Dr. Taylor Marshall recently posted a video on the late Fr. Malachi Martin and sedevacantism. [1]
Besides the subject of Fr. Malachi, Dr. Marshall and Gordon give reasons why they aren’t sedevacantists. However, they innocently (I believe) present a false narrative of sedevacantism. Their misgiving in accepting sedevacantism is the result of misunderstanding the position and the facts about the Church.
Both of these men seem like fine gentlemen. Hopefully, this post will encourage them and others to take a closer look into the issues and reconsider the possibility that sedevacantism is the correct position.
There are 7 main misconceptions about sedevacantism that’s implied in their video:
1. Gordon’s words, “There is no papacy. The papacy ended” at 1:18:18 and Dr. Marshall’s reference to Vatican I on perpetual successors (implying perhaps that sedevacantism doesn’t fit.)
Sedevacantism is a position that there’s no current pope. It’s not a position that the papacy or perpetual successors has ended. A long interregnum is the proper way of understanding the situation. Vatican I didn’t say nor could it say that there must at all times be a pope. As long as the principle of perpetuity is present (and it is), all is needed to fulfill the declaration of Vatican I.
2. Sedes are counter-factual on Fatima.
This objection is more about opinions of sedevacantists rather than sedevacantism. However, I have presented all the necessary answers concerning Fatima here:
Our Lady’s Fatima Message and the Consecration of Russia
and here:
The Hidden Message of Fatima
3. The Gates of hell have prevailed if sedevacantism is true.
This objection is answered here: The Gates of Hell and Sedevacantism
4. All the world’s cardinals, bishops, priests, and laymen follow an antipope, which is impossible.
Rev. Francis X Doyle, S.J. explains: “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all….” (The Defense of the Catholic Church, 1927)
Notice that it is possible that everyone could follow an antipope since everyone followed one of the 3 so-called popes during the Great Western Schism.
5. Communion with a false pope makes one a non-Catholic.
As was shown in the previous objection, this is not necessarily so.
6. There were no sedes until the 1970’s.
This objection has no bearing on the question because Catholics can be mistaken on the issue. However, there were sedevacantists in 1958. Vatican insider Dr. Elizabeth Gerstner didn’t recognize Roncalli. I’m sure there were others. Jesuit Father Joaquin Saenz Y Arriaga was a doctor of Theology, Church History, and Canon Law. He was one of the first sedevacantists recognizing it in the mid to late 1960’s, perhaps earlier. He was a highly educated and courageous priest. He wrote a devastating critique of Paul VI in “The New Montinian Church” published in 1971. One of his followers, Fr. Moises Carmona would later become a sedevacantist bishop. He was killed in a tragic car accident in 1991. His body was later to be found incorrupt.
7. There’s no documentation that Roncalli and Montini were Freemasons.
First, I’m happy to hear that they acknowledge that a pope can’t be a Freemason. Now if a document was presented that Roncalli and Montini were initiated into Freemasonry, would it be accepted? Not only is there documentation that they were Freemasons, but their words and actions corresponded to the beliefs of the secret societies. I suggest reading the facts about Roncalli and Montini below:
Pope St. John XXIII or Antipope John XXIII?
Pope St. Paul VI or Antipope Paul VI?
I invite Dr. Marshall and Timothy Gordon to contact me by email or phone (which I’ll provide by email) to discuss these topics or other aspects of sedevacantism.
Footnote
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
“All the world’s cardinals, bishops, priests, and laymen follow an antipope, which is impossible”
I kinda agree with your response; I would slightly disagree by arguing perhaps the V2 “Catholics” are in at least material schism and aren’t fully Catholic legally, but some trads to me go too far and outright seem to assume everyone who is a V2 “Catholic” is maliciously in formal schism; I know plenty of people who just genuinely don’t know better and think with a fairly clear conscience (as far as I can see on the outside) that the V2 church is Catholic, and on that point alone they seem to be in a kind of invincible ignorance that doesn’t seem culpable, or with diminished culpability anyway.
“There were no sedes until the 70s”
I have proposed this as not being an issue because say there were some Catholics in a remote location who didn’t know who the pope was; they wouldn’t have named him in the Canon or formally adhered to him in any way; this would only have to be for like 10 years (1958 onward), like a Catholic in a coma or any kind of creative idea you have here could fit how someone could have remained Catholic during that time.
Please provide information supporting the claim Moises Carmona’s body was found incorrupt.
Who made the claims of finding the incorrupt body?
Where is the body now?
Has the claimed incorruption been verified by doctors or independently?
The info comes from Adsum October 2016. Bp Carmona’s body was transferred to a crypt in a lower chapel below Divina Providencia Church. There are pictures of his body when laid in the crypt. His body showed no signs of decomposition and looked the same as his funeral.
Thank you. I just read the account by Bishop Pivarunas. Reportedly photos were taken which showed the body had remained incorruptibly for “a number of years.”
It’s pretty awesome!
Washington Post; Vatican makes history: Pope allows Islamic prayers, Koran reading at the Catholic facility”. How does Sedevacantism look now?
Many Catholics in the 1960s simply took a wait and see attitude when Montini pushed his modernist religion on the faithful. They weren’t called Sedevacantist at the time. They became known as the “Unchurched”. a term that the clergy who excepted the Vatican II changes placed on those who felt that those changes were not what they had been taught and believed. Most believed that this was only temporary and Montini would be a short-lived phenomenon. Many were confused and watched and waited in the catacombs not knowing what course to take. For Catholics, it was felt by many that they were betrayed and just stayed away from this new religion not knowing where to turn. The events of the sixties to the present day is a justification of their stand. The rotten fruits of Vatican II are all too apparent as prophecy unfolds. The sheep still search for their shepherd but now they realize who definitely is not their Shepherd.
Like many who converted from Protestantism to the Vatican II cult, Dr. Taylor brought along his own baggage that fits well with the universalism of the cult. I love the weasel word that the cult uses in describing a false religion ( a different tradition). Dr. Taylor is no more a Catholic than Bergoglio. I am always suspicious of those who are employed by the cult. How can you be impartial when your livelihood depends on you being in good graces with the cult?