There's nothing in +Vigano's text along these lines.  You're reading "Frankenchurch" theory into his writings and also falsely stating that this is +Lefebvre's "true way of thinking".  That too was retrospectively imposed on the views of +Lefebvre.

Au contraire: It is Msgr. Vigano distinguishing between the conciliar church and the Catholic Church, saying the former is "superimposed" atop the latter.  

This is the same understanding Msgr. Tissier and Avrille (and formerly the FSSPX) have, and it is they, not me, who say it was the position of Msgr. Lefebvre.

To say the Vicar of Christ is the head of both the Catholic Church and a sect is blasphemous at best.

I doubt very much Msgr's Tissier, Lefebvre, Vigano, or Avrille (or the old FSSPX) are blasphemers.

If they believe that Christ's Vicar can be the head of a sect then yes, they are.  

Vigano references this revelation of Anne Catherine Emmerich on the "strange church" which represents the "conciliar church," in this 3 minute video:

Two churches doesn't equate to the Vicar of Christ being the pope of both.

Actually it does, because as Msgr. Vigano explains, both "churches" have the same hierarchy:

"the Church of Christ has been occupied and eclipsed by the modernist conciliar structure, which has established itself in the same hierarchy and uses the authority of its ministers to prevail over the Spouse of Christ [i.e., the Catholic Church] and our Mother."

Here is Msgr. Tissier explaining how that is possible:

"Is it possible to have one hierarchy for two churches?
That the Catholic hierarchy governs at the same time the Catholic Church and a society which has the appearance of a counterfeit church seems to go against the assistance promised by Christ to Peter and his successors, guaranteeing the unerring magisterium and the indefectibility of the Church (Mt. 16, 17-19; 28,20).

If the Pope directs another church, he is an apostate and he is no longer pope and the sedevacantist hypothesis is verified. – We simply need to respond that “Prima sedes a nemine judicatur” and that by consequence, no authority can pronounce obstinacy, declaring the pertinacity of a sovereign Pontiff in error or deviance; and that on the other hand in case of doubt, the Church supplies at least the executive power of the apparent Pope (can. 209 of the Code of Canon law 1917 4). As for the magisterium, it is only assisted if it has the intention to transmit the deposit of the faith and not profane novelties 5. And as for the indefectibility of the Church, it does not hinder the fact that it can come to be that the Church, following a great apostasy as that announced by St. Paul (2 Thess, 2,3), is reduced to a modest number of true Catholics. In consequence, none of the difficulties raised against the existence of a society truly called the conciliar church and directed by the Pope and the Catholic hierarchy are decisive.

It is however preferable to avoid these extreme responses. One could thus try to deny the existence of the conciliar church as an organised society and which is directed by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, or to extenuate 6 the membership of it’s adherents to this conciliar church."
https://dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/

Avrille, on an objection to the article:

"Afterwards, the editorial answered the objection: “It is not possible that the same hierarchy direct two Churches”, because if one is in charge of a Church other than the Catholic Church, one apostatizes. If the Pope is in charge of another Church, he is no longer Pope; one falls into sedevacantism.

Quote “The objection’s error is to imagine the conciliar Church as a society that formally imposes schism or heresy as the Orthodox or Protestants do. For example, if I adhere to the Anglican Church, I am formally a schismatic, and even a heretic, and therefore I am no longer a member of the Catholic Church.
Yet I can be conciliar – that is to say ecuмenical – and still keep the Catholic Faith. Without a doubt I put my faith, and that of others, in danger, but I do not immediately abjure it.
Hence the members of the hierarchy, provided that they do not push their errors to the point of denying the Catholic Faith, remain members of the Catholic hierarchy even though they are conciliar.”

https://dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/

Which members of the "hierarchy" [as in, with jurisdiction], including the "pope of 2 churches", do not push/accept/teach Vatican II? Who have come out against it?

You are implying the Church is empty, the hierarchy is gone, and formal apostolicity is broken?