An excerpt of interest from Catholic writer Orestes Brownson on church definitions. I post this in the "ghetto" because it really goes in the face of dogmatic anti-BOD (aka Dimondism), as well as dogmatic sedevacantism and R&R, as to the matters of theological speculation on undefined doctrines:

The definitions of the church have something of the character of criminal jurisprudence. They are not a part of the revelation,—are not necessary to her positive enunciation of the word, or essential to its life and operation; but they are required to vindicate it from error, as criminal courts pass sentences to vindicate the law which has been violated. Nobody who comprehends any thing of the matter restricts the word to the definitions of the church, or supposes that the definitions either make the faith or cover the whole of the revealed word. It is not to be supposed that nothing is believed, or to be believed that is not formally defined by the church, for her definitions touch only so much of the faith as has been controverted or denied. But all theological questions, however unsound they may be, that have not been condemned or declared to be contrary to the faith, may be held without incurring the note of heresy, and be freely discussed, pro and con. according to the judgment or prejudices of theologians.
-Brownson, Complete Works, vol. VIII., Faith and Theology, p. 8.

For, the Church has never formally condemned or declared BOD to be contrary to the Faith. The same goes for R&R or sedevacantist theories on the current Crisis. Therefore, those who come out decrying one side or the other as heretics are in the wrong. I've done this at times, yet it's also the biggest problem I have with the Dimond position on BOD; and so it is  with the non una cuм position on the Mass and Holy See. While I overall agree with them on the notion that there is no BOD, that water baptism is inherently essential to be saved, that does not mean I can go ahead and declare someone who disagrees with that an outright heretic. It may be imprudent, and dangerous, to hold that Jєωs, Muslims, etc., can be, in rare circuмstances, be saved through desire without baptism (as all traditionalist clerics hold today), but the Church has never formally condemned or declared such a position to be contrary to the Faith. And so I can wholly disagree with the idea, on good principles, but I cannot come out and say someone is not Catholic for holding them. As there is a precedent for the position in the realm of Catholic opinion, Pius IX mentioned it as well as Fr. Frederick Faber.

Therefore, this idea of the Dimonds, and others, that we should view literally everyone who holds to such a position as heretics damned to hell, is a very un-Catholic way to view their position. And gives me some context as to why I am so bothered by their rash condemnation of everyone.

This has given me a lot to think about.

To my knowledge MHFM has never condemned Fr Feeney as a heretic.  Fr Feeney affirmed the existence of BOD and also that it was possible to be justifed by BOD.  And although MHFM has written that Fr Feeney was in error on that point, to my knowledge, they have never written or said that he was a heretic.  I think they said once that they believe that probably (or maybe they hoped) he would have agreed with them if he had heard their position.  But not only do they not claim Fr Feeney was a heretic but neither do they accuse St Benedict Center of heresy ON THAT PARTICULAR POINT.  They do accuse SBC of heresy on the heretic pope question.  They are dogmatic on points concerning dogmas.  Which is what we all should be.  When a Catholic says there is salvation outside the Church and refuses correction on that point, it is fair to call them out as heretics.

The only point I would want to disagree with MHFM on is at what point can we assume that someone is a formal heretic and outside the Church?  We can only assume because the hierarchy of the Church is the final arbiter of guilt in this regard.  Only a cleric possessing jurisdiction can make a definitive judgment in such a case.  But the rest of us laymen and clergy who do not possess jurisdiction are required to make a judgment about these matters before a definitive ruling in order to protect ourselves.  I like to point to the historic case of Nestorius where St Hypatius judged Nestorius to be a formal heretic and Bishop Eulalius (who agreed that Nestorius was a heretic) rebuked Hypatius for breaking communion with Nestorius (who was Hypatius' ordinary) before judgment from Rome.  When the pope finally did rule, he ruled that Nestorius was in fact a heretic and he praised Hypatius for breaking communion immediately.  But I know of no evidence of the pope rebuking Eulalius publicly.  So not breaking communion before a definitive judgment was not seen as an act deserving of punishment.  But breaking communion was the better choice.  But what if it turned out that after speaking with the pope, Nestorius admitted his error and apologized?  I'm not sure.  That's where things get really complicated in my mind.  Was a repentent heretic a formal heretic BEFORE the ruling by the pope?  What if the heretic convinced the pope that he was merely mistaken about a point of theology?  What if he didn't take correction from his inferiors nor from his peers but only gave in when his superior, the pope, corrected him?  I'm trying to keep an open mind.  I'm not ready to condemn everyone who is clearly in error of formal heresy just because they got corrected by a few laymen.

I do condemn Novus Ordo clerics as formal heretics because they no longer worship in the Catholic Church.  They don't have Catholic sacraments.  They don't use Catholic Liturgy or laws.  They don't use Catholic catechisms.  They are completely lost.  I don't care if they are sincere in their belief that their non-Catholic sect is actually the Church of Christ.  It isn't.  The Novus Ordo is no more the Church of Christ than the Anglican Church.  I believe the next pope, if there is one, will condemn the Novus Ordo as a non-Catholic sect.  So I've broken communion just like St. Hypatius.

But for traditional Catholics who have made some serious errors regarding Catholic theology, I don't hold them to be formal heretics and I don't think a future pope will either.  I think they just have made a mistake and refuse correction because they feel justified by 19th and 20th century theologians who also had made serious errors and who were never condemned by any pope.

The other problem I see here is that those who hold to invincible ignorance BOD, while in error, never actually deny the defined dogma of the necessity of baptism. Rather, they hold to this opinion as a possibility for those who they think may merit salvation. It's definitely an error, and bad theology, but it's difficult to say it's an outright heresy as it doesn't seek to deny a dogma, but merely to expound upon it.

