The Conditional Consecration of +Carlo Maria Vigano

Definitive Proof from +Williamson

+Williamson and +Vigano: Vested after Conditional Consecration

Introduction:

In November 2023, Fr. Francois Chazal gave a Resistance conference in England in which he responded to a question from one of the faithful regarding concerns about the questionably valid episcopal consecration of Archbishop Vigano (having been consecrated in 1992 by John Paul II in the new 1968 rite of Paul VI), stating obliquely of +Vigano that, “he has done the necessary,” before moving on to other topics. From there, the statement caught fire and news of the conditional consecration spread over the internet, but without any confirmation from either +Williamson or +Vigano.

From that time, the world awaited a declaration (or at least an acknowledgement) from either +Williamson or +Vigano that in fact the conditional episcopal consecration had taken place, and for good reason: The Resistance had vigorously opposed the incorporation of Bishop Vitus Huonder into the sacramental life of the SSPX not only because he was sent by Bergoglio to facilitate the incremental absorption of the SSPX into the conciliar church, but more than this, because having himself been ordained and consecrated in the new doubtful 1968 rites, a shadow would hang over all the sacraments he conferred which required valid ordination or episcopal consecration. How then could the Resistance itself collaborate with a bishop who himself labored under suspicion of invalid episcopal consecration?

Moreover, in this YouTube short, +Sanborn stated what most of us were thinking:

Nevertheless, in January 2025, +Williamson would suffer a cerebral hemorrhage and pass away without ever having confirmed or denied the fact of the conditional consecration of +Vigano publicly. At that point, the matter became more problematic, because now, even were +Vigano to come out publicly and affirm the fact of the consecration, in the absence of pictures and/or videos of the consecration, the world would be placed in the undesirable position of having to take his word for it.

The consecrator having died, and the consecrated -already 85 years-old- manifesting no intention of affirming the fact of the consecration, the church would therefore be deprived of prima facie proof of the event, historically significant because of its value in testifying to the questionable validity of the new rite: If even the formerly 11th highest ranking official in the conciliar church questions the validity of the rite by which he was consecrated to govern it, the fact becomes a powerful argument for the scholars and ecclesiastical historians of posterity in seeking to oppose and correct the wayward course of the church since Vatican II. Moreover, the example of +Vigano’s conditional consecration, precisely because of his eminence in the church, is a powerful example for the conversion of the confused conciliar masses today.

The Proof of Conditional Consecration:

Therefore, it was precisely to prevent against the possibility that both prelates might pass from this world without ever acknowledging in the public forum the fact of the consecration, that I reached out to +Vigano on November 8, 2023 thusly:

“On Wednesday, November 8th, 2023 at 2:51 PM, Sean Johnson <Sean_J-5472@protonmail.com> wrote:

Greetings Your Excellency-

I was reliably informed a couple months ago that Your Excellency had been conditionally consecrated (and ordained)¹ in the old rite.

Some thought that information should be kept private, lest those Your Excellency might otherwise influence who are still trapped in the conciliar church consider it a “step too far,” and Your Excellency lose the moral influence over them he might otherwise exert.

Others perhaps think that, whatever the truth of the above statement might be, nevertheless, Your Excellency’s stature would rise amongst those traditionalists desperately in need of leadership, but who are skeptical regarding the authenticity or completeness of Your Excellency’s conversion to Tradition.

If perhaps it is not my place to ask such a question, might I nevertheless inquire whether Your Excellency has any plans to reveal this information?

I will not be offended, and would understand, if Your Excellency chose not to respond

Semper Idem,

Sean Johnson

USA

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

Having received no response from His Excellency, I wrote to him again on December 10:

From: Sean Johnson <Sean_J-5472@protonmail.com>
Date: On Sunday, December 10th, 2023 at 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: Conditional ordination and consecration

Greetings Your Excellency-

Wonderful news that Your Excellency is opening a seminary!

A consideration:

Almost nobody knows about Your Excellency’s recent conditional ordination/consecration² (outside a very small circle of Resistance clergy and laity), but one of the criticisms being voiced on the internet blogs/forums regarding Your Excellency’s recently announced plan to form and ordain traditional priests centers upon this very point:

Regardless of the disputed validity or invalidity of the new rites of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination, almost no Resistance (or sedevacantist) candidates would attend such a seminary, as the doubt (however great or small) will certainly dissuade any such candidates from entering, since all know the Church teaches us that, as regards sacramental validity, we must take a tutiorist/rigorist position, and therefore even small doubts preclude such collaboration.

