I would say, “Yes.” His book “Infiltration” accuses every Pope from Pius 12th to Pope Francis of grave errors on doctrine and discipline, and accuses Vatican II of teaching heresy. A heretical Pope cannot be valid. So, having accused the Council and the successive Popes before, during, and after the Council of heresy, Marshall is left with only two possible positions. Either these Popes and this Council were valid, or they were invalid.
1. invalid leaves Marshall in a state of Sedevacantism – the heretical Popes and the heretical Council were not valid, and so no valid Pope or valid Council has gone astray, and the Church remains indefectible. Invalid Popes (antipopes) and invalid Councils are not a defection of the Church.
2. valid leaves Marshall in a state of heresy and schism – refusing submission to valid Popes and a valid Council is schism, and accusing valid Popes and a valid Council of going far astray from the true faith is a denial of the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church, which is heresy. Also, the First Vatican Council taught the dogma of the never failing faith of the Pope, so accusing a valid Pope of grave failures of faith, such as heresy or idolatry, implies a rejection of that dogma as well.
From my point of view, all these Popes and the Councils (Vatican I and II) were valid, and therefore, Dr. Taylor Marshall is a heretic and schismatic for rejecting their teachings and authority. But as he states his own position, he can only be a sedevacantist, for his accusations imply that these Popes and the Council must be invalid. He cannot possibly hold them all to be valid and reject their teachings and authority as extensively as he does.
This is the problem with the current papal accusers. They imply necessarily that Vatican II and Pope Francis, and really all the Popes who supported Vatican II, are invalid. They can’t claim that these Popes and the Council are valid, and yet erred so extensively as is claimed, as this could be an admission, on their part, of their own heresy of rejecting the indefectibility of the Church and of open schism. If Pope Francis is valid, you may not “recognize and resist” for that is nothing but schism. You can only resist an antipope, so you have to find some way to conclude that Francis in invalid, such as an invalid election, or loss of validity due to sins against faith.
RLCJ
the reproach of Christ 
If you don’t mind my asking, have you actually read his book? He answered most of your arguments in it.
Yes, I’ve read the book, Infiltration. It accuses Pope after Pope and Vatican II of being part of a conspiracy of freemasons and other evil and malicious persons. His claims imply that the Church is not indefectible, and that the Popes do not have the gift of truth and a never failing faith (Vatican I), and that the Church has been taken over by an evil plot. That is heretical and schismatic. “Answered most of your arguments?!!” No, he does not.
From what I could tell he seemed to like Benedict XVI. Firstly papal infallibility only works Ex Cathedra, such as when people are declared saints. This also occurred in the cases of the Immaculate Conception and the bodily Assumption of our Lady into heaven. Pope Francis said himself that he welcomes criticism, and, considering that Dr. Marshall got the phrase “accept and resist” from Galatians 2, that can’t technically be heretical in itself if he means what St. Paul meant, that is, rebuke the Holy Father when he does something wrong. Pope Paul VI said at Vatican II’s closing that they hadn’t made any dogmatic statements. I thought that made sense as, unlike the other ecumenical councils, it didn’t deal with heresies. If you have any insights as to what that means, I’ll listen.
Pope Francis is a valid Pope because he has been accepted by the body of Bishops as Pope. Every valid Pope has the divinely conferred charism of truth and never failing faith. So even when a Pope is not teaching infallibly, he cannot err gravely in any magisterial teaching, and he cannot fail in faith by heresy or idolatry or any other grave failure of faith, not even personally. Peter’s error was not grave, it was eating only with Christians who were former Jews. This was not a teaching error, but a personal error. And Peter did not impose this as an erroneous rule of discipline, so it was not an error of his acts or teachings as Pope, but only his personal behavior.
It seems like you haven’t read any of my posts on this subject, and I can’t reproduce them all here. Marshall is not merely criticizing the Pope. Marshall said: “The Catholic Church is in crisis because the enemies of Christ plotted organized efforts to place a pope for Satan on the Roman Chair of Saint Peter.” The Church is in crisis right now because of those efforts; is the Church in crisis because those efforts failed or succeeded? She wouldn’t be in crisis if they failed, would She? Marshall is strongly implying that Pope Francis is that “pope for Satan on the Roman Chair of Saint Peter.” Another phrasing Marshall uses to refer to Francis is “a Satanic revolution with the pope as puppet”.
That is not correcting the Pope for an error like Paul correcting Peter. That is schism and heresy.
I just found your blog, so don’t expect me to have seen everything. What do you mean by saying he cannot commit a grave error even personally? Also, are you saying that John XII, Benedict IX, and others were incapable of personally committing any grave failures of faith? It is true that the gift of unfailing truth, but since one can only be anathematized by disagreeing with statements Ex Cathedra, I would assume that means that otherwise he is still able to refuse that grace and commit heresy and there has always been a theological hypothesis of a heretical pope. According to St. Robert Bellermine it would be possible for a pope to commit heresy and in the case that there were a heretical pope, he would cease to be Catholic and therefore cease to be pope.
That is not what Bellarmine taught. He specifically taught: “THE FOURTH proposition. It is probable and may piously be believed that not only as ‘Pope’ can the Supreme Pontiff not err, but he cannot be a heretic even as a particular person by pertinaciously believing something false against the faith. It is proved: 1) because it seems to require the sweet disposition of the providence of God. For the Pope not only should not, but cannot preach heresy, but rather should always preach the truth. He will certainly do that, since the Lord commanded him to confirm his brethren, and for that reason added: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not fail,” that is, that at least the preaching of the true faith shall not fail in thy throne.”
