Introduction:
On June 10, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano issued a letter in which he rejected the conciliar church, stating (among many other strident denunciations), and repented of his part in having promoted it in apparent good faith for decades:

“…despite all the efforts of the hermeneutic of continuity which shipwrecked miserably at the first confrontation with the reality of the present crisis, it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ. This parallel church progressively obscured the divine institution founded by Our Lord in order to replace it with a spurious entity, corresponding to the desired universal religion that was first theorized by Masonry.

And a bit later in the same letter:

“Just as I honestly and serenely obeyed questionable orders sixty years ago, believing that they represented the loving voice of the Church, so today with equal serenity and honesty I recognize that I have been deceived. Being coherent today by persevering in error would represent a wretched choice and would make me an accomplice in this fraud.[1]
For the first time since Bishop Salvador Lazo,[2]we are presented with the “conversion in progress” of a conciliar prelate to Tradition: A clear and dogmatic rejection of the Second Vatican Council, and a personal repentance for having helped the conciliar revolution along (in good faith).

Longtime SSPX’ers might have expected their beloved Society to be shouting Vigano’s message and conversion in progress from the housetops (as it did when Bishop Lazo made his famous declaration, cited above).  Yet, there is a veritable SSPX media outlet blackout, as though the conversion of Vigano was of little importance.

This short article will analyze some of the reasons the SSPX might be choosing to avoid commenting upon the unfolding Vigano situation.

Deja Vu:
For 25 years, and especially since 2012, the SSPX has gone “all-in” on acquiring official canonical status from conciliar Rome: “discreet but not secret” meetings with GREC; a reversal regarding Lefebvre’s policy of “no practical accord until Rome converts;” the expulsion of Bishop Williamson (and dozens of other priests); the coming to terms with Vatican II; the rehabilitation of indult communities; the self-imposed silence on conciliar error to improve relations with modernist Rome (i.e., the “branding campaign”); the rejection of the notion of a conciliar church; etc., etc.

The Society has gone too far in the conciliarist direction to pause and reassess its actions since the death of Lefebvre, and though there may be some Nicodemus’s still hiding out within the Society, for the most part, the SSPX and Archbishop Vigano are heading in opposite directions:

While the SSPX has recently come to terms with the conciliar revolution (e.g., 2012 April 15 Doctrinal Declaration, which accepts the hermeneutic of continuity, and through it the docuмents of Vatican II; it rejects the notion of a conciliar church; it accepts a limited religious liberty; etc.), Archbishop Vigano is publicly rejecting what the SSPX has newly accepted.

What all this amounts to, is that Vigano and the SSPX are two ships passing in the night, headed in opposite directions: Vigano is on a rapid trajectory for Tradition, while the SSPX is all but committed to mitigated conciliarism.  

The situation is reminiscent of Archbishop Lefebvre’s response to Cardinal Ratzinger in 1987:

Eminence… you are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them.[3]

In other words, what realistic opportunity is there for any collaboration with Archbishop Vigano?  Like Lefebvre and Ratzinger, Vigano and Pagliarani/Fellay are working in opposite directions.  In all likelihood, were Bishop Lazo alive and converting in 2020, the same disturbing silence regarding his Declaration would be preventing any collaboration between him and the SSPX today.
But with Bishop Huondor (or any other conciliar prelate who accepts the principles of Vatican II), such relational impediments do not exist.

Diplomatic Fly in the Ointment:
Obviously, one does not curry favor in Rome by courting friendships by those who are assailing those same Romans as “apostates.”  If Menzingen has gone “all-in” in selling out to modernist Rome, it is going to be very reluctant to upset the Roman applecart by making any public statements of support for Archbishop Vigano.  And if priority #1 since the death of Lefebvre has been to acquire canonical recognition by the modernists, then Vigano’s conversion to Tradition will simply be chalked up in Menzingen as “unfortunate timing.”  

It is not expedient for the Society’s ambitions to align itself with Vigano, just as it was not expedient for Pilate to align himself with Our Lord:

It is a “safe” and beneficial move for Menzingen to offer Huondor a retirement apostolate (where he can chip away at any latent Lefebvrisms), but Vigano must remain in hiding, and to this point, alone and isolated.

Losing Taste for Tradition:
At this point, one might be excused for wondering whether the SSPX’s branding campaign was a bit too successful for its own good:

If it has characterized the Resistance as “practical sedevacantists” for their rejection of any accord with unconverted Rome, and inculcated in its clergy and faithful a loathing for their rhetoric and “dissidence,” while itself nearly completely relinquishing the doctrinal sword of combat against the innumerable Roman errors and scandals, then words such as those included in Archbishop Vigano’s June 10 Letter might be received by SSPX’ers with resentment, rejection, and confusion:

“Wait.  Isn’t he saying more or less what the Resistance and sedevacantists are saying?  And we are supposed to be against what they say, right?  Even though Lefebvre said the exact same things, right?  But we’re somehow simultaneously FOR Lefebvre.  Got it…I think.”

To read +Vigano address Pope Francis simply as “Bergoglio,” and reject Vatican II at a time when SSPX’ers have been trained (via the hermeneutic) to accept a conservative interpretation of the conciliar docuмents, may very well cause the widespread dismissal of Vigano’s message from SSPX environs.

If such be the case, it would indicate that the branding campaign was a subversive attack against the faith of the Society’s own clergy and people (which is what we have claimed from the beginning).

In 2020, the SSPX at large may actually side with Francis AGAINST the contents of Vigano’s Letter.

Conclusion:
The silence of the SSPX on the recent Letter(s) of Archbishop Vigano are but another indication of just how revolutionary the reorientation of the Society was.  In the early 1990’s, an archbishop en route to integral traditionalism would have been the biggest news in Tradition.  You would have read about it on every SSPX website and blog.  You would have heard sermons about it in the chapels throughout the world.  It would have been received as a tremendous encouragement, and a miracle of grace.  The faithful would be abuzz about it during coffee and donuts after Mass, and you would be reading special editions of The Angelus which tracked the progress of Vigano.

This is how it was when Bishop Lazo converted to Tradition, but today it is a non-event, and Vigano is persona non grata in the SSPX.

But for all that, the ongoing conversion of Vigano is momentous, and he should be encouraged and supported by as many voices from Tradition as possible.  I doubt these words will ever reach his computer screen, but if Your Excellency should ever chance to stumble across them, know that it is only a sign of the deteriorating times that the Society is not championing you. 
 
For us few scattered sheep of Tradition, we welcome you heartily, and thank God for your recent arrival.

---

[1]https://insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-11-june-10-2020-the-root-of-the-problem/
[2]https://web.archive.org/web/20100611183203/http://sspx.org/Bishop_Lazo/bishop_lazos_declaration_of_faith.htm
[3]Tissier de Mallerais, Marcel Lefebvre, p. 548.