Calling the Milan Synod Vagante is name-calling. Why do they need to be called vagante? Who decides whether they are canonical in this case?
The fact that they are not in communion with any legitimate Orthodox church is a big giveaway. Not only that, but they recently petitioned to joint the non-Chacedonians (and were rejected) -- that fact alone does not speak well of their Orthodoxy.
Fr.Seraphim of Platina who I am sure we have all heard of was a member of ROCOR when it was called uncanonical and vagante. To this day only the Serbian Patriarchate recognizes ROCOR.
You're a bit behind the times. The Moscow Patriarchate has publicly stated that ROCOR is indeed a legitimate if irregular church, and the path to reunion is well on its way.
Does that make ROCOR vagante? Would it offend a member of ROCOR if they were called that?
I'm a member of ROCOR, and yes, it would. But here's the thing: my priest may only be allowed, by current regulations, to concelebrate with the Serbian priests in town. However, us laity are perfectly free to commune at other Orthodox churches, and vice-versa (and we do frequently have many visitors, both from the OCA and from the Antiochians, who commune at my church). My priest is a member of the Houston clergy association, and they have held meetings at my church. We frequently have an Antiochian priest who is between parish assignments visit for liturgies. Another priest who is attached to my parish has started a mission up in College Station, which is well-attended by Orthodox of all jurisdictions. The only thing that is lacking in ROCOR's full integration into the Orthodox community here is the formal restoration of communion at the hierarchial level -- at the local level, it's already happened.
I don't think the same is true for the Milan Synod. (And if the preceding hasn't convinced you, just consider that they are Rdr. Constantine Wright's jurisdiction-du-jour. 'Nuff said :p )