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.

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.

Sean, you have a non-Catholic view of the papacy.  Lutherans, Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox schismatics can (and do) claim that the pope gave unjust and evil commands/doctrine.  They are not infallible and neither are you.  Where the pope is, there is the Catholic Church.  If Frank is the true pope, then the Novus Ordo is holy and leading people to Heaven.  Ecuмenism, Inter-religious dialogue and collegiality are true doctrines of the Catholic Church and are leading people to Heaven.  Communion in the hand is preferred and in some cases required over communion on the tongue.  The death penalty is immoral.  If Frank is the pope, we can trust that all of that is good and holy and will lead us to Heaven.  You complain that sedes have no hierarchy but in your view, the Catholic Church's hierarchy is unholy, corrupt and systematically leading souls to hell.  How is your view any different from that of the enemies of the Church?

No, that's not what I am saying. Perhaps one day we will have one if it's God's will.
What I'm saying is that if recognized popes and bishops with Ordinary jurisdiction can be resisted since Vatican II, why not 100 years? Or 500 years? Xavier seems to present the argument that SVism is wrong because of not having a pope or bishops for 60+ years disproves its thesis. I really don't see the difference in degrees of problems when one can resist indefinitely. It seems to undermine the necessity of the Petrine office. Try making this argument with Eastern Orthodox and they would say they resist the pope just like the SSPX, so there is no difference.

Is the father of a family a legitimate authority to his children?

Yes?

If he issues them an unjust or evil command, does it mean (as the sedes would have it) that he has ceased to be their legitimate authority?

Obviously not:

They are obligated to resist his evil commands, and issuing such commands does not obliterate his legitimate authority over them (nor do the children conclude that, if he has issues an evil command, he has ceased to be their father)!

Well, I have a lot more issues with R&R than that one.  I just summarized one succinctly to make the point.  Simple obedience is not the same as submission to the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church.  Pope Liberius did not have "100 other errors".

So is it erroneous to believe that Bp. Williamson was excommunicated?

Even if the excommunication was unjust, Bp. Williamson still ought to, by law and duty, act as if under excommunication. He does not. How is this not an issue to you?