The explanation you provided from Prummer is enough.

Anyway, your shirt is nailed to the wall with the 'young parish priest' example.  Of course you are free to wriggle out of your shirt and run around to other topics unclothed, but that's not very dignified.

According to me? Since when do the laity make that kind of determination?

What do the Arian bishops have to do with it? In those days, the laity couldn't do anything about Arianism in the Church. All they could do was to keep their faith with true Catholic sacraments as best they could.

It wasn't until Constantine called the Council of Nicaea that Arianism began to be dealt with, since it was condemned at the Council. But it took awhile to deal with. It was the leaders of the Church that condemned Arianism. That's the difference between you and me. I'm not the leadership of the Church, and you aren't either. But you think you are.

Why do I need to make that determination? Since when do the laity make that determination?

I can't answer your question, because it isn't logical for the laity to make those decisions. Your question simply serves to highlight the difference between dogmatic benevacantists such as yourself, and a regular R&R trad like me.

The laity aren't the ones to make any absolute decision on the status of the Pope. Never have been. Our salvation is not based on knowing whether the Pope is a true Pope or not. It is beyond our purview. We can, however, recognize when the leadership is teaching something against the faith, and avoid them, as was done in the Arian Crisis, and wait until such a time as the leadership is sane again, and modernism hopefully denounced.

Therefore you have made a decision that should be left up to the leadership of the Catholic Church.

 

I said that the canon law you cited meant that public defection means giving a public statement that one was leaving the Catholic Church. It has to do with the canon law that you and the other benevacantist brought up, and keep bringing up.

I'm not going to back up what I said, and I will not retract it. Just because you provide your interpretations from canonists, it doesn't mean that your interpretation is correct, since you are still interpreting that canon law, because the canon law is not explicit.

The canon law does not state that a Pope who states heretical views automatically loses his office. The canon law says nothing about heresy. My opinion might not be correct either. Bottom line is, we just have our opinions, which we should not force others to follow. But you are trying to force others to your POV.