Ultimately, this would mean that only diocesan and Ecclesia Dei-oriented candidates (who harbor no such doubts about the new rites of 1968) would consider such a seminary, which in turn would make your seminary but another Fraternity of St. Peter/indult-style seminary (e.g., Who among them could attribute error to Vatican II in se, if they cannot even bring themselves to attribute doubt to “legally promulgated” rites, much less a universally recognized papal claimant?).

All this said, if Your Excellency’s goal is to simply bring conservatives a bit further toward integral Tradition, then the secrecy regarding Your Excellency’s conditional consecration is moot (since for conservatives, it is not an issue). But if Your Excellency desires to attract fully traditional seminary candidates as might be found amongst the families attached to the Dominicans of Avrille (France), the Benedictines of Santa Cruz Monastery (Brazil), the various Resistance chapels around the world, and even some in the SSPX who have not yet been conditioned to accept the questionable ministry of +Huonder, then this would certainly become a stumbling block for most.

So it seems that one way or the other, Your Excellency stands to risk losing support by announcing or not announcing your conditional consecration.

That being the case, the real question becomes: Who’s support and orientation does Your Excellency most wish to support and promote?

I fully understand I have no rite to an answer to such questions, but only desire make Your Excellency aware of the public discussion now taking place in some quarters surrounding this question. God bless Your Excellency, and thank you especially for your excellent writings!

Semper Idem,

Sean Johnson

On December 14, I forwarded this email to Bishop Williamson, and received the “money shot” response from him that you are all waiting for on the same day [I attach it here not as a copy/paste, but as a screenshot, in order that the authenticity of such an important matter cannot be questioned]:

And there it is: A clear and unequivocal statement by +Williamson that he conditionally consecrated +Vigano.³

But Why the Wait, and Why Divulge Now?

In other correspondences with +Williamson (and +Faure), I had argued that the fact of the consecration should be made public, largely for the reasons already mentioned, adding that while I understood the strategic reasons originally adduced for keeping it secret (e.g., revealing the matter in 2023 would serve to further isolate +Vigano, who was making some headway, and reaching people because of his former stature in the conciliar Church, and now having come over fully to Tradition), by late 2023 the concern about isolation was becoming less persuasive: He’d recently been cancelled by Michael Matt from The Remnant, banned from the CIC, and blackballed by most of Trad Inc. The isolation was taking place because +Vigano had publicly rejected the legitimacy of Bergoglio as Pope. Then in July, Cardinal Fernandez would declare +Vigano excommunicated from the conciliar church.

The concern about isolation seemed no longer to remain, in the wake of the “excommunication,” which in the eyes of any formerly sympathetic conciliarists had now already accomplished that unfortunate task.

Perceiving this, I reached out to +Williamson a few days after the excommunication and again broached the matter of revealing the fact of the conditional consecration, there now seeming to be no legitimate concern regarding isolation or impacting His Excellency’s influence amongst conciliarists.

This is that exchange:

On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 at 02:03, Sean Johnson <Sean_J-5472@protonmail.com> wrote:

Greetings Your Lordship-

It is somewhat perplexing that even after the “excommunication” of Archbishop Vigano, he still has not told the world that Your Lordship conditionally consecrated him last year.

Two questions in this regard:

1. Does Your Lordship have any idea why +Vigano is reluctant to reveal a fact which would only serve to enhance his status among traditionalists?

1. As it would be a shame if this historically significant consecration were never publicly verified by Your Lordship or +Vigano, may I ask Your Lordship whether he would at least provide me with a date, location, and names of witnesses attending, in order that at least a written record will survive?

Semper Idem,

Sean Johnson

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

What follows is another screenshot of +Williamson’s response:

Unfortunately, His Lordship would pass away only 6 months later, and the requested date of the consecration, location, and names of witnesses never came. Nevertheless, what is provided reaffirms the bishop’s earlier attestation of the fact of the conditional consecration, as he was considering providing me the additional details.