Because if that is the case, then Pope Pius IX is a heretic and an anti-Pope for mentioning the possibility in his address on Austria, Singulari Quidem:

Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.
-Singulari Quidem, 7.

An excerpt of interest from Catholic writer Orestes Brownson on church definitions. I post this in the "ghetto" because it really goes in the face of dogmatic anti-BOD (aka Dimondism), as well as dogmatic sedevacantism and R&R, as to the matters of theological speculation on undefined doctrines:

Quote

The definitions of the church have something of the character of criminal jurisprudence. They are not a part of the revelation,—are not necessary to her positive enunciation of the word, or essential to its life and operation; but they are required to vindicate it from error, as criminal courts pass sentences to vindicate the law which has been violated. Nobody who comprehends any thing of the matter restricts the word to the definitions of the church, or supposes that the definitions either make the faith or cover the whole of the revealed word. It is not to be supposed that nothing is believed, or to be believed that is not formally defined by the church, for her definitions touch only so much of the faith as has been controverted or denied. But all theological questions, however unsound they may be, that have not been condemned or declared to be contrary to the faith, may be held without incurring the note of heresy, and be freely discussed, pro and con. according to the judgment or prejudices of theologians.
-Brownson, Complete Works, vol. VIII., Faith and Theology, p. 8.

For, the Church has never formally condemned or declared BOD to be contrary to the Faith. The same goes for R&R or sedevacantist theories on the current Crisis. Therefore, those who come out decrying one side or the other as heretics are in the wrong. I've done this at times, yet it's also the biggest problem I have with the Dimond position on BOD; and so it is  with the non una cuм position on the Mass and Holy See. While I overall agree with them on the notion that there is no BOD, that water baptism is inherently essential to be saved, that does not mean I can go ahead and declare someone who disagrees with that an outright heretic. It may be imprudent, and dangerous, to hold that Jєωs, Muslims, etc., can be, in rare circuмstances, be saved through desire without baptism (as all traditionalist clerics hold today), but the Church has never formally condemned or declared such a position to be contrary to the Faith. And so I can wholly disagree with the idea, on good principles, but I cannot come out and say someone is not Catholic for holding them. As there is a precedent for the position in the realm of Catholic opinion, Pius IX mentioned it as well as Fr. Frederick Faber.

Therefore, this idea of the Dimonds, and others, that we should view literally everyone who holds to such a position as heretics damned to hell, is a very un-Catholic way to view their position. And gives me some context as to why I am so bothered by their rash condemnation of everyone.

Focus on the part I bolded.

With the bolded in mind, he is saying that Trent vindicates the necessity of the sacrament through it's teachings, canons and definitions.

True, the Church has not come out and explicitly condemned a BOD as heresy, but in as far as it is contrary to Trent, that is what makes it heresy, or at least error. After all, if something is contrary to what the Church teaches, it's heresy. Were it otherwise then there would be little or no need for Councils, either that or the Councils would need to condemn each and every possible contrary opinion, and every possible combinations of opinions - but she doesn't do that. She says what is and we must not stray from what She says.

But Ladislaus should recognize that he is the only person who thinks BOD can be defined without contradicting or making an exception to existing dogmas.

What about St. Thomas, St. Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus, Billot, Capello, Merkelbach, Ott, Prümmer, etc. pp.?
They seemed to think that BoD can be defined without contradicting existing dogmas. Or were they unaware of these dogmas?
Certainly Ladislaus is not alone in his opinion.

Just for the sake of clarity, the focus here is not on whether or not BoD is an error (I believe it is), but whether those who hold to the theological opinion of such are either obstinate, hell bound heretics (as the Dimonds hold, unless you're a canonized saint); or that they are Catholics in error.

On the basis of Brownson's distinctions, I'm arguing for the latter. Fr. Feeney appears to have been of the latter camp as well.

It is a sin for Catholics to hold contrary beliefs to the clear de fide teachings of the Church. The distinction you're seeking is whether holding contrary beliefs is sin of heresy, which we cannot say until that contrary belief is professed, or is it just an error due to being mistaken, in which case is the error corrected when the mistake is realized. Does the mistake become the sin of heresy if the contrary belief is maintained after being corrected? Seems like it to me.

No, you don't make the necessary distinctions here.  Someone could hold a believe contrary to the clear de fide teachings of the Church out of ignorance, in which there's NO SIN AT ALL if it's not a culpable ignorance.  As soon as it becomes a sin, then the rejection of "clear de fide teachings of the Church" is most certainly heresy.  If it's a sin, then it's heresy.  If it's just a "mistake," then there's no sin at all, much less a sin of heresy.

So you're saying there is no sin at all to believe contrary to the teachings of the Church if you do not know the Church's teachings are contrary to your belief. I do not believe that is always the case. Certainly sometimes yes, but not always. 

The further away from true teachings that people get, the more ignorant they become, the more they will sin in ignorance.

 But I don't think it is a good idea to break communion at this point either.  And I think maybe MHFM sees it that way too.  They still receive sacraments from valid priests even if those priests are preaching heresy on EENS.  But they won't hear any sermons or support them in any way.  So is that breaking communion or not?  I don't know.  Trying to figure this all out is a major headache.

That's what I'm trying to figure out here. Either virtually every traditional priest is a heretic, or, they are not heretics and are simply in error. It's a difficult thing to figure out. As you're right, they commune with these supposed heretics, so the idea that there's a break in communion with other traditionalists isn't really true.

And then there's the question of how these theologians and saints get out of being seen as heretics when their own theories about BoD, even if limited to catechumens, does involve a denial of the dogma, in some degree, to reconcile; as Lad and Stubborn discuss above. Because, then, beyond that, you have the likes of Pope Pius IX, as quoted above, and even Fr. