Have you stopped to consider WHY they aren't doing this?

Think: what good would it do? What harm could it do?

Why make +Vigano's apostolate any more difficult, for example? Why associate him with certainly politically incorrect subjects, before lots of non-Trad Catholics hear him out? Why scandalize Conciliar Catholics (of all varieties: non-Catholic, liberal, and conservative) that the consecration he received from JP2 is being conditionally re-done?

What purpose would it serve?

At any rate, I personally trust the bishops involved and leave it to their own good judgment. It's not for me, a layman, to beat drums about the issue one way or another. It's certainly not the role of laymen to tell bishops what to do!

That is true in EVERY case, even with regards to the most liberal Novus Ordo bishops. Yes, that might mean the Crisis will continue. But maybe it's MEANT to continue, ever think of that? It's not MY place or position to correct bishops, including the Bishop of Rome. Remember, St. Paul corrected St. Peter to the face "because he was to be blamed" -- but notice that St. Paul was an apostle as well? He wasn't some Joe sixpack who swept the Coliseum. Taking it upon ourselves to overthrow the natural order with the excuse of "solving the Crisis" shows a natural (rather than supernatural) outlook, as if little old Matthew is going to be a hero and solve the Crisis if I could just fraternally correct this Novus bishop. No, perhaps it was God's plan for the Crisis to continue? Hmmm? God certainly didn't expect us to step out of line and talk down to bishops.

Fraternal correction requires that you be the same level, or above, the person being corrected. No one takes correction from an inferior. Might as well not bother! If the situation is TRULY that dire (no superior or equal is correcting him) then you really need to WRITE HIM OFF already. Leave him in God's hands. Pray for him. That's it.

Lastly, in my opinion it's worse to grumble about someone online than it is to tell them right to their face "You're a _____ ______, you know that?" At least when you insult them (contumely) to their face, no one else hears it but the man you're angry at. No damage is done to his authority and reputation. But when you say many more words (even with less swearing) but you grumble to hundreds or thousands of people online -- that's a much worse offense, disrespect, and damage to a man's reputation.

Well put.

SSPV did the same thing by concealing the consecration of Bishop Kelly for a couple of years ... because Bishop Mendez didn't want it know while he was alive due to the blowback he'd receive.

In Communist countries, not only were consecrations done secretly, but the Pope (Pius XI and then Pius XII) even ORDERED that they remain secret ... again, due to the repercussions of the Communists finding out about them.

There's no inherent requirement to have consecrations public ... until the bishops begin to function in public.  How does +Vigano's consecration or lack thereof affect anyone here?  Has he ordained priests for the Resistance or SSPX that might be showing up soon as our local chapel ... or consecrated holy oils that might be used for Last Rites?  Until such a time as he does, it affects none of us, and it's just about either 1) curiosity or 2) some people finding yet other reasons to attack +Vigano (when the first half dozen have been debunked) or 3) the morale boost some might receive by seeing a high profile Conciliar Archbishop defect to the Resistance, and to Traditional Catholicism.

Not to mention, I don't consider this "secret", since evidently Bishop Williamson, Bishop Faure, and Father Chazal have told individuals who asked them.  Unlike the clandestine ones in Communist countries, this is not under complete / absolute secrecy, because they have told people who have asked.  Where's the canonical requirement to post the consecration on Facebook?

Now is NOT the time to remain silent about *religion*! Even conservative non Catholics are looking for someone, ANYONE to rally around. I strongly disagree, if Vigano is the real deal he should be shouting RIGHT NOW from the rooftops and put his trust in God to protect him while we aren’t YET being openly persecuted.

It seems to me that, while conditional sacraments are a big thing for us, people like Bp. Williamson and Abp. Vigano don't give it much importance.

The impression that I have is that it is not a big issue for them.

It's a matter of prudence, the forgotten virtue among some here.  While the armchair warriors here are encouraging some kind of probably meaningless and merely symbolic 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. ...

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).

Well said. 

Now is NOT the time to remain silent about *religion*! Even conservative non Catholics are looking for someone, ANYONE to rally around. I strongly disagree, if Vigano is the real deal he should be shouting RIGHT NOW from the rooftops and put his trust in God to protect him while we aren’t YET being openly persecuted.

Not trying to ad hom but I guess that’s maybe where the sede/non sede difference comes in, is the conciliar church some kind of gray area or is it 100 percent a different religion?  Obviously some Sedes and non Sedes “cross over” in that debate, but I can see why an R and R mindset wouldn’t want to scandalize people with weak faith where learning about the shadow of doubt could completely destroy their faith 

I agree. When you think about it, how many BISHOPS have been conditionally consecrated? It's usually done for conditional ordinations, but this is the first I've heard of for a Bishop. This has huge implications that can easily be misconstrued and cause false perceptions.

Well, I for one think that the current Traditional bishops should offer to conditionally consecrate one another for unity.  We have a lot of division that's based almost entirely on having cast aspersions on the orders of other groups, even when they're otherwise theologically aligned.  Instead of just wagging fingers at the other groups for being invalid, why not just do what charity requires and offer them conditional consecration / ordinations.  If I truly believed that a Catholic group (e.g. CMRI) had doubtful / invalid orders, I would be concerned for the faithful, as opposed to almost reveling in the fact that they have allegedly doubtful orders and would offer them a conditional consecration.

Bishop Williamson said “a shadow of doubt” exists over bishop huonder, I could be wrong, but my best read of that is that he still thinks that he’s a valid bishop, he just isn’t sure.  I can see why, if that’s what he thinks, he would want to do a conditional consecration but only share on a “need to know” basis, he doesn’t want to scandalize people who don’t already have doubts

I have the same perception. And the SSPX is the same.

The problem is that Moral Theology is "clear-cut". If there is positive doubt, then the sacraments are doubtful and receiving them is sinful.

There is not a scale. There either is positive doubt or there is not.

If Bp. Williamson agreed to conditionally consecrate Abp. Vigano, then it is because he believes that there is a positive doubt there. Otherwise, he would be commiting a sin. 

This is my understanding anyway. I don't mean to accuse anybody. I just don't get this logic of "shadows". I have never read about "shadows" in Moral Theology.