CathInfo.com

You read what you wanted to see, not what was written.  He never used the word "teaching" or "heresy" in reference to V2, in his letter.  Instead, he used words like "theorized", "doctrinal errors" (i.e. which is not heresy), "doctrinal deviations".  I think he chose his words carefully, because even though he's an archbishop, he still doesn't have the authority (neither do you or I) to declare that V2 "taught" heresy.  And really, it doesn't matter if it did or not.  He says that V2 should be discarded into the historical trash can of anti-Catholic errors.  That's good enough for now.  Paul VI's status as pope is tarnished already; if the future church declares him an anti-pope, that will not fix our present crisis.  A condemnation of V2 is what is important now - to bring as many LIVING people to the Truth.  Paul VI is water under the bridge when speaking of the hear and now.

He said:

I read with great interest the essay of His Excellency Athanasius Schneider published on LifeSiteNews on June 1, subsequently translated into Italian by Chiesa e post concilio, entitled There is no divine positive will or natural right to the diversity of religions. His Excellency’s study summarizes, with the clarity that distinguishes the words of those who speak according to Christ, the objections against the presumed legitimacy of the exercise of religious freedom that the Second Vatican Council theorized, contradicting the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium which is the faithful guardian of both.

The Second Vatican Council "theorized, contradicting the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium which is the faithful guardian of both." 

You might have an aversion to the word "duck," but if you describe a duck avoiding the word you're still talking about a duck. 

Something which "contradicts the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium" is a major problem in an ecuмenical council approved by a pope, as I, Lad and others here have noted. 

I simply say it's a duck; you can call it what you will. 

Something which "contradicts the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium" is a major problem in an ecuмenical council approved by a pope, as I, Lad and others here have noted.

Of course, I agree the error in V2 is a major problem.  You keep pointing to the fact that +Vigano admits that V2 contradicted Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium.  So what?  All of us have known this for 60 years.  Many new-rome officials have already admitted this.  The question is, does V2's level of authority/teaching constitute binding, infallible doctrine?  No, it doesn't.
.
V2 was the ultimate sleight-of-hand magic trick, performed by the soldiers of satan, who is the ultimate magician, because all he does is fake and only appears real.  It appeared to "teach" doctrine, but it only "proposed" doctrinal deviations; it appeared to be binding in nature, but now we know that it was only offering "pastoral" theories, which still to this day require continued interpretations and explanations.
.
That which is not binding with a "certainty of faith" cannot be doctrine.
That which is not doctrine, cannot be infallible.
That which is not infallible, can err.
That which can err, is not indefectible.
A council, even with papal approval, is only infallible and indefectible, when it proposes with "certainty" some doctrine/teaching, and binds the faithful.
.
Paul VI's approval was legal only.  How can one theologically approve of ambiguous, contradictory, doctrinally theoretical docuмents, which deviate from orthodoxy, and require continued interpretations?   How can such incoherency be binding on the faithful, for how can one "accept" both A and not-A at the same time?  The essence of V2 is contradictions, both of Tradition and of itself.  Just as the new mass was only legally approved in creation, but is not binding on anyone to attend, so V2 was legally approved as an official ecuмenical meeting/council, but it did not write anything reasonable enough to even make sense, much less "assent to".  Appearances can be deceiving, and the false, V2 parallel church is all appearance and no reality.

It's always possible that +Vigano will say something against the popes (since Vll?), but it seems unlikely. I suspect he believes that B16 is still Pope. After all, he's not said much against B16 or JP2 that I can recall.

Well, he did denounce Assisi (JP2) but other than that he doesn't mention the others much.  So you consider him to be in the R&R camp if he considers B16 to be Pope?  That position has the same theological problems that R&R most commonly attack sedevacantism for (i.e. the problem with Universal Acceptance).  But I doubt he's a Benedict person.  As pointed out, he traces the problems DIRECTLY to Vatican II, and JP2 and B16 were both proponents of Vatican II.  That is why what he wrote is so ground-breaking.  Most of the conservative Novus Ordites single out Francis and never impugn Vatican II.