It is clear that you have an agenda, and your arguments against the principles of R&R have been repeatedly shown.  "Oh", you say, "there are versions of R&R that I accept," yet you never explain these versions

You must not be paying attention because I have explained this at length several times now.

Being in a state of positive doubt is not the same thing as being a "sede"

You mis-read what I said.  R&R exists due to the doubts of the bishops' consecrations, the doubts of the NOM, etc, etc.  Sedevacantism exists due to the same doubts.  My point is, anyone who is a trad is one due to doubts they have of the orthodoxy of new-rome, whether they are sede or not.

I don't even understand, logically, how you can agree with Fr Chazal yet disagree with R&R.  Fr Chazal argues against a dogmatic sede position, which means, logically, that he accepts the pope as the pope, even if he has doubts.  +ABL, who I define as being the founder of R&R (just to simplify things), accepted the pope as the pope, but he made many statements where he was doubtful and said he could see why the sede theory had merits.  In both cases, Fr Chazal and +ABL recognized the pope and his office, but refused to submit to his errors (which errors only require conditional submission anyway, so not true submission), so how are they different?   They might differ on a few specifics, but over-all, it's the same view.

(Now I do think that +Fellays' view of R&R is different from +ABL's, and highly destructive, but that's another topic).

I don't even understand, logically, how you can agree with Fr Chazal yet disagree with R&R.

You have to try to understand, poor lad is a dogmatic doubtist. As such, there is no logic to most of what he says about this subject. Remember, poor lad said: "And if you don't at least have a positive doubt, then you have no business being a Traditional Catholic, for you are a schismatic."

Here's my question (which you didn't answer):  In both cases, Fr Chazal and +ABL recognize the pope and his office, but refused to submit to his errors (which errors only require conditional submission anyway, so not true submission), so how are they different?

How are they different from what?  From one another?  From some other position?

Novus Ordo and R&R people are dogmatically certain that Bergolio is the pope. The sedevacantes are dogmatically certain that Bergolio is not a pope. Ladislaus does not see a solid foundation in the "dogmatism" of all three groups. I am with him on that. 

Novus Ordo and R&R people are dogmatically certain that Bergolio is the pope. The sedevacantes are dogmatically certain that Bergolio is not a pope. Ladislaus does not see a solid foundation in the "dogmatism" of all three groups. I am with him on that.

Ladislaus believes that R&R is schismatic and heretical. He's just not allowed to say it outright anymore, so he just "suggests" it now. That's seems like a dogmatic position to me.

Ladislaus believes that R&R is schismatic and heretical. He's just not allowed to say it outright anymore, so he just "suggests" it now. That's seems like a dogmatic position to me.

I guess that some people simply don't understand distinctions.  Is +Lefebvre "R&R"?  I have repeatedly stated that +Lefebvre's position is neither schismatic nor heretical.  And I have explained why.  It all just floats over your head or through your ears or something.