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.

There's a bit of gray area there.  I know of one priest who was conditionally ordained mostly so that the faithful would be at peace ... even though he said that he himself did not have any positive doubt.  There could be some wiggle room for a difference between the subjective and the objective.  Just because I am personally convinced there's no doubt doesn't mean that others might not have reasonable positive doubts ... since the Church has not resolved the issue.  I think that's OK, and since the Sacrament is conferred conditionally, "If you have not been ordained to the priesthood, ..." (or whatever the exact words are, not sure), there's no actual sacrilege due to some repetition of the Sacrament.  I've never understood why there would be a sacrilege in performing a CONDITIONAL, since there's no repetition of the Sacrament if the prior Sacrament was valid.  And given the uncertainty and confusion of our days, I think that conditionals would be widely justified these days.  We're not dealing with a PURELY negative doubt such as, "What if the priest botched my Baptism when I was an infant, getting the form wrong?"  There's something positive, real, and concrete going on here.

Also, a long-time position of SSPX was somewhat subjection, whether the Sacrament could be valid or invalid due to a defective / Modernist intention on the part of the bishop/priest (since the rite itself was ambiguous).

Dear Ladislaus,
Does this mean that because "it just barely rises above the level of negative doubt"; therefore, it follows that an objective positive doubt exists?

I should think so, because positive doubt if required for conditionally conferring a Sacrament, and at one point Sean Johnson cited a docuмent that indicated the doubt must be reasonable, and I think that the reasonableness of a positive doubt might be where there could be degrees involved.  Purely Negative:  "What if the priest messed up the form at my Baptism?", where you have nothing positive or concrete to point to.  We can all point to the fact that the Conciliar Church changed the forms of the Sacraments in very novel ways as a positive thing, concrete, real (not just imagined "What ifs?"), but one person might say, "ah, the changes don't amount to much", whereas another might say "they're almost certainly invalid".  So there's a bit of a dispute, and lack of the Church weighing in on the matter, where ultimately:  Who says which opinion is objectively correct about whether there's a doubt?

Well, here’s an interesting technical/canonical point:

If there was a positive doubt about Abp. Vigano’s consecration then why didn’t he approach the Catholic hierarchy for any conditional consecration?

If his original consecration was invalid, then he’s just been consecrated a bishop without a papal mandate. Has he not just, ipso facto, excommunicated himself?

Excommunicated from the Bergoglian consiliar church I suppose. Not the true Church

No respect of persons does not come into play with fraternal correction?

No, excommunicated by operation of the law.

Give it a rest.  Canon Law all has as its end a well-ordered Church and is intended to reflect the normal operation of the Church in normal times, having for its ultimate end the salvation of souls (suprema lex salus animarum).  We have the Catholic faith under active assault by the Antipopes and Usurpers, so the legal prohibition against bishops consecrating without papal mandate does not apply, and of course, if Jorge's not the pope ... and he isn't ... there's no pope to seek permission from anyway.

+Lefebvre:

“I should be very happy to be excommunicated from this Conciliar Church… It is a Church that I do not recognize. I belong to the Catholic Church.” (Interview July 30 1976, published in Minute, no. 747)

“We have never wished to belong to this system that calls itself the Conciliar Church. To be excommunicated by a decree of your eminence…would be the irrefutable proof that we do not. We ask for nothing better than to be declared ex communione…excluded from impious communion with infidels.” (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988, signed by 24 leading SSPX priests, doubtless with Archbishop Lefebvre’s approval)

Everyone needs to understand that Canon Law is a second millennium development. One speaks of canons of the early Church councils, but this is not the same as Canon Law. Prior to the singular Code of 1917, there was the Corpus which was a jumble of universal and local, sometimes contradictory ecclesiastical laws. This situation existed for centuries.

Why bring this up?

Don't throw canons around without knowing the history and the jurispredunce around Canon Law. It operates quite differently than the English Common and Statuary Law to which most in Anglophone lands are accustomed.

Bp. Williamson should have strong doubts about Consiliar sacraments, or the "Bastard sacraments" as Bp. Tissier de Mallerie used to call them.  After some study, Pope Leo XIII's papal periti determined that Anglican sacraments were invalid and Bp. Williamson has lectured on that.

The purpose of the conditional consecration was to make Vigano appear less defective in his Orders. 
A repentant Consiliar church archbishop doesn't cut it in the trad world.
He needs to upgrade, to become a real trad cleric to pass the "Catholic resistance leader" certifications, which he's being "positioned" for. 

+W knows that his claim that Vigano is "The heir to the light of the Truth" i.e., +ABL's heir,  would not hold water unless Vigano became trad kosher.

My only question is, why did Vigano seek conditional consecration from Bp. Williamson and Faure? 
Why not another group of traditional Catholic Bishops?   

BTW do we have photos of this consecration or is it all too secret? 
Oh yeah, but I forgot... maybe Bergy, the Jєωs and Opus Dei would get mad and murder them?

Maybe because no one else would do it?  Probably for different reasons.

No respect of persons does not come into play with fraternal correction?

I'm going to have to correct YOU on this one --

Fraternal correction has nothing to do with HUMAN RESPECT or RESPECT OF PERSONS.

That quote you're referencing "respecter of persons" is referring to GOD. Yes, to God we're all a bunch of ants. We are ALL beneath Him. The highest king and the lowliest homeless man. God will judge the highest king and the lowliest peasant, because He is "not a respecter of persons".

We, however, are subject to authority. An authority put over us BY GOD and we are commanded to respect the "persons" who are put above us. Not all men are equal, nor are they created equal. They are only equal IN THEIR IMMORTAL SOULS, BEFORE GOD. Men are clearly NOT equal on this earth: neither in wealth, nor talent, nor ability, nor status, nor power.

Having zero "human respect" is a goal for all Catholics.
Tearing down all human authority, rank, and position, as if we would pretend to emulate God, Who is above all -- that would be insubordinate nonsense.


With regards to "Fraternal Correction" just look at the words themselves: correcting a brother. That implies an EQUAL, not a SUPERIOR. It's not "Paternal Correction" or "Royal Correction" because (for starters) that simply wouldn't work 99,999 times out of 100,000.

Getting someone to listen to your fraternal correction is hard enough. Imagine correcting your superior! It's simply not your place. Pray for him, write him off, and move on. That would be the Catholic advice I believe. Can you produce something which contradicts this?