I would imagine that +Vigano was in the "hermeneutic of continuity" school himself for many years, that there were problematic statements in Vatican II that COULD be interpreted in a Traditional sense if someone wanted to, but could also be interpreted heretically, the so-called Vatican II "timebombs" theory that even many straight Traditonal Catholics hold. Many still believe that if you do enough theological gymnastics, you can force-fit Vatican II into a Traditional Catholic sense. +Vigano is now rejecting that. So, for instance, +Vigano is more of a Traditional Catholic than XavierSem, since the latter denies that there's any error in Vatican II.
Also, while I did not read Bishop Schneider's letter to which +Vigano is responding, it sounds like +Schneider also doesn't believe that there's a workable heremeneutic of continuity, but that some of the Vatican II teaching will have to be overturned and reformed.
BTW: although I personally hold the NO episcopal consecration to be doubtful, in terms of whether or not I pay the proper respect to someone consecrated in the New Rite, I resolve the doubt in favor of respect. While I would not go to a Mass offered by a priest ordained by +Vigano, that is my own personal conscience. When I run into NO priests, I still refer to them as "Father." IMO it serves no constructive purpose to call a priest "Mr." like some radical sedevacantists like to do. It just makes you look like a crackpot and is not constructive.