In any case, we have a disagreement regarding the reason adduced for maintaining the secrecy, even in the wake of an “excommunication,” for the isolation was already as pronounced as it could be. What more could divulging the consecration do to isolate an “excommunicate?” And as for the concern +Williamson expressed in the screenshot regarding the conciliarists who followed Vigano, how they could continue to be influenced by an “excommunicate” but scared away by a conditional consecration is not clear to me.

All in all, the reasons for maintaining secrecy seem to have become, by the passage of time, obsolete.

Lessons from the Clandestine Resistance Consecrations:

Shortly before the +Vigano conditional consecration, and at the height of the COVID19 farce, +Williamson performed three episcopal consecrations of resistance priests to provide for the needs of the faithful amidst the very real concerns of travel restrictions and global lockdowns. The consecrations were performed “in pectore” (a term which means “close to the heart” and references things done secretly), and for two years, the world was unaware that Fathers Ballini, Stobniki, and Morgan had been consecrated bishops.

But foreseeing the doubt which would be cast upon the fact of these consecrations should +Williamson die without ever publicizing the matter, and that such doubt would frustrate the very reason for which the consecrations were undertaken in the first place (as the Resistance faithful would shun a doubtfully consecrated Resistance bishop every bit as much as a +Huonder), one of the three announced his intention, in private correspondence, to reveal the consecration while +Williamson was yet alive. To that point, +Williamson had resisted, as he was aware of contention between the secret bishops and some of the other Resistance clergy. But ultimately, he would announce the fact of the consecrations in late 2022, and save the Resistance the turmoil which would ensue had he passed without publicizing the matter.

The same would seem to hold true in the case of +Vigano: He has a seminary. He performs priestly ordinations. He confers confirmations. There are men with vocations considering where to go for formation who need to know whether this man is certainly a bishop.

Conclusion:

In the history of the Church, clandestine consecrations (e.g., behind the Iron Curtain, etc.) were always later publicized once the conditions or circumstances which necessitated the secrecy changed or disappeared, and this for the peace and unity of the Church. So too should it be in the case of +Vigano:

The fear of isolation, and/or alienating the semi-conciliar portion of his faithful, especially in the wake of the far more serious matter of “excommunication” (at least in their eyes) having now become irrelevant, it would seem the same ought to apply here. Adding to this the great value his personal example gives to the faithful, the value and lesson it gives for posterity and the scholarly debate regarding the questionable validity of the 1968 rite of episcopal consecration (which must at some point be addressed before the Church crisis can be healed), and there seemed to be no more convincing reason to maintain the secrecy.

Neither can it be maintained that such a revelation would deprive the faithful formerly ministered to by +Vigano of peace of soul, for fear of having received doubtful sacraments: The validity of +Vigano’s priesthood has never been in question, and therefore neither have his confessions, marriages, or Masses/Communions. As regards any past confirmations, although an exceedingly valuable sacrament, especially in these apostate times, it is nevertheless not strictly necessary for salvation. And of course baptisms require no Orders at all. As regards past priestly ordinations, we want those ordained in the new rite to question and resolve the matter of their Orders, for the good of the Church and the faithful they minister to (but having sepnt most of his episcopal career in the diplomatic corps of the Vatican, did he even ever perform any before his conditional consecration?). And finally, as regards these latter (i.e., conciliar faithful), if their ignorance regarding the doubtful new rites is practically invulnerable, then how could learning +Vigano has been conditionally consecrated, and/or that the priests formerly ordained by him (if there are any) might not have been validly ordained cause them any anxiety, when they reject our concerns about the new rites out of hand as radical nonsense?

Therefore, for all these reasons, and that all might have certitude in the matter, I have published +Williamson’s explicit affirmation of the fact of the conditional consecration of +Vigano.

1. There was some confusion at the time as to whether both ordination and consecration had been conditionally performed, because of the imprecise intermingling of the terms “consecration” and “ordination” swirling on the internet.

2. See footnote 1, above.

3. The fact of the contents of this email screenshot are incontestable: The email address is still my current personal email address, and any whom have ever written to +Williamson will likewise recognize the address shown as His Lordships former personal email address. The date stamp is included.