Very often, individuals are best drawn to the truth in small steps, gradually. If you took a completely clueless individual and started spouting off about "There was no h0Ɩ0cαųst. Jews control the world." this would be too abrupt and would shut them down immediately. But if you introduce the truth, little by little, step by step, they could gradually get there. "Governments lie to us all the time. Look at how most of the media are owned by Jews. See how the big banks are controlled by Jews. See what damage they are doing to society via the banks and the media." ... step by step ... and they may eventually get to the h0Ɩ0h0αx and the fact that Jews run the world. But not if you throw it at them in one big bang.
I advise that some of you look up the virtue of prudence (the long-forgotten virtue, yet the queen of all the virtues). You weigh the good and the bad that might come from any particular action you take when it comes to actions that are neither inherently good nor inherently bad (here, the wide public announcement of the consecration).
-
The real question here why? What is the positive doubt that led to the conditional consecration?
If it was something specific to Abp. Vigano’s consecration then one can understand why there maybe a willingness to keep it private. After all, the Church has always treated conferring “conditional sacraments” as a delicate matter. On the other hand, if it was something more fundamental that affected all consecrations, say, a defect in Form of the N.O. rite of consecration then one would expect this to be stated publicly.
I think this is a valid, reasonable distinction.
-
Go type in Google or Bing "was Archbishop Vigano conditionally consecrated" and CathInfo comes up, sometimes as a reference at the bottom of an AI generated response/summary.
In other words: It's plenty public.
Or type in "Bishop Vigano" into Google and click on the Wikipedia entry. You might have heard of Wikipedia. A pretty PUBLIC entity I'd say.
His conditional consecration is no secret.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Vigan%C3%B2
In his December 2023 newsletter, Viganò announced the establishment of a traditionalist Catholic seminary called Collegium Traditionis in Viterbo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viterbo), providing training to seminarians not willing to accept "the errors of the Second Vatican Council or the deviations of Bergoglio".[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Viganò#cite_note-:0-5) He claimed to follow the example of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Lefebvre) (Lefebvre founded the Écône Seminary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econe_Seminary) in opposition to the Second Vatican Council (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council) and was eventually excommunicated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_Dei) by Pope John Paul II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II) for illicitly consecrating four bishops (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Écône_consecrations)).[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Viganò#cite_note-:0-5)[150] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Viganò#cite_note-150) According to Viganò, two seminarians have already enrolled.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Viganò#cite_note-:0-5)
In January 2024, it was conjectured by some sources that Viganò had been conditionally re-consecrated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_sacrament) to the episcopate by Bishop Richard Williamson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Williamson_(bishop)) (Williamson's excommunication, along with the excommunications of the other bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre in the 1988 Écône consecrations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Écône_consecrations), were lifted in 2009 by Benedict XVI, but Archbishop Lefebvre's excommunication remains in effect.[151] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Viganò#cite_note-151)[152] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Viganò#cite_note-152) Bishop Williamson was excommunicated again in 2015 after illicitly ordaining Jean-Michel Faure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Michel_Faure) a bishop without papal mandate in Nova Friburgo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_Friburgo), incurring an automatic excommunication).[153] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Viganò#cite_note-153) The conditional re-consecration seems to imply that Viganò now believes that sacraments confected through the current Roman Missal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI) are of dubious validity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_and_liceity_(Catholic_Church)) and, as such, his own consecration as bishop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_orders_in_the_Catholic_Church) in 1992 by Pope John Paul II is dubious as well. Should the news be confirmed by papal authorities, Viganò would be excommunicated latae sententiae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiae_and_ferendae_sententiae).[154] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Viganò#cite_note-154)
After being questioned by the conservative Catholic website New Daily Compass on the issue, Viganò did not deny the news and declared himself astonished by the publication's interest in his personal affairs.[155] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Viganò#cite_note-:1-155) The New Daily Compass criticized Viganò's actions as schismatic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism_in_Christianity).[155] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Viganò#cite_note-:1-155)
-
I wonder how Miser is?
-
Go type in Google or Bing "was Archbishop Vigano conditionally consecrated" and CathInfo comes up, sometimes as a reference at the bottom of an AI generated response/summary.
In other words: It's plenty public.
Or type in "Bishop Vigano" into Google and click on the Wikipedia entry. You might have heard of Wikipedia. A pretty PUBLIC entity I'd say.
