https://tinyurl.com/37t8ewmj

Fixed the link for you Incred.  I agree that , although "old news", this [as well as Vigano's previous letter to a rabbi], has never been sufficiently resolved.  He seems solid regarding the Faith in many other ways, but this still bothers me.

I don't understand this comment.  He most certainly has COMPLETELY rejected V2 (along with Ecuмenism and a whole slough of errors in V2 that he called out very articulately).  He did this a couple years ago in his response to Bishop Schneider after +Schneider had argued that V2 merely needed to be corrected.  +Vigano responded by saying that it's radically defective, called out all the errors, and argued that it needs to be thrown out and cannot be rescued with some corrections.  So what do you mean by rejecting ecuмenism and V2 completely?

This allegation that he participated in some "ecuмenical prayer service" is nonsense.  He merely gave a video speech to the crowd there and did not participate in any common prayer with anyone.  One might quibble about things as Novus Ordo Watch did in its hit piece, like about how he addressed the crowd as "brothers and sisters," but there's a natural sense in which all human beings are brothers and sisters.  In his aforementioned repudiation of V2, he specifically called out ecuмenism and religious indifferentism and he closed the letter with a citation of the Church's dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church.

https://www.catholicity.com/vigano/2020-06-09.html

Here's how he closes the letter:
This doesn't seem particularly ecuмenical to me.

Quote Together with numerous Council Fathers, we thought of ecuмenism as a process, an invitation that calls dissidents to the one Church of Christ, idolaters and pagans to the one True God, and the Jєωιѕн people to the promised Messiah. But from the moment it was theorized in the conciliar commissions, ecuмenism was configured in a way that was in direct opposition to the doctrine previously expressed by the Magisterium.
We have thought that certain excesses were only an exaggeration of those who allowed themselves to be swept up in enthusiasm for novelty; we sincerely believed that seeing John Paul II surrounded by charmers-healers, buddhist monks, imams, rabbis, protestant pastors and other heretics gave proof of the Church’s ability to summon people together in order to ask God for peace, while the authoritative example of this action initiated a deviant succession of pantheons that were more or less official, even to the point of seeing Bishops carrying the unclean idol of the pachamama on their shoulders, sacrilegiously concealed under the pretext of being a representation of sacred motherhood.
But if the image of an infernal divinity was able to enter into Saint Peter’s, this is part of a cresecendo which the other side foresaw from the beginning. Numerous practicing Catholics, and perhaps also a majority of Catholic clergy, are today convinced that the Catholic Faith is no longer necessary for eternal salvation; they believe that the One and Triune God revealed to our fathers is the same as the god of Mohammed. Already twenty years ago we heard this repeated from pulpits and episcopal cathedrae, but recently we hear it being affirmed with emphasis even from the highest Throne.
We know well that, invoking the saying in Scripture Littera enim occidit, spiritus autem vivificat [The letter brings death, but the spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6)], the progressives and modernists astutely knew how to hide equivocal expressions in the conciliar texts, which at the time appeared harmless to most but that today are revealed in their subversive value. It is the method employed in the use of the phrase subsistit in: saying a half-truth not so much as not to offend the interlocutor (assuming that is licit to silence the truth of God out of respect for His creature), but with the intention of being able to use the half-error that would be instantly dispelled if the entire truth were proclaimed. Thus “Ecclesia Christi subsistit in Ecclesia Catholica” does not specify the identity of the two, but the subsistence of one in the other and, for consistency, also in other churches: here is the opening to interconfessional celebrations, ecuмenical prayers, and the inevitable end of any need for the Church in the order of salvation, in her unicity, and in her missionary nature.
(“Abp.” Carlo Maria Viganò, Letter of June 9, 2020; printed in full at Life Site; italics given; underlining added.)

Oh stop with the "hit piece" verbiage.  Your hatred of NOW blinds you.

Utter nonsense.  I have no "hatred of NOW".  I like some of what they write and have posted some of their stuff.

PV, are Jєωs, Protestants, and Orthodox "children of Light" or "soldiers in God's Army" or "citizens of Heaven"?