He accepts Francis as pope.  He explained in an interview a couple months ago that, because Francis himself does not act like the Vicar of Christ, and seems averse to being called the Vicar of Christ, and acts as though he does not really believe he is the Vicar of Christ, therefore Vigano does not address him with his papal name.

This is something to celebrate, at least for a few days on CI, yet it disappeared from the top read within the same day.

I am curious to see what the conservatives that celebrate every word Cdl Vigano writes (things that any real trad Catholic would say) will say now that he is saying something really advanced.

Excerpts from this latest interview :

I hope the reader will keep in mind that +Vigano is making the following comments to his interviewer who, as a member of the GREC, represents one of the very persons who has promoted the compromise strategy of the Ecclesia Dei communities which +Vigano here criticizes/condemns.  +Vigano is more or less rejecting Barthe's entire position to his face:

1) "Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was one of the collaborators in the drafting of the Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae instauratus promulgated during the pontificate of Pius XII. The serious deformations of the new Missal are in nuce [essentially] contained in the rite of Holy Week, demonstrating that the demolition plan had already begun."

2) "Lastly, I would like to point out that this awareness of the doctrinal incompatibility of the ancient rite with the ideology of Vatican II is claimed by self-styled theologians and progressive intellectuals, for whom the “Extraordinary Form” of the rite can be tolerated as long as the entire theological framework that it implies is not adopted. This is why the liturgy of the Summorum Pontificuм communities is tolerated, provided that in preaching and catechesis one is careful not to criticize Vatican II or the new Mass."

3) Here it is:  "The next Pope will have to restore all the liturgical books previous to the conciliar reform and banish from Catholic churches its unseemly parody, in whose realization notorious modernists and heretics collaborated."

4) "I do not believe that Bergoglio has any interest in the liturgy tout court, and a fortiori in the Tridentine liturgy, which is as alien to him and disliked as anything remotely reminiscent of Catholicism. His approach is political: he tolerates the Ecclesia Dei communities because they keep the conservatives out of the parishes, and at the same time he maintains control over them, forcing them to limit their dissent solely to the liturgical level, while ensuring their fidelity to the conciliar ideology.

With regard to the Society of St. Pius X, we are witnessing a more subtle maneuver: Bergoglio maintains “good neighborly” relations, and while recognizing certain prerogatives of its Superiors — thus demonstrating that he considers them living members of the Church — on the other hand he may want to barter their complete canonical regularization for an acceptance of the “conciliar magisterium.” It is clear that this is an insidious trap: once an agreement is signed with the Holy See, the independence which the Society enjoys in virtue of its position of not being completely regular would be lost, and with it, its economic independence."

5) "The canonical position of the Ecclesia Dei communities has always been at risk. Their survival is linked to their at least implicit acceptance of the conciliar doctrine and liturgical reform. Those who do not conform, by criticizing Vatican II or refusing to celebrate or attend the reformed rite, ipso facto put themselves in a position of being expelled. The superiors of these societies of apostolic life themselves end up being the overseers of their clerics, who are strongly advised to refrain from criticism and to give tangible signs of alignment from time to time, for example, by taking part in celebrations in the “Ordinary Form.” Paradoxically, a diocesan parish priest has greater freedom of speech in doctrinal matters than a member of one of these institutes."

We should be careful. It really isn't worth celebrating until he actually comes over like Bishop Lazo did. Bishop Lazo, RIP, had the humility to start co-operating with the traditional Bishops and publicly associating with them. So far we have not seen that from Bishop Vigano.

It is always telling when Ecclesia Dei people get all worked up about something compared to when they go quiet. The former is an indication that there is something to be suspicious of.

I disagree.  Ideas matter.  Doctrine matters.  Even if he hasn't yet DONE anything, practically speaking, doctrine is everything in terms of combatting these errors.  He's emboldening even those in the Conciliar Church to reject the errors of Vatican II and the NOM.  They can think, "look, even a high-ranking prelate rejects V2 and NOM; maybe it IS OK to have serious questions abou them."  You underestimate the value his doctrine has had.  So what if he doesn't go around conferring Sacraments to Traditional Catholics.  There are plenty of groups out there who already do that.  Of course, there's the thorny issue of his consecration in the New Rite.

So, there's plenty to "celebrate" here.

FWIW, I have an email from +Williamson in which he says he has been in contact with +Viganò.

One of the most astonishing good fruits of +Viganò’s entrance into unmitigated, integral traditionalism has been his surprising draw of the indult crowd.

I thought that when he started saying things like the whole V2 council needs to be dumped, that it would be too much for them, and they would abandon him as de Mattei has.  And yet, he has brought them along with him into a more substantial, doctrinal traditionalism.  Witness the -to me surprising- defenses of Matt, Moynihan, McCall, Marshall, et al, all defending Vigano in what are essentially Resistance and even sedevacantist positions which the neoSSPX has gone quiet on.

I have a theory on why/how these surprising allies became receptive to Vigano, while they would not be converted by substantially the same arguments from Resistance sources, but that is another matter...

Even the sedevacantists seem not to disagree with ANYTHING he is saying.  I see Fr. Jenkins frequently expressing admiration and astonishment for his writings.  And even ordinary lay sedevacantists are generally in agreement with him.  Yes, his episcopal consecration will be an issue for them, but they are watching his steady progress with amazement, and his doctrine is stellar.

He is the good shepherd, and he knows his sheep, and his sheep know him.  They know the voice of truth when they hear it.  His voice is the voice of truth, and truth is the principle of unity which is the cause of all parties of goodwill rallying to his banner.  

He alone had and has the power given to him from above to “unite the clans” without tradcuмenism: He brings conservatives and indulters to the right by the mere force of his arguments.

His adversaries have now also realized this, and they realize the threat he represents therefore to the entire Luciferian edifice (as Lefebvre did before him).

They have begun their counterattacks.

But I see the fruits, and I say this man is a gift from God for the beleaguered Remnant in these latter days: To strengthen and unite us into one final Legion of Catholic warriors who will be capable of looking the devil’s minions in the eye at gunpoint, and with our last breath, yell:

“Viva Cristo Rey!”