Curious to see where the demographics lay here in late 2019!

Probably closest to R + R.  

I am Catholic with a capital C.

I checked "R&R" but I want to note so-called "R&R" is a Cekada-coined term that we non-sede traditionalists have somehow internalized. Archbishop Lefebvre never used it and I think a convenient acronym that more closely expresses +ABL's approach to this Church Crisis would be something like "RPWR - Recognize, Pray, Work for Restoration". That's what I believe in also. Certainly not one of the sede-whatevers.

Certainly not one of the sede-whatevers.

So you're not a sede-plenist?

Does it make sense to split off between neo-SSPX and Resistance?  They're becoming distinct flavors of R&R, just as sedeprivationism and sedevacantism have separated somewhat.  One group wants to work with the Counciliar establishment and seeks integration while the other remains firm as a "sign of contradiction".

By the way, after Archbishop Lefebvre wrote a letter to JP2 in 1979 seeking recognition within the Conciliar establishment, then-Father Guerard des Laurier wrote him a letter telling him that it was wrong to place the Tridentine Mass alongside the NOM, that Tradition must remain a sign of contradiction against the Novus Ordo.  In a sense, Father Guerard was the original Resistance member.

I know I keep saying this, and haven't really gotten an answer, but I still don't understand this.

If Francis (or JPII or whatever) is the Pope, we're obliged to be in communion with him. 

Now I can understand the argument of, okay, we want to be in  communion with him, but we still obey God first.  Whether its possible for a true Pope to promulgate a harmful mass, harmful teachings in encyclicals, etc. is a more complex question, which I realize you and others have opinions on, but I don't see any really obvious, intuitive reason why people couldn't disagree on those questions.

But I don't just understand the concept of like, okay, we recognize that you're the Pope, yet we don't want to be in communion with you.  Your Church is completely different from our Church, but somehow you're still Pope.

Sometimes I think the SV/Sedeplenist debate really is a proxy for something *else*, whether the Conciliar Church is COMPLETELY separated from the Catholic Church, or simply has elements that are separated from the Catholic Church.  It seems to me that an R + R *should* appreciate a man like Athanasius Schneider, even while thinking he's not perfect and not agreeing with everything.  Whereas I can see why a Sedevacantist would completely dismiss him

I realize Sededoubtism even  further complicates matters, but it can still be classified based on where you put the probability.  Effectively, it seems to me, the SSPV would take the position of like, OK, we're not *sure* that he's not Pope, but it sure seems to us like he isn't, he probably isn't, and in that case I understand the reasoning of not wanting to be in communion with him.  Whereas +Lefebvre would've taken the position that, yes, its still  not certain, but it seems more probable, and safer to affirm, that the Pope is actually the Pope.  Based on that assumption it seems to make sense to want to work in communion with the conciliar hierarchy *provided* its possible to do that without compromising.  The issue, then, with the FSSP would be that things like affirming the New Mass and Vatican II being preconditions.  Now maybe the concern of the Resistance is that the SSPX will make a similar *type* of deal as the FSSP did, but I don't see how they can logically criticize the SSPX for *wanting* to be in communion with Rome *without* also at least saying that it is more probable that there is indeed no Pope (No Pope = nobody we're obligated to be in communion with) and thus that it is more prudent to stay away.

But I don't get the combination of "Francis is Pope" [at least more likely than not] but "Have nothing to do with him."

What am I missing?

Under a Catholic pope there is absolutely nothing to resist.  Resisting a Catholic pope is a sin.  Here, read this:

https://novusordowatch.org/2019/10/bad-popes-objection/  

That explains what our relationship should be to a Catholic pope.

I’m not understanding where the confusion is regarding R&R:

Recognize the pope’s authority to govern the Church, but resist the 99% of his abuse of that authority.

The “have nothing to do with him” is just the illusion created by having to resist 99% of what he does.

I receive no chill up my spine if someone wants to say “that is practical sedevacantism,” because it is not real sedevacantism.

Obviously, the better the pope, the less there is to resist, and vice-versa.

So of course under Francis, we will give the appearance of a practical sedevacantist.

Under a Pius XII, much less so.

My issue is more the perceived attitude of not wanting communion with him, than the disobedience.  Like I see this all the time, I realize the Resistance criticizes the SSPX for other things (and I'm not saying all of those things are wrong), but sometimes it seems to come down to criticizing them for even dialoguing with Rome or trying to get canonical status.  Which I don't get.  Like if he's your head, shouldn't you at least *want* to be in communion with him, and want to dialogue in order to create a way that you *can* be in normal communion without compromising on principles?  That's the part I don't understand.