Lad,
Those are incredibly strong words. You generally show support for Vigano, so let me ask you: how is Sean's position, which according to you blasphemes and commits heresy regarding the Church, different from Vigano's?
I asked you in earlier to identify anywhere in Vigano's writings where he goes into the issue of a papal "vacancy" or, now I ask a bit differently, show us where he even entertains the necessity of considering Francis an antipope or non-pope, an issue which for you is essential to retaining the integrity of "Holy Mother Church"? I don't think you'll find it.
In fact, Vigano repeatedly talks of "Pope Bergolio" and recognizes the authority of the Conciliar hierarchy, I guess without (apparently) besmirching and prostituting Holy Mother Church as you say Sean does. Here's just a sample:
As Our Lord recognized the legitimate authority of the Pharisees in the "seat of Moses" while calling them "whited sepulchers" who made "void the word of God," so Vigano does the Conciliar hierarchy while decrying its heresies and apostasy. And Sean does the same.
Is Vigano besmirching Holy Mother Church as Sean does? If not, why not?
This is a continuing, bizarre theme with you - attacking those who identify with an R & R position as Old Catholics, etc. - that keeps bumping into contradiction after contradiction.
Thanks for saving me the legwork, DR.