Vigano is a consolation to those of us who have been betrayed.

This is my post:

On the first paragraph I affirm that the existing Sedevacantist groups will become weaker, if a stronger Sedevacantist leader emerges. Then I comment that Traditionalists groups tend to have rivalries. This is something pretty obvious.

The "clan mentality" criticism is aimed specially at the clergy, since, as Abp. Lefebvre said, those who are in the top influence those who are in the bottom, and not the other way around.

I sincerely think that we have way too much anathemas going on on Tradieland, and this is not helping anybody. If somebody is offended by this opinion, clergy or laity, I am sincerely not sorry.

On the second paragraph I share my opinion on why some (or most) Traditionalists don't take Abp. Vigano very seriously.

I really don't understand how this post is taking the thread to the wrong direction or encouraging people to bash one another.

In my opinion he is following the Dominican line about how a heretical pope is dealt with. More in line with what you would read from the Dominicans of Avrille, Fr. Chazal, earlier writings of +Bp Tissier de Mallarier before he fell silent in the wake of SSPX compromise.

Fr. Wathen from his book: Who Shall Ascend?

Fr Wathen repeatedly said that JP2 was a heretic and not a true pope.  But Fr still recognized the office, in a temporal way.  This is exactly what +Vigano is saying (so far).

People like to place Fr Wathen in the anti-sedevacant camp, but he was only opposed to dogmatic sedevacantism (i.e. his feud with the Diamond Bros, as an example, because he disagreed with their constant anathemas against 99% of the Trad population.  They disagreed with his view that the V2 popes could be heretics but still hold office.)

Fr wrote openly in his final years (see the book, "I Know Mine and Mine Know Me"), where if a sedevacantist chapel is your only means of the Mass, you must attend.  The only exceptions were if a priest demanded assent to some "sede doctrine" in exchange for the sacraments.  Then, you were not obliged to go.  He said this many, many times over the years.

Fr was a sede-privationist, if a label must be applied.

"...There have developed in the post conciliar era, 2 major errors both of which in my mind are escapisms from these hard truths they are what, on the one had, the "conservatives" have developed in order to justify their position, and on the other what certain traditionalists have developed in order that they can have a free hand in the Church.
The first is what I call popolatry which is the worship of the pope instead of God. The second is sedevacantism, which is their ruling out the legitimacy of pope John Paul II.
Popolatry is that heresy whereby we are to say that anything the pope says or commands we are bound to believe and accept it, even if we have grave misgivings. [...] Sedevacantism is a most malevolent error among traditionalists, I get the idea that it is spreading like a fire, or maybe like some kind of disease..." 

No, he’s not slipping, he’s actually facing reality and making logical conclusions which you obstinately (and pertinaciously) disregard, out of hand, due to your preconceived irrational bias.

Stubborn, you’re reacting against the term (sede-privationist), and ignoring the explanation. 

I really think you should read Fr Chazal’s book.  He too, is opposed to the “sede” label, but his explanation is very similar to Fr Wathen’s. 

In Fr Wathen’s day, the only sedevacantists we’re pretty dogmatic about it.  That’s what he was opposed to.  But his explanation of the crisis is VERY similar to Fr Chazal’s view (which he would clarify as some form of R&R). 

Call it whatever you want.  The principles are the same.  Don’t get caught up in the label.  Please read the book and let us know what you think.