CathInfo.com

You have no clue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_Saint_Pius_X

That's the SSPX situation.  The Resistance situation is such that the pope you recognize doesn't even think you are Catholic.  Bishop Williamson is excommunicated.  You don't even have "partial communion" (whatever that means) with your pope.  Your recognition of him does nothing for you.  If he really is the pope, you aren't a member of the Catholic Church.  Your only hope is that Fr. Chazal is correct.

Not sure what you are talking about.

Do you know what you are talking about?

It would seem not.

Your premise is that a pope cannot excommunicate invalidly.

Yet the pope is not infallible in this regard.

And what does it matter what an heretical pope thinks about my Catholicity??

And most importantly, why are you prattling on about the Resistance, rather than explaining how there can be a church with ho hierarchy and no jurisdiction (the latter of which means there can never again be a hierarchy)???

Not sure what you are talking about.

Do you know what you are talking about?

It would seem not.

Your premise is that a pope cannot excommunicate invalidly.

Yet the pope is not infallible in this regard.

And what does it matter what an heretical pope thinks about my Catholicity??

And most importantly, why are you prattling on about the Resistance, rather than explaining how there can be a church with ho hierarchy and no jurisdiction (the latter of which means there can never again be a hierarchy)???

Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.  A hierarchy that can be resisted and overruled by the subjects is no hierarchy at all.  The Resistance view of ecclesiology may be compatible with Antifa doctrine but it isn't compatible with Catholic doctrine.

Effects of invalid or unjust excommunication

An excommunication is said to be null when it is invalid because of some intrinsic or essential defect, e.g. when the person inflicting it has no jurisdiction, when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is essentially defective in form. Excommunication is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty. Here, of course, it is not a question of excommunication latæ sententiæ and in foro interno, but only of one imposed or declared by judicial sentence. It is admitted by all that a null excommunication produces no effect whatever, and may be ignored without sin (cap. ii, de const., in VI). But a case of unjust excommunication brings out in a much more general way the possibility of conflict between the forum internum and the forum externum, between legal justice and the real facts. In chapter xxviii, de sent. excomm. (Lib. V, tit. xxxix), Innocent III formally admits the possibility of this conflict. Some persons, he says, may be free in the eyes of God but bound in the eyes of the Church; vice versa, some may be free in the eyes of the Church but bound in the eyes of God: for God's judgment is based on the very truth itself, whereas that of the Church is based on arguments and presumptions which are sometimes erroneous. He concludes that the chain by which the sinner is bound in the sight of God is loosed by remission of the fault committed, whereas that which binds him in the sight of the Church is severed only by removal of the sentence. Consequently, a person unjustly excommunicated is in the same state as the justly excommunicated sinner who has repented and recovered the grace of God; he has not forfeited internal communion with the Church, and God can bestow upon him all necessary spiritual help. However, while seeking to prove his innocence, the censured person is meanwhile bound to obey legitimate authority and to behave as one under the ban of excommunication, until he is rehabilitated or absolved. Such a case seems practically impossible nowadays.

Bishop Williamson and the Resistance if they have been unjustly excommunicated by a true pope are "bound to obey legitimate authority and to behave as one under the ban of excommunication, until he is rehabilitated or absolved."  Fr Chazal doesn't worry about that because he doesn't think Frank is a true pope in the sense that he legitimately holds the office of the Bishop of Rome.  Fr Chazal believes that Frank has no authority in the Church.  But you think that Frank does hold authority in the Church but that you can overrule him if you judge his discipline doesn't measure up to your standards.  That's not a Catholic hierarchy.  A true pope can even suppress a religious order that was not guilty of any crimes (e.g. Society of Jesus in the 1700s).  Some people might consider that unjust but the pope has the authority to do it.  And we would be bound by his decision.  So spare me your patronizing attitude about the hierarchy.  At least sedes have the hope of an election.  Whereas R&R will be stuck in the Novus Ordo until the end of time.