I don’t know what makes me happier:

The fact that Vigano is so unapologetic, or the fact that he used my tactic (ie., accusing de Mattei of projecting)!

It certainly DOES seem bizarre and unlike Mattei to have written such a thing.

Was it a request from Menzingen?

"There is no ghost writer," Viganò insists, "By the grace of God I am still in full possession of my faculties, I am not manipulated by anyone and I am absolutely determined to continue my apostolic mission for the salvation of souls.”

Given the other discussion the bolded caught my attention. Does Vigano have Ordinary Jurisdiction?

I actually think he does ... though not over any territory ... since he remains a Titular Bishop.  Of course, there's the problem of his having been consecrated in the New Rite by Wojtyla.

I don't think a Titular Bishop has OJ.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia under "Auxiliary Bishop:"

"According to the present ecclesiastical discipline no bishop can be consecrated without title to a certain and distinct diocese which he governs either actually or potentially. Actual government requires residence, potential does not. Hence, there are two principal classes of bishops, the residential, or diocesan or, local, or ordinary; and the non-residential, or titular. Diocesan bishops have and exercise (de jure) full power of order and jurisdiction, in and over the diocese committed to their exclusive care by the pope. Titulars, as such, have not, and do not exercise, power of order and jurisdiction, in and over their titular sees. All actual jurisdiction in titular sees the pope reserves to himself, and exercises through the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda. The jurisdiction of a diocesan is ordinary. Should a titular perform a jurisdictional function, he uses delegated jurisdiction."

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02145b.htm

DELETE

In other times, de Mattei would have been proud to be at my side in the common battle for Catholic truth, for the defense of the immutable Magisterium and of the venerable Traditional Liturgy against the assaults of the Modernists. He would have probably also been at my side in denouncing the pandemic fraud and the intrinsic immorality of experimental ναccιnєs produced with fetal material derived from abortions.

His recent interventions – published with his own name or under a pseudonym – have demonstrated, not without heartfelt sorrow, that if there is a “double” it must be sought in the recent writings of the Professor; writings that seem to be composed by a dull regime official who is obedient to the mainstream narrative, and not by the sharp mind and genuine faith of the de Mattei I once knew. Quantum mutatus ab illo.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
June 22, 2021
S. Paulini, Episcopi et Confessor

Some speculative comments -nothing more- upon the two bolded passages:

1) "In other times..."

What is different about de Mattei today, compared to, say, 2012?

Well, if one were to do a Google search of the terms "SSPX.org de Mattei," the results will produce a heavy dose of SSPX-sponsored articles written by de Mattei, but almost none of them from before 2012.

In other words, one does not find much on SSPX websites (or Google generally) evincing the mutual admiration between the SSPX and de Mattei from prior to Bishop Fellay's ʀɛʋօʟutιօn and reorientation of the SSPX, placing it upon a trajectory of "reconciliation" with unconverted Rome.

Is, therefore, the relationship between the SSPX and de Mattei cemented by their mutual desire to bring the SSPX into conciliarism?

And if that is the case, might it shed some light upon de Mattei's aberrant comments regarding the writings and positions of Archbishop Vigano (positions which are nearly identical to Archbishop Lefebvre, but which, precisely because of that similarity, threaten the basis of the SSPX-Mattei relationship: A practical accord with unconverted Rome)?

Maybe; maybe not.


2) "...writings that seem to be composed by a dull regime official who is obedient to the mainstream narrative..."

Who might be the dull regime offficial in question?

Rome's strategy has been to completely ignore +Vigano, even going back to his expose on Cardinal McCarrick in 2018.  Why would Rome suddenly start responding to +Vigano (and through a non-official intermediary like de Mattei)?

I think we must look elsewhere for the "dull regime official" alluded to by +Vigano.

Who, for example, might have an interest in discrediting him?  Whom could he oppose as a rival?  Who might be poised for largescale defections by hearing an illustrious prelate speak like Archbishop Lefebvre used to (particularly when Society faithful have been starved for 10 years by non-combative, branded, diplomatic, non-confrontational sermons)?

To ask the question is to answer it.

As the SSPX dissolves itself into conservative conciliarism and milktoast, conciliatory sermons, the stature of +Vigano increases.  He is drawing an increased respect not just from starved SSPXers, but also from the Resistance (both branches), conservative Novus Ordo Catholics, sedevacantists, and indultarians:

At a time when Francis appears ready to constrict access to the true Mass, and place the SSPX in control via personal prelature of all "traditionalists" (conciliar ones, anyway), the providential emergence of +Vigano threatens to topple the entire enterprise, by having the faithful jump ship to his brand of real "Lefebvreism."

Rome would capture only empty churches, while the SSPX would come into conciliarism with empty hands.

If some will say my speculations are irresponsible, they are certainly less eggregious than Mattei's (which are now proven factually false).  Mine remain at least plausible.

But they remain just speculations, not accusations.

When comments as sudden and aberrational as de Mattei's explode out of nowhere, one looks for causes.

Right or wrong, this is the best I can do to make sense of seeming nonsense.

The SSPX is certainly "obedient to the mainstream narrative" (and not only on abortive ναccιnєs, but also with regard to the "need" for a deal with modernist Rome).

Some declassified CIA docuмents revealing that the counterfeit Catholic organisation Tradition, Family, Property, (TFP) has a history of pimping itself to the CIA and the cause of U.S. Liberalism. According to the official biography, the founder of the organisation was formed in his youth primarily by his Great Uncle. But the biographer, the historian Roberto de Mattei, somehow forgot to mention that the Great Uncle in question was a Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Brazil. TFP lobbied the U.S. government (https://www.nationalreview.com/2004/09/note-congress-nro-primary-docuмent/), alongside other leading Neo-Cons, in support of the tyrannical ραƚɾισt Act, and Roberto de Mattei, himself, attended Iraq War planning meetings alongside Donald Rumsfeld in the Pentagon.
TFP-CIA 1975   TFP-CIA 1986

Secretary Rumsfeld hosts a meeting with Italian Deputy Prime Minister Gianfranco Fini in the Pentagon.  

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld (center, left) hosts a meeting with Italian Deputy Prime Minister Gianfranco Fini (2nd from right) in the Pentagon on April 27, 2004, to discuss a range of issues relating to the global war on terrorism and the Coalition's efforts to bring order and security to Iraq. Participants in the meeting include (clockwise from the left foreground): Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Special Plans William Luti, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace, U.S. Marine Corps, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Mira Ricardel, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Policy Ian Brzezinski, Counselor at the Italian Embassy Aldo Amati, Chief of Staff to the Deputy Prime Minister Proietti-Cosimi, Chief of the Cabinet Counselor Salvator Sfrecola, Italy's Ambassador to the U.S. Sergio Vento; Deputy Prime Minister Gianfranco Fini, and Counselor for International affairs Professor Roberto De Mattei.

source

If this is the same Roberto de Mattei, why is he at this meeting?