Oh, no, Meg. These are not interpretations of Fr. Kramer. Fr. Kramer just quotes the works of canonists. The following quotes of my earlier post are directly from those canonists' works. The first quote is regarding Canon 188 of the 1917 Code; the second quote is regarding Canon 194 of the 1983 Code. Both canons deal with the automatic loss of office due to public defection from the Catholic Faith.
"Public defection from the faith, by formal heresy or apostasy, with or without affiliation with another religious society. The offense must be public, that is, generally known or liable to become so before long. (Can. 2197)"
(Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac)
"A formal act (i.e. a declaration that one has left the Church) is not required for the defection in canon 194; the only requirement is that it be public (known or likely to become known). Neither is it required that the officeholder join another religion, although this could be an objective indication of defection."
(John P. Beal)
Will you now admit, Meg, that you are wrong that leaving the Church is required for a public defection from the Catholic Faith to take place?
Fr. Kramer is applying the words of the canonists to use for his interpretation of a particular canon law which they (canonists) were not actually addressing. That's what Benevacantists do. They, and you, have to do that, since canon does not stipulate what you say it does. Benevacantists, like their cousins the regular sedevacantists, don't have a leg to stand on, when it comes to explicit canon law saying what they (you) say that it means. You have to find a roundabout way to try to prove your case. It doesn't work.
Topic: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V (Read 28847 times)