Thus far Sean Johnson has provided the best overall model of R&R in practice. I appreciate everything he has written on this subject because it has helped me to understand that the essential relation of the R&R position to the modernist revolution is its lack of appropriate response to the deployment of ambiguity as the devil's ultimate doomsday weapon.
Here are a few quotes from Sean that I can use to demonstrate that R&R's futility is entirely due to its failure to effectively defend against ambiguity as war machine:
SEAN: Yes: [A man cannot be judged a heretic except by his words.]
Yes: [Heresy cannot be judged as such except by the written or spoken word.]
SEAN: The new Mass may be invalid and/or blasphemous, but cannot be heretical, since it makes no profession of doctrine denying an article of faith (even if the heretics who concocted it wanted to deny articles of faith, like transubstantiation, or if the underlying reasons the various changes were made were heretical).
SEAN: Again, to say something like "the old covenant remains valid," without further elaboration is ambiguous. In what sense does it remain valid? Certainly the historical accounts of the OT remain valid. The miracles and precursors of Christ remain valid. On the other hand, to say something like "The old covenant remains salvific for the Jєωs" would be an heretical statement (i.e., there is no possible duplicitous meaning a can concoct to justify it). So for this one, I just say please show me the actual quote.
SEAN: Certainly the intent behind such statements is to destroy the missionary character of the Church, to blot out the true Faith. Yet the manner in which they say it always seems to leave some duplicitous wiggle-room to avoid the charge of heresy, and like the previous example, keep it at the level of scandalous ambiguity. Please go back and review the examples you have in mind (i.e., I won't "work you" and ask you to post them, unless you want to), and decide whether the statements you are reading are ambiguous, which is the diabolical genius of the modernist (i.e., to tear down the faith without ever actually being heretical). Ambiguity is the language of the modernist (Pius X, Pascendi).
SEAN: Certainly, biblical inerrancy is an article of the Faith, but can you produce a quote from the Pope which necessarily denies it? You are probably sitting there thinking, "Sean is excusing heresy!" On the contrary, I am trying to get you to understand that the wording (not the intent) is what matters, and distinguishes between heresy and ambiguity. Some people get so worked up about the bad intent, they aren't willing to see ambiguity (e.g., Bishop Fellay's AFD). Despite the thorough modernism of all the V2 docs, only DH arguable contained a heresy; the rest being ambiguous (e.g., Lumen Gentium's "subsistit").