His conditional consecration is no secret.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Vigan%C3%B2
In his December 2023 newsletter, Viganò announced the establishment of a traditionalist Catholic seminary called Collegium Traditionis in Viterbo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viterbo), providing training to seminarians not willing to accept "the errors of the Second Vatican Council or the deviations of Bergoglio".[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Viganò#cite_note-:0-5) He claimed to follow the example of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Lefebvre) (Lefebvre founded the Écône Seminary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econe_Seminary) in opposition to the Second Vatican Council (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council) and was eventually excommunicated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_Dei) by Pope John Paul II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II) for illicitly consecrating four bishops (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Écône_consecrations)).[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Viganò#cite_note-:0-5)[150] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Viganò#cite_note-150) According to Viganò, two seminarians have already enrolled.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Viganò#cite_note-:0-5)
In January 2024, it was conjectured by some sources that Viganò had been conditionally re-consecrated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_sacrament) to the episcopate by Bishop Richard Williamson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Williamson_(bishop)) (Williamson's excommunication, along with the excommunications of the other bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre in the 1988 Écône consecrations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Écône_consecrations), were lifted in 2009 by Benedict XVI, but Archbishop Lefebvre's excommunication remains in effect.[151] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Viganò#cite_note-151)[152] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Viganò#cite_note-152) Bishop Williamson was excommunicated again in 2015 after illicitly ordaining Jean-Michel Faure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Michel_Faure) a bishop without papal mandate in Nova Friburgo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_Friburgo), incurring an automatic excommunication).[153] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Viganò#cite_note-153) The conditional re-consecration seems to imply that Viganò now believes that sacraments confected through the current Roman Missal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI) are of dubious validity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_and_liceity_(Catholic_Church)) and, as such, his own consecration as bishop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_orders_in_the_Catholic_Church) in 1992 by Pope John Paul II is dubious as well. Should the news be confirmed by papal authorities, Viganò would be excommunicated latae sententiae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiae_and_ferendae_sententiae).[154] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Viganò#cite_note-154)
After being questioned by the conservative Catholic website New Daily Compass on the issue, Viganò did not deny the news and declared himself astonished by the publication's interest in his personal affairs.[155] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Viganò#cite_note-:1-155) The New Daily Compass criticized Viganò's actions as schismatic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism_in_Christianity).[155] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Viganò#cite_note-:1-155)
This is more information than when I looked a couple months ago. It only said something like "it was conjectured by some sources that Viganò had been conditionally re-consecrated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_sacrament) to the episcopate by Bishop Richard Williamson (who is well know as a holocaust denier)" I remember it because I found it interesting that the h0Ɩ0cαųst denier label followed him to this post, now it doesn't say it at all. (Sorry, I can't get the underline to stop) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Williamson_(bishop))
-
https://www.cath.ch/newsf/mgr-vigano-reconsacre-eveque-par-le-schismatique-williamson/
From Jan. 8, 2024
Nice picture here of an old monastery that Bishop Vigano's supporters are renovating. This modernist web page ( Cath-Info) says that it might become a "New Econe" .
So there is high hope for Vigano. He needs prayers +
-
It’s not “Official” until the Consecrator and Consecratee publicly say it’s so…with photo / video even better. Until then it’s just rumors …”I know a guy who knows the guy”….doesn’t hold much weight in court…even if it’s Fr Chazel.
-
It’s not “Official” until the Consecrator and Consecratee publicly say it’s so…with photo / video even better. Until then it’s just rumors …”I know a guy who knows the guy”….doesn’t hold much weight in court…even if it’s Fr Chazel.
False. You make up false principles. Church has always favored the testimony of reliable witnesses and considered it to be sufficient evidence if there are two witnesses (based on the principles of Sacred Scripture). Docuмents and photos and videos can be faked that much more easily in today's digital age. Standard of evidence in Church law (not your made-up standards) for the validity of Sacraments is and always has been the testimony of witnesses.
Even before Vatican II there were cases of secret consecrations for men who then were ordered to keep it under wraps and then perform other secret consecrations and ordinations behind the Iron Curtain. Those were quite "official" even though the knowledge thereof was on a "need to know" basis. And you don't need to know. And what's it to you? If +Vigano never uses his episcopal powers to ordain priests, perform confirmations, consecrate bishops, or consecrate holy oils, then what's it to you and why does it matter? If I were in a position if possibly receiving Sacraments related to the +Vigano line, then I would inquire directly of Bishop Williamson and Archbishop Vigano, since I would then need to know. Until then, I need to know nothing.
-
https://www.cath.ch/newsf/mgr-vigano-reconsacre-eveque-par-le-schismatique-williamson/
Article opens up with an error. CONDITIONAL consecrations do not "earn latae sententiae excommunication". They're a completely different animal, and of course the Bogus Ordo considers that no consecration took place when +Williamson conferred it on +Vigano because to them +Vigano was already a valid bishop.
-
I wonder how Miser is?
I'm wondering that too. I hope she's doing alright.
