Geremia, are you linking to this article simply to stimulate debate, or do you actually have respect for the noxious crowd that publishes Novus Ordo Watch?

It appears that it's mainly sedevacantists who are against Vigano. Surely that says something. Sedevacantists seem to expect that only someone perfectly traditional (preferably sedevacantist) in their eyes should be bothered with or paid attention to. I certainly don't think that we should hang on every word of Viganos', since he's likely to get some things wrong. But he does get a lot of things right.

As Sean said earlier in this thread, Rome's [eventual?] conversion should look like that of Viganos' conversion (or words to that effect).

Archbishop Lefebvre held out hope that Modernist-occupied Rome would one day convert back to the Catholic Faith. There's that word "Hope," which many of the sedes don't have. Do the sedes even want modernist Rome to convert back to the Faith, or have they totally given up on that?

Conversions don't happen overnight, and when Rome converts, it won't likely happen overnight, IMO. Unless there's some kind of miracle or divine intervention.

I've felt for awhile now that the Francis papacy is a good thing, because it will wake some Catholics up to the reality and ugliness of modernism. That seems to have happened for Vigano. If someone like Cardinals Sarah or Burke would have been elected to the papacy, it would have been more of a conservative modernist papacy, like that of B16.

Agree, Claudel.  I’ve never heard Schneider, Burke, or Sarah even whisper the idea of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in new-rome, much less criticize V2, besides complaining about the “false interpretation” of it, which is a wimpy and false opposition to heresy.  Vigano just nukes the idea that V2 is even salvageable (which is more hardcore than even +Fellay et al) and then says we’ve had a false/parallel church since the 60s.  I hope Vigano didn’t get knocked off.  He needs many prayers and hoping he’ll keep up the truth-bombs.  He could really wake up a lot of people.  

Oh I understood it Meg, but it seems you have completely missed my point though as you didn't even respond to it.

But you see, I actually responded to your post.  You didn't respond to mine.  
Let's not pretend that *this* is about the divide between sedes and non-sedes.

I responded to a portion of your post. Since when is anyone expected to respond to everything in it?  On the other hand you completely ignored all of the content in my post.

We all know that sedes and non-sedes think differently.  This is not a revelation.

Now, if you would like to have a real conversation rather than beat around the bush, perhaps you could revisit and respond to something I wrote in my post.