Sedevacantism is not the Great Apostasy since it is very small compared to the novus ordo and everything connected with it.  You would be very wise to leave the harlot completely and when it ever does come back to the True Church it will be exactly as the sedevacantism "movement" with of course the word "sedevacantist" REMOVED because there will be A True Pope, and the word "sedevacantism" will not be necessary.  Also the words "novus ordo" will be removed, since it will no longer be the New Order but the Old Traditional Order, as it was from the beginning.  

The definition of the word "Truth" according to St.Augustin, simply put: Truth= "What Is"  The novus ordo is not Catholic and that is What Is.  

I didn't say that Sedevacantism is the Great Apostasy. I said that the Church is going through a great apostasy. Sedevacantism is a heretical sect. During this apostasy there is the great heresy of Modernism. Sedevacantism is a separate heresy, but it a heresy affecting a small number, as the sect is very small like you say. Sedevacantism is a heresy because it denies the dogma of Vatican I that there will always be perpetual Popes. It denies the three attributes of the Church: Visibility, Perpetual Indefectibility, and Infallibility. That the Church is no longer visible and has defected is a type of Protestant heresy.

Yes. He is in apostasy and is the true Pope. He was validly elected Pope in a conclave. Popes can fall into heresy. The Church has had heretical Popes in her past. John XXII and Honorius taught heresy. Faith is not necessary for jurisdiction. Faith, hope, and charity are not necessary for jurisdiction. In fact, faith, hope, and charity are not necessary for membership in the Church. The external bonds of unity suffice for membership in the Church.

It's a plain heresy to say that a true pope is an apostate.

I didn't mean that, what I meant was that if you believe Paul VI could change the mass and all the sacraments as he did, then you go there, you go to the new sacraments, new priests, new bishops and new church that Paul VI started. I do not believe they are even Catholic, so I do not go to them for anything.

The Vatican II church apologists are like computers with no memory, they complain about Bergolio's the heresy of the day, for there's a new one every day,  but then forget it the next day and  complain about that day's heresy and on and on........ They can never remember the past accuмulation of errors and will forever be saying that the pope is "the Holy Father". Meanwhile, they do not see that they have been dragged through miles of heresies.

Forgive me for being confused, but we were discussing the validity for the form of Episcopal consecration in the new rite of Holy Orders of Paul VI. When did the 7 sacraments change? They didn't. We still have 7 sacraments in the Catholic Church. We have new rites for these sacraments.

I never said the Paul VI rites are a great thing, I only said that the new rites are valid. He have Catholic bishops and priests. They are not new bishops or new priests. They are just simply bishops and priests. A priest ordained in the 1968 rite is just as much a priest as an SSPX priest ordained in the 1962 rite.

I would like to see where I have been dragged through miles and miles of heresy. I do not hold to a single heresy. I believe in every dogma and doctrine of the Church.

Do explain. Because there is no Church teaching that a Pope cannot loose the faith. He is a man with free will. He could become an Atheist if he so chooses. That would give the Church the opportunity to try him for heresy and depose him.

To call him an apostate is to easily recognize is more than a manifest heretic. It is well-established that as soon as he chooses that path, he immediately ceases to be pope:

"we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII.; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric."

To call him an apostate is to easily recognize is more than a manifest heretic. It is well-established that as soon as he chooses that path, he immediately ceases to be pope:

Quote from: St. Francis de Sales

Quote

"we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII.; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric."

The Church must judge the Pope. Only Church authority can depose a Pope. That is what St. Francis means by deprivation. He is not deposed by private judgement, but by a judgement of the Church. The Pope can loose his office either through his own admission of guilt or by being convicted and deposed by the Church. A Pope can publicly admit to denying a dogma of the faith, which would negate the need for a trial or he can openly leave the Church for another sect. Without his admission of guilt, he must go on trial for heresy.

Asbury no matter how you spin your thoughts, if you believe that the current man sitting in the Chair, (Francis) is an apostate, you are a sedevacantist.    Like it or not!

No, because he is a valid Pope. The chair is not vacant. Pope Francis is the valid Pope of the Catholic Church with the authority and jurisdiction of a Pope. Because of his apostasy, he is suspect of heresy. He must be given warnings to establish his pertinacity and then go on trial for heresy. He can also do the Church the favor of resigning. Either through resignation or deposition, he needs to go, because he is a bad Pope. My opinion of he being an apostate is just that, because the Church has not judged him for apostasy. As of right now, he is a Catholic in good standing.

Apparently, you don't understand what you are reading. Everybody knows what "ipso facto" means, and you just totally rephrased it to say what the Saint and Doctor did not say. "by the very fact" of his becoming an obvious heretic, he falls from his dignity and out of the Church. Then it says "and the Church must" - follow with some action upon that man who is "out of the Church". That action is performed on a man who is NOT pope, otherwise it would be the condemned heresy of Conciliarism (Gallicanism) to judge a pope. A pope cannot be deposed; other Catholic sources say this explicitly. Nor is the man a pope because he may still possess the Apostolic See. The See is not the man. Possession does not mean ownership.

Quote from: St. Francis de Sales:
"we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII.; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric."

Heresy is a sin and a crime. St. Francis is talking about a Pope who has been convicted of heresy. He becomes "explicitly a heretic" when the Church has judged him a heretic. Again only the Church can declare a Pope a heretic and deprive him by deposing him.

Catholic theologians have said throughout the centuries that heresy is the only time an inferior can judge a superior. Cardinal Bellarmine, Cajetan, Suarez, and John of St. Thomas all taught an ecuмenical council can try a Pope for heresy and depose him. St. Francis De Sales lived in the times of Bellarmine and Suarez. He knew their positions and commented on them.