CathInfo.com

Trads operate an entire apostolate outside the control of and submission to the hierarchy. 

They operate outside of the JURISDICTION of the hierarchy because said hierarchy is heretical and REQUIRES things against the faith (which V2 and the new mass do not).  The hierarchy have taken the 'teachings' of V2/new mass and made it obligatory, but the docuмents themselves not require such obligation.  Therefore, requiring such an obligation is, in fact, a violation of the law. 

Trad priests to not trace their chain of command back to the pope in any way, shape, or form.

Trad priests follow the papal law of Quo Primum in saying the true mass, providing the true sacraments and following the true (and only legally allowed) breviary.  All other subsequent 'editions' of the missal, breviary and divine office are in violation of this law and hence, illicit.  Because the pope has never said that Quo Primum is revoked or revised (and it isn't) and because the 'new editions' are not obligatory, then by definition, the Holy See still commands that Quo Primum be followed, even if every other bishop in the world says otherwise.

So, yes, Quo Primum is still law and to obey it means you are obeying the Church and pope.

If he were to just address the big picture, there wouldn't be as much to debate.

You can't address the big picture without examining the underlying details because the 'big picture' is built on facts. 
Let's just say that you agreed with me that
1) V2 was fallible and erred and that did not violate indefectibility, because it didn't teach officially
2) the new mass was a trick and not obligatory on anyone (this is 100% confirmed by Benedict in his "motu")

If you believe this (as I do) what's the next step?  The next step is to say that:
1) the pope and hierachy are still heretics ON THE PERSONAL LEVEL it's just that their heresy is not OFFICIAL church teaching
In other words, they BELIEVE the heresies that V2 "proposed" in its indirect, ambiguous, non-binding way.
2) the new mass is new, it's not obligatory and it's (probably) invalid, 100% illicit and 100% immoral.

Ergo, Fr Chazal's argument about sedeprivationism still applies.  We must separate ourselves from the hierarchy because they are heretical.  I'll even say that sedevacantism is still in play but for the reason that the pope/bishops are personal heretics.

All I'm arguing is that we cannot say that the pope/bishops are heretics because V2/new mass were OFFICIALLY errors.  We can say they are wrong for a 1,000 other reasons, but not for these 2.  The legal facts do not show that V2/new mass are binding, therefore it's not a matter of indefectibility.

You can't address the big picture without examining the underlying details because the 'big picture' is built on facts.
Let's just say that you agreed with me that
1) V2 was fallible and erred and that did not violate indefectibility, because it didn't teach officially
2) the new mass was a trick and not obligatory on anyone (this is 100% confirmed by Benedict in his "motu")

If you believe this (as I do) what's the next step?  The next step is to say that:
1) the pope and hierachy are still heretics ON THE PERSONAL LEVEL it's just that their heresy is not OFFICIAL church teaching
In other words, they BELIEVE the heresies that V2 "proposed" in its indirect, ambiguous, non-binding way.
2) the new mass is new, it's not obligatory and it's (probably) invalid, 100% illicit and 100% immoral.

Ergo, Fr Chazal's argument about sedeprivationism still applies.  We must separate ourselves from the hierarchy because they are heretical.  I'll even say that sedevacantism is still in play but for the reason that the pope/bishops are personal heretics.

All I'm arguing is that we cannot say that the pope/bishops are heretics because V2/new mass were OFFICIALLY errors.  We can say they are wrong for a 1,000 other reasons, but not for these 2.  The legal facts do not show that V2/new mass are binding, therefore it's not a matter of indefectibility.

Your "beliefs" can not be correct given Vatican II was a general, ecuмenical council.  It is not Catholic to believe that a general, ecuмenical council can be fallible and promote universal error in faith and morals.  Your argument fails right out of the gate.