-
False. You make up false principles. Church has always favored the testimony of reliable witnesses and considered it to be sufficient evidence if there are two witnesses (based on the principles of Sacred Scripture). Docuмents and photos and videos can be faked that much more easily in today's digital age. Standard of evidence in Church law (not your made-up standards) for the validity of Sacraments is and always has been the testimony of witnesses.
Even before Vatican II there were cases of secret consecrations for men who then were ordered to keep it under wraps and then perform other secret consecrations and ordinations behind the Iron Curtain. Those were quite "official" even though the knowledge thereof was on a "need to know" basis. And you don't need to know. And what's it to you? If +Vigano never uses his episcopal powers to ordain priests, perform confirmations, consecrate bishops, or consecrate holy oils, then what's it to you and why does it matter? If I were in a position if possibly receiving Sacraments related to the +Vigano line, then I would inquire directly of Bishop Williamson and Archbishop Vigano, since I would then need to know. Until then, I need to know nothing.
AHhhh…the lady does protest too much 🤣😆🤣. Sorry, but as the saintly Archbishop once said…the faithful deserve to know that there Priests and Bishops are validly ordained / consecrated. This isn’t communist China and + Vigano is not being threatened with the Gulag!
-
AHhhh…the lady does protest too much 🤣😆🤣. Sorry, but as the saintly Archbishop once said…the faithful deserve to know that there Priests and Bishops are validly ordained / consecrated. This isn’t communist China and + Vigano is not being threatened with the Gulag!
What I stated were facts, moron. I swear that this forum is populated by idiots. Cite the Canon Law that requires all conditional consecrations or conditional ordinations to be broadcast widely. That was the practice of the Church even before V2 to keep them low key. To satisfy the curiosity and demands of some bumbling bufffoon is not required of anyone.
It was also the practice of your "saintly Archbishop" to keep conditional orders low key, and then sometimes imposed people like Mr. Stark on them, throwing the Nine under the bus so that he could continue begging Rome to allow him to make the "experiment of Tradition". I used to have to dig around to find out about various NO priests that showed up and often only found out because I knew the sacristan(s) who set up the chapel for a conditional ordination, but meanwhile said NO priest went out on the main altar without any announcement regarding his conditional ordination, leaving many seminarians wondering.
And the faithful deserve to know that THEIR bishops/priests are validly ordained. I don't deserve to know that some priest in Zimbabwe that I hardly know and have no interactions with is validly ordained.
-
What I stated were facts, moron. I swear that this forum is populated by idiots. Cite the Canon Law that requires all conditional consecrations or conditional ordinations to be broadcast widely. That was the practice of the Church even before V2 to keep them low key. To satisfy the curiosity and demands of some bumbling bufffoon is not required of anyone.
It was also the practice of your "saintly Archbishop" to keep conditional orders low key, and then sometimes imposed people like Mr. Stark on them, throwing the Nine under the bus so that he could continue begging Rome to allow him to make the "experiment of Tradition". I used to have to dig around to find out about various NO priests that showed up and often only found out because I knew the sacristan(s) who set up the chapel for a conditional ordination, but meanwhile said NO priest went out on the main altar without any announcement regarding his conditional ordination, leaving many seminarians wondering.
And the faithful deserve to know that THEIR bishops/priests are validly ordained. I don't deserve to know that some priest in Zimbabwe that I hardly know and have no interactions with is validly ordained.
“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth”…your humility and charity is inspiring 🤣
-
Bump!
And moved to the right subforum.
Catholics living in the modern world? Seriously?
This has Resistance written all over it. Maybe Crisis in the Church. But this has nothing to do with challenges and experiences of lay Trad Catholics living in the modern world today.
-
What I stated were facts, moron. I swear that this forum is populated by idiots. Cite the Canon Law that requires all conditional consecrations or conditional ordinations to be broadcast widely. That was the practice of the Church even before V2 to keep them low key. To satisfy the curiosity and demands of some bumbling bufffoon is not required of anyone.
It was also the practice of your "saintly Archbishop" to keep conditional orders low key, and then sometimes imposed people like Mr. Stark on them, throwing the Nine under the bus so that he could continue begging Rome to allow him to make the "experiment of Tradition". I used to have to dig around to find out about various NO priests that showed up and often only found out because I knew the sacristan(s) who set up the chapel for a conditional ordination, but meanwhile said NO priest went out on the main altar without any announcement regarding his conditional ordination, leaving many seminarians wondering.
And the faithful deserve to know that THEIR bishops/priests are validly ordained. I don't deserve to know that some priest in Zimbabwe that I hardly know and have no interactions with is validly ordained.
(https://i.imgur.com/O9mgRU6.gif)
“Go Trump!”