CathInfo.com

Isn’t it a little absurd to expect Vigano to presume to correct SSPXers and Resistance clergy and bishops on Lefebvre’s position on sedevacantism?

Should Vigano need to look any further than the official policy in place for the last 40 years, which precludes sedevacantism ad infra?

In any case, we may know soon enough, since I emailed Vigano Bishop Thomas Aquinas’s letter.

Is emailing Vigano that easy?  Is his email address public knowledge?  Maybe this explains why he has written so many letters in the last couple of weeks.

Ideally, if Vigano is serious about waking up the billions of novus ordo sheeple, the last thing on his agenda would be to spend time on the petty arguments of traditionalists and on what +ABL did or didn't mean.  What matters is the hear and now.  If Vigano comes out tomorrow and says that Francis isn't the pope, this has nothing to do with +ABL's comments, because he was dead before Francis was even elected.  So the debate will rage on, endlessly.  There's so many bigger fish to fry.

Exactly.  It's absurd to attempt to inject that controversy into Viagano's awakening process.  Bishop Thomas Aquinas seems to oppose Modernism with Sedevacantism, implying that they're almost equal-but-opposite errors.  It's like taking a person who's just converting to Traditional Catholicism and then immediately to start hitting him in the face with different camps vying for whether the person should become R&R or sedevacantist.  If nothing else, that'll just turn them off to the entire thing and confuse them.  It's almost like Thomas Aquinas is trying to immediately win him over to the Resistance camp before he's even necessarily finished his own awakening process.

I would object just as much if Father Jenkins had written him and started promoting the SSPV and trying to explain why the SSPX are no good.
There was no place for that in this letter.

Just thank him for the June 9 letter, encourage him in the conclusions that were on the mark, and let him work it out gradually over time.  I honestly don't care where he ends up ultimately, as long as he holds fast to the principles articulated in his June 9th letter.  What I'm hoping for is that he somehow puts them into action ... whether he becomes sedevacantist (ala Bellarmine) or starts a movement in the NO to ministerially depose Francis (ala Cajetan and John of St. Thomas).

I think you are upset that Bishop Thomas restated Lefebvre’s position to Vigano, as it hurts your hopes the latter would go sede.  But there never really were any hopes Vigano was going in that direction anyway.  The fact that he refers to Francis as Bergoglio is a human failing stemming from personal indignation, nor the indication of sedevacantist leanings you were hoping for.

An alternate explanation exists for Vigano's calling Bergoglio that name, an explanation related neither to indignation nor sede leanings.
He may be aware of the election of Siri to the papacy in the 1958 conclave, his acceptance, his taking the name Pope Gregory XVII, the outside message from Bnai Brith threatening to kill all hierarchy behind the Iron Curtain, his "resignation" which was invalid according to Canon Law.
Vigano may be aware of the successors to Pope Gregory XVII who are in hiding. Vigano may be aware that since 1958 the true Catholic Church has been underground and the apostate anti-Church has been in the hands of Freemasons/ Communists/Satanists.
Vigano may be aware that the Church founded by Jesus Christ has been in ECLIPSE since 1958 and the Church has been under the reign of the anti-christ.

https://whitesmoke1958.com

theimmaculateheart.com/gregoryXVII.htm