2) It is proved ab eventu. For to this point no [Pontiff] has been a heretic, or certainly it cannot be proven that any of them were heretics; therefore it is a sign that such a thing cannot be.”
Bellarmine, Robert. On the Roman Pontiff, vol. 2: Books III-V (De Controversiis) (p. 171). Mediatrix Press. Kindle Edition.
Bellarmine also considered the hypothetical, if a Pope committed heresy, he would cease to be Pope. But all the papal accusers today claim that Pope Francis is the valid Pope and that he commits heresy. So they contradict Bellarmine’s belief, dogmatized by Vatican I, that Popes cannot teach or commit heresy, and his hypothetical that an heretical Pope would cease to be Pope.
Popes can sin, even gravely, but not any sin of grave failures of faith.
So, are you saying that if Pope Francis were to teach heresy, we ought to all become sedevacantists?
It is a dogma taught by the First Vatican Council, and also taught by Popes and Saints throughout the centuries (https://catholicism.io/2019/03/26/the-roman-pontiff-immunity-from-error-and-never-failing-faith/) that the Pope has the gift of truth and never failing faith. He cannot teach heresy, as he has the gift of truth, and he cannot commit heresy, as he has the gift of never failing faith.
The First Vatican Council doesn’t say specifically that he is unable to say something contrary to the Catholic faith as far as I can see. The anathema is attached to Ex Cathedra statements as far as I can tell. He is given the gift go unfailing faith, but I assumed that because there was only an anathema when one contradicts infallible statements that there would be some possibility as to capability of error in other circumstances under the grounds of faith and morals.
What you are saying is nonsense. Every definitive teaching of an Ecumenical Council is infallible, as Bellarmine teaches. And the gift of Truth and Never Failing Faith is not a new teaching of Vatican I, but a perennial teaching.
https://catholicism.io/2019/03/26/the-roman-pontiff-immunity-from-error-and-never-failing-faith/
I thought we were talking about the pope. Vatican I is infallible and protected from error. Anyone who opposes it is a heretic. My point was that it says he is protected from error in Ex Cathedra statements. As far as I can tell, the council only attaches an anathema if one disagrees with those. He is given the gift of truth, but the council doesn’t say he is incapable of refusing that grace and speaking falsely. At least, I don’t see where it says in the text that if the pope tried he would be incapable of committing heresy. If you have any idea, I’ll listen, but as far as I can tell, it doesn’t say that.
Read this list of teachings of the Church.
https://catholicism.io/2019/03/26/the-roman-pontiff-immunity-from-error-and-never-failing-faith/
Do not post any more comments in contradiction to those teachings, or the comment will be deleted.
I never said the pope committed heresy. If I did contradict any teachings of the Catholic Church it was unintentional.
I have only two more points. Firstly, in the exact same section where it says in the First Vatican Council that he has the charism of truth, the council is very specific about when he is protected from error. Secondly, I advise you examine the papacy of John XXII. Goodbye.
No. That is not “exactly the same section” but a different section, on a related but different topic. Sections 6 and 7 deal with the proper interpretation of Luke 22:32, and the teaching is that our Lord was, in that verse of Scripture, promising to keep the faith of Peter and his successors from every grave failure of truth and of faith. This applies generally, not only when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra. The section on the charism of truth and of never failing faith does not mention “ex cathedra” at all, nor does it set any restriction, as the subsequent section (n. 9) does. So clearly these are different but related dogmas. The first is the general protection from grave error in his magisterial teachings at all time. The later teaching is the specific protection from all error only when certain conditions are met.
And these two dogmas are inter-related. It would be absurd to have a plan for the Church where the Pope can teach heresy, except when teaching ex cathedra, which is truth without any error. This would be like letting a pilot steer a ship who steers faithfully and true, some times, and then other times aims for the nearest rocks on which to shipwreck the ship. Instead, the plan of God is that the Pope is protected from all grave error at all times, so he can never shipwreck the ship, and he can even teach without any error at all, for a very precise piloting of the ship when needed.
The accusation of heresy against John 22nd is so weak it is laughable.
This is what the First Vatican Council says:
“Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when,
1. “in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2. “in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3. “he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
“he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
“Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.” http://mesacc.edu/~thoqh49081/handouts/vatican1.html
In other words, it seems to me when looking at the entire definition by the council, he is only immune to error when defining something Ex Cathedra.
He is only immune from ALL error when infallible — papal infallibility, conciliar infallibility and the ordinary universal magisterium. When not speaking infallibly, his teaching is non-infallible, which means limited possibility of error, i.e. freedom from grave error. This is taught in the same document and chapter, n. 7. “This charism of truth and never failing faith divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See….” The claim that a Pope can teach heresy, when he is not teaching infallibly is absurd. He would be leading the Church unfailingly only when speaking infallibly, and otherwise he’d be leading them in to Hell by heresy. That is a foolish plan for the Church, and therefore not the plan of God. The charism of truth means that he cannot teach grave error at all, the errors possible when not speaking infallibly are limited; the charism also includes a never failing faith, which prevents him personally from failing in faith by apostasy, idolatry, or heresy. And this is a sound and useful plan for the Church. It is also in agreement with the many teachings that I cited before, listed here:
https://catholicism.io/2019/03/26/the-roman-pontiff-immunity-from-error-and-never-failing-faith/