Regarding this interview as well as recent public expression by both men:
If Vatican II taught heresy, how can it be a valid Council? The Bishops who taught heresy would be automatically excommunicated.
If Vatican II taught heresy, how can the Popes who approved of Vatican II and who taught its teachings be valid Popes? They would be automatically excommunicated for heresy, and therefore would no longer be valid Popes.
Has Pope Francis taught heresy? You both have claimed that he has. So how is he still a valid Pope. But if he is not the valid Roman Pontiff, why do you not say so? On the other hand, if he is the valid Pope, why do you refuse to submit to his authority?
How is your position different in any way from sedevacantism? If the Council and the Popes since the Council all taught heresy, how are any of them valid? Would not the See of Peter be, therefore, vacant? Are you not both sedevacantists?
The recognize and resist phrase does not work if you are claiming that the Pope taught heresy, for then he would not be a valid Pope, as all the fathers and doctors agree.
Which is it? Have the Council and the Popes taught heresy, thereby becoming invalid? Or are they valid Popes and Councils, which you are then sinfully rejecting?