Does Vigano accept Vatican II as an ecuмenical council of the Church and its official teaching?

Does he accept the new "mass" and sacraments as valid?

Does he hold the abomination in the Vatican since at least 1962 is not the Catholic Church?

If not, I don't understand why 62% of supposedly traditional Catholics support him.

If yes, good for him, I hope he sincerely searches for the fullness of truth and saves his soul by leaving the false sect.

Answer is ... he's not articulated this clearly.  He's come a hair's breadth from saying that the Holy See if vacant, has referred to Bergoglio as an NWO operative, has in fact never called him Francis, much less Holy Father, but always just Berogoglio.  He says that V2 is the work of Masons trying to destroy the Church, and it's fundamentally flawed, to the point of being unsalvageable, that it cannot be corrected but must be pitched entirely.  He certainly holds that the NOM is not a Catholic Mass.  He's said that it's possible that Bergoglio is not the Pope and that it must be investigated (in the context of Bennyvcantism ... although he's criticized Ratzinger and Wojtyla as well, not something that your typical Bennyvacantists would care to do).

In short, he's saying pretty much what Archbishop Lefebvre said (and at times is even more emphatic about it).  Why did/do the vast majority of Traditional Catholics support Archbishop Lefebvre?

So, he hasn't come out (at least publicly) yet as a sedevacantist.  Does that somehow make him less of a Catholic or Traditional Catholic that Archbishop Lefebvre was?

Answer is ... he's not articulated this clearly.  

His opinion on Russia and Putin, on the other hand, are quite clear. He helps support the antithesis of the West in alternative media rhetoric.

Does it work both ways?
In other words, can someone previously excommunicated (especially prior to VII), have the excommunication lifted by heretics and apostates?

If you have to ask that question, then you're lacking in logic and sobriety which are attributes of Catholic thought. Snap out of your disorientation, but first you must reject what is not Catholic masquerading as "catholic".

Answer is ... he's not articulated this clearly.  He's come a hair's breadth from saying that the Holy See if vacant, has referred to Bergoglio as an NWO operative, has in fact never called him Francis, much less Holy Father, but always just Berogoglio.  He says that V2 is the work of Masons trying to destroy the Church, and it's fundamentally flawed, to the point of being unsalvageable, that it cannot be corrected but must be pitched entirely.  He certainly holds that the NOM is not a Catholic Mass.  He's said that it's possible that Bergoglio is not the Pope and that it must be investigated (in the context of Bennyvcantism ... although he's criticized Ratzinger and Wojtyla as well, not something that your typical Bennyvacantists would care to do).

In short, he's saying pretty much what Archbishop Lefebvre said (and at times is even more emphatic about it).  Why did/do the vast majority of Traditional Catholics support Archbishop Lefebvre?

So, he hasn't come out (at least publicly) yet as a sedevacantist.  Does that somehow make him less of a Catholic or Traditional Catholic that Archbishop Lefebvre was?

I get it that he says a lot of good things but I don't know enough to pinpoint his position. I dislike it very much when people won't articulate their position clearly. If you don't know your position or are afraid to say it then don't speak at all. I would assume Vigano doesn't celebrate the Novus Ordo. So does he offer the TLM to his flock? I heard that he's "in hiding" years ago, whatever that means. In hiding from what? If the Vatican wanted him αssαssιnαtҽd they can do it whether he hides or not.

I always had a bad feeling about Vigano. I don't know what it is but I never paid much attention to him.

Does it work both ways?
In other words, can someone previously excommunicated (especially prior to VII), have the excommunication lifted by heretics and apostates?

No. Heretics and apostates have no jurisdiction to do such a thing, even if they wanted to.

But someone excommunicated before Vatican II (assuming such a person is still alive) could repent and have his excommunication lifted by any traditional Catholic priest today, by supplied jurisdiction, since there is no one else capable of doing so.

What hypocrisy. If you reject the new mass, and anything in Vatican 2 that you don't agree with, then you are making your own rules too, epiphany.

No, this is wrong. We reject the NO etc.,  because we are bound to the previous teachings and laws. We do not make our own rules. It is at least error to insist that no official censure of excommunication is needed when it actually *is* needed, those who insist they can simply decide such matters on their own are the ones who make their own rules.

Make sense?

No. How is it "making your own rules" for a traditional Catholic priest to absolve someone from excommunication, but it's not "making your own rules" to reject the new Mass? If anything, it takes a higher level of authority to reject the ceremony of the Mass than to pardon someone from excommunication.

The question is, do we accept the authority of the new church or do we not? My answer is a simple "no"; epiphany doesn't seem to know the answer to that question, and neither do you.

In the traditional Rite, the priest says these words of absolution in the sacrament of penance....

"May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you: and I, by His authority, absolve you from every bond of  excommunication, (suspension), and interdict, in so far as I am able and you are needful. Next, I absolve you from your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

The word "suspension" is used only for clerics. A cleric may be suspended without being excommunicated; but, should he incur excommunication, he is suspended also.

So as we see, there is no "your own rules" involved for a traditional Catholic priest to absolve someone from excommunication.

There is also no "your own rules" to reject the new "mass" because we are bound to the TLM via the law of Quo Primum till the end of time, as is every other Roman Catholic - till the end of time. Per Quo Primum, we are to assist at the True Mass "without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure." So what if the pope and the whole rest of the world insists we go to the NO - we cannot because we are bound to the True Mass according to the law.

As you can see, in both instances no body is making their own rules at all.

Not everyone lives on the Internet. Ordinary people use this forum less often than the loudest users. The common Catholic I've encountered in the DC area has never even heard of Vigano.