In a Sept. 2014 article, John Salza Responds to “Novus Ordo Watch” “The Chair is Empty? Says who?” Salza attempts to show a foundational error of sedevacantism. Below is the relevant paragraph found on p. 3 of his 34 page article [1].
When you boil this down, the real issue is that sedevacantists presume to know the limits of what God wills to permit. In their minds, God could never will to permit the crisis of Faith we are experiencing, especially when it is being principally caused by God’s Vicar on Earth. Says who? Didn’t God will to permit the defection of almost the entire Church during the Arian crisis? Didn’t Jesus reveal in advance His will to permit universal apostasy, where upon His return He will not “find faith on Earth?” Sedevacantists put an artificial limit on God’s permissive will, but certainly not on their own abilities to play God and depose a Pope under “Divine law.” This is because sedevacantism embodies the reflexive faith of Protestantism, where man and his judgments are the center of everything.
Says who? Our Lord Jesus, who established the papacy for the very purpose of guarding the Church. Peter doesn’t have Faith only during times when defining dogmas while lacking it the rest of the time. Perhaps, Salza should read more commentary on Matt. 16:18 before mocking Christ in public.
No, God didn’t permit the defection of almost the entire Church during the Arian crisis because of the pope. Arianism wasn’t created, promoted, or spread by a pope. And it wasn’t almost the entire Church that fell into the Arian heresy. It was primarily the bishops, not the laity.
No, Jesus didn’t reveal in advance His will to permit universal apostasy, where upon His return He will not “find faith on Earth?” because of the pope. And it wasn’t universal apostasy Christ was referring. Jesus didn’t say that He won’t find faith on earth, because we’re told that not all will be goats at His return.
No, sedevacantists don’t put a limit on God’s permissive will. God has told us what He will NOT permit. Salza tells us that popes are the gates of hell and that they are promoting the gates of hell with heresies. [2]
No, sedevacantism doesn’t embody the reflexive faith of Protestantism, where man and his judgments are the center of everything. However, Salza uses his private judgment to reject and/or question the laws, decrees, and even canonizations [3] of his own popes. It is Salza that embodies the reflexive faith of Protestantism.
When you boil this down, the real issue is that Salza presumes to know the limits of what God wills to permit. In his mind, God IS permitting the crisis of Faith being principally caused by God’s Vicar on Earth, despite the fact that Our Lord specifically said otherwise. In Salza’s mind, God IS permitting popes to cause universal apostasy by law and decree.
John Salza gets sedevacantism wrong because he gets Our Lord wrong.
Footnotes:
[1] John Salza Responds to the Sedevacantists at NovusOrdoWatch.com
[2] The Gates of Hell and the Gates of the Church
[3] Questioning the Canonizations of John XXIII and John Paul II
John Salza vs. Fr. Brian Harrison on the Canonizations of John XXIII and John Paul II
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
The “National Catholic Reporter” currently has the headline, “Müller denies that CDF received heresy accusations against pope”. The body of the article goes further as follows:
“The interviewer said that Francis’ critics have accused him of not appreciating doctrine sufficiently. Some of his critics had even called him a heretic.
‘I assure them that they are wrong — not only ex officio, but from personal experience,’ Müller said. ‘A heretic is a Catholic who obstinately denies a revealed truth that the church has declared to be true and that Catholics are obliged to believe.'”
Surely this should, once and for all, bring an end to the so-called Recognize-and-Resist position? The very authority R&Rs defer to on this question has definitively decided in the negative. According to their own thesis, what right do they now have to disobey the man they assert is pope?
(At this point, R&Rs appear to shift the goalposts by rejecting everything that is not infallibly pronounced – except, perhaps, canonizations! – but insistently quoting any and every papal document prior to VII).
Salza even rejects canonizations. He claims the canonizations of JP2 and John XXIII were invalid because JP2 and John XXIII held positions against the Faith. Because the rule of canonization weren’t followed, they are invalid. Unfortunately, Salza forgot the rule that popes don’t need to follow their own rules. They are over their own rules and have full supreme authority. Oh well, just another dogma from Vatican I that Salza implicitly denies. Not surprising.