And that's without even wandering into the hole of what "faith faileth not" means.

DR

Another and a certain privilege was common to Peter with all his successors, that he and all the other bishops of Rome (for Peter, as Christ willed, founded and confirmed the Pontifical Church at Rome), should never openly fall from this faith, so as to teach the Church heresy, or any error, contrary to the faith. So S. Leo (serm. xxii.), on Natalis of SS. Peter and Paul; S. Cyprian (Lib. i. ep. 3), to Cornelius; Lucius I., Felix I., Agatho, Nicolas I., Leo IX., Innocent III., Bernard and others, whom Bellarmine cites and follows (Lib. i. de Pontif. Roman). For it was necessary that Christ, by His most wise providence, should provide for His Church, which is ever being sifted and tempted by the devil, and that not only in the time of Peter, but at all times henceforth, even to the end of the world, an oracle of the true faith which she might consult in every doubt, and by which she might be taught and confirmed in the faith, otherwise the Church might err in faith, quod absit! For she is, as S. Paul said to Timothy, “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). This oracle of the Church then is Peter, and all successive bishops of Rome. This promise made to Peter and his successors, most especially applies to the time when Peter, as the successor of Christ, began to be the head of the Church, that is, after the death of Christ.

Totalists Sedevacantist ecclesiology is simply not tenable. In fact, it’s impossible.

The only way to reconcile Traditional ecclesiology with indefectibility in teaching is by adhering to a variation of Msgr. Lefebvre’s Conciliar church/eclipse hypothesis like Fr. Chazal’s Sedeimpoundism or Msgr. Des Lauriers’ Cassiciacuм Thesis.

Objectively considered, Recognize and Resist outside of the above paradigm and Totalist Sedevacantism are both worthy of being condemned as heretical comedy bordering on the insane.

Yessiree. The Church cannot teach major error or heresy in Her authentic magisterium, but she also cannot defect in the way that some Sedevacantists imply; especially Totalists.

As Papa Pio NoNo said about the heretical & schismatic Old Catholics:

“Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.”

Totalists Sedevacantist ecclesiology is simply not tenable. In fact, it’s impossible.

The only way to reconcile Traditional ecclesiology with indefectibility in teaching is by adhering to a variation of Msgr. Lefebvre’s Conciliar church/eclipse hypothesis like Fr. Chazal’s Sedeimpoundism or Msgr. Des Lauriers’ Cassiciacuм Thesis.

Objectively considered, Recognize and Resist outside of the above paradigm and Totalist Sedevacantism are both worthy of being condemned as heretical comedy bordering on the insane.

Nah. Analogy doesn’t work. Two different paradigms of operation. Reminds me of the bad dad analogy.

Here’s a better one instead: Imagine your dad telling you that he is unable to teach you error all of your life from the day you reach the age of reason. You grow up believing this and as you look around you, all of the other dads are manifestly in major error while your dad has never taught you anything except what is in accord with right reason. Even your friends and acquaintances can attest to this; indeed, anyone who sees your dad says the same.

One day, your always beautiful and strong father comes in to your room, but he looks much different. Darkened, ugly, and putrified you can’t tell that it’s him. The stench alone makes it difficult to be in the same room and his sight so hideous that you feel nauseous to gaze at him. Suddenly, in an ugly and painful voice to hear, he tells you that what he taught you before was wrong. What he conveyed to you a few years ago was simply not true and that he is not able to teach error was a lie. You are confused because you are not sure that it’s him. In fact, you are sure that it cannot be him. Everything is different on one random day. So manifestly different that you are certain it cannot be the same man. No sickness can produce such a grotesque phenomenon. Nothing has remained similar; not countenance, nor voice, nor smell, nor action, nor speech, nor anything you were accustomed to. It is an essential change to his very nature; not accidental.

Here you have two options: Believe the clear imposter that he is your dad simply because he had the key to come in to your room or come to the rational conclusion that he is a fake and phony menace who wishes to harm you.

Sanely, I take the latter option.

When Father Chazal came out with his position, I was hoping that it might be a bridge between the SV and R&R camps, but it hasn't worked out that way as many SVs and R&Rs are dogmatically entrenched in their respective positions.

Yes, Cassiciacuм makes perfect sense and solves nearly all the legitimate difficulties with straight sedevacantism.  Father Chazal's position is also strong ... and only different in subtle nuance from sedeprivationism.  Father Chazal emphasizes the material possession of office, whereas most sedeprivationists emphasize the formal vacancy.  But it's just two views of the same thing.  Bergoglio (et al.) deprived of all teaching authority while remaining in possession of the office and possibly some aspects of jurisdiction (able to make appointments, etc.)  If Bergoglio can make appointments and those who hold the office can have formal authority if not impeded by their own heresy, eccelsiavacantism problem with (objection to) SV completely evaporates.

NOTE:  Father Chazal denies this because he does not want to be seen as "sedevacantist", but I have seen no convincing argument that his position is any different other than in emphasis.  In his video introducing Sede-impoundism, he emphasizes that Bergoglio is indeed a manifest heretic and thereby is impounded and has NO authority, that he can and must be entirely ignored.  Classic R&R holds that he still has authority, which must be obeyed when it's not in opposition to Tradition.  It's more of an ad hoc disobedience to specific commannds, whereas both SPism and Sedeimpoundism hold that he categorically lacks the authority.

Both classic R&R and (what LOT called) "pure" Sedevacantism have legitimate serious issues, which these groups have been fond of pointing out about one another.  SPism solves both sets of complaints.  Beside that, Bishop Guerard was a if not THE top theologian in the Church prior to Vatican II, so I love it when people attack him and characterize his theory as "idiotic".  Nor did he invent the formal vs. material distinction regarding the papacy; it can be found in St. Robert Bellarmine and many other theologians.

I actually believe that Archbishop Lefebvre was closer to impoundism than to what R&R has morphed into.  He emphatically stated that this degree of destruction cannot happen, since the Papacy is guided by the Holy Spirit (which most modern R&R reject), thinks SVism is possible, but defers to the Church for the final solution and filled with hostility toward the other side, often moreso than toward the Modernist occupiers of the Church.

When Father Chazal came out with his position, I was hoping that it might be a bridge between the SV and R&R camps, but it hasn't worked out that way as many SVs and R&Rs are dogmatically entrenched in their respective positions.