He used the word “theorized” to distinguish from doctrine.  He was saying that V2’s non-doctrinal theories were anti Tradition and anti previously defined doctrine. He obviously believes, as many theologians have said (both pre and post V2), that not everything from an ecuмenical council is “doctrine” or “infallible”.

Ok. I will wait for the day he grapples with the problem of a papally approved ecuмenical council stating heresy in an officially promulgated, Magisterial docuмent.
 

Ok. I will wait for the day he grapples with the problem of a papally approved ecuмenical council stating heresy in an officially promulgated, Magisterial docuмent.

There's no grappling needed, since the proposition is heretical.

Do you realize all Resistance and sedes (and in former days, the SSPX) are (or logically should be) in complete agreement with Vigano’s letter in the OP?

So far as I can tell, the only thing he has yet to do in order for all to recognize he has arrived at Tradition, is to return to exclusive use of the old sacraments.

The transformation of Vigano in the last month is very much what the conversion of Rome should look like.

This is what the SSPX should have been looking for among the Roman clergy, Curia, and pope:

An official recognition of the faulty principles of V2, and a rejection of them, and their encouragement and exhortation to the Church at large to reject them.

If that would happen, there would be no need for Resistance, and such priests would be the most valued in the Church.

Even sedes could happily be reconciled and supportive of such a movement.

But so far, Vigano stands alone.

Bishop Athanasius comments: “One may rightly hope and believe that a future Pope or Ecuмenical Council will correct the erroneous statement made” by Vatican II. This appears to me to be an argument that, although made with the best of intentions, undermines the Catholic edifice from its foundation. If in fact we admit that there may be Magisterial acts that, due to a changed sensitivity, are susceptible to abrogation, modification, or different interpretation with the passage of time, we inevitably fall under the condemnation of the Decree Lamentabili [...]

It's almost as if Bishop Schneider is proposing an R&R type of approach, while Vigano rejects it and seems to be on a trajectory toward sedevacantism.

He said that the DH notion of Religious Liberty was at odds with Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

EVERY error is contrary to Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium ... to VARYING DEGREES.  Some directly contradict the Deposit and defined dogma, others contradict it based on one more more logical degrees of separation.  And it's these logical degrees of separation that determine the theological note of the error (and the corresponding truth).  Dogmatic sedevacantists don't take heed of these notes of error, and it's one of the root causes of their dogmatism.  One could be guilty of very grave error, commit mortal sin against the faith, but the bar for heresy is quite high, and it is only for heresy properly speaking that people forfeit their membership in the Church.  So, for instance, John Daly can argue that RL contradicts Tradition and the Deposit and is therefore objectively heretical, and he could very well be right (and I don't dispute that he is), but the logic used to arrive at that conclusion prevents his conclusion from being anything more than a personal opinion which cannot bind the consciences and the faith of others de fide.

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.