Either heresy intrinsically removes from office or it doesn't. If it does, it applies to a bishop; if it doesn't it proves your assertion is false. How do you reconcile this?
It's based on the material vs. formal distinction.
I realize that I did not properly articulate my view regarding bishops retaining jurisdiction. I have before here on CI, but not within this thread. Since the jurisdiction of bishops is derived from the pope, as long as they remain materially in office (at the pleasure of the pope), they remain intact as conduits for the papal jurisdiction, as it were. So, for instance, even if you had a formally heretical bishop who had not yet been deposed from office, the priests in his diocese would still, for instance, receive faculties through the bishop for hearing Confessions, the bishops could appoint pastors to parishes, etc. So the power of designation and appointment (the material aspects of the office) remain intact until he is materially removed from office by the Pope. So, when I say that bishops retain jurisdiction, I mean that they remain conduits for the papal jurisdiction and can act as material agents for its exercise.
Similarly, with the papacy, I hold that until (in this case the Church) removes the material aspect of office (i.e. the designation), the Pope can remain a conduit for the authority bestowed by God. So he can appoint bishops, and appoint cardinals. Those bishops, if they themselves are not impeded from formally exercising jurisdiction, would do so upon being appointed by a material pope. But this heretical pope would not have any teaching authority or moral authority in the Church.
And, in the final analysis, is R&R really, for all practical intents and purposes, not all that different. They recognize the fact that these men hold office materially, but they do not recognize them as having moral authority or teaching authority. Now the only difference between (my twist on) sedeprivationism and R&R is that sedeprivationism holds that these popes lack moral authority and teaching authority categorically, period, even when it comes to their commands that are not bad or even good ... whereas R&R holds that they only lack authority when what they command or teach is wrong (otherwise they have authority). Father Chazal recently articulated a position that's closer to sedeprivationism than classic R&R in that he holds that these pope can be categorically ignored and that anything they teach or command is null and void on account of heresy.
Jorge Bergoglio: "I command that all Catholics say the Rosary tomorrow."
R&R: "We must comply and say the Rosary."
Sedeprivationism: "We are not strictly obliged to comply." [but we might anyway because it's a good thing]
Dogmatic Sedevacantists: "We refuse to say the Rosary tomorrow, even though we normally do anyway, because that might be giving the impression that this man has authority."