Firstly, those of the conciliar church would all say they haven't defected from the Faith; they are still catholic. They would say they are modernizing the Church but that such is allowed. So, there would have to be a case (similar to Martin Luther) to prove guilt.
Secondly, in any just legal system, one is innocent until proven guilty. You, however, are assuming guilt with no due process (even if there is some evidence). This is not only uncatholic, but unjust and you're acting no better than the famous tyrants of history. You've made yourself judge, jury and executioner. 
It reminds me of the famous scene in the St Thomas More movie, "A Man for All Seasons", where St Thomas' son-in-law is arguing about the legal process with St Thomas.
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
The public sin of manifest formal heresy is a kind of public defection from the Catholic Faith. Canon 188.4 speaks about the FACT of public defection and not the judgment of the Church for the loss of office to take place.
Once again, this goes back to your claim that one cannot judge the sin of heresy, for which claim you have refused to provide evidence.
Topic: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V (Read 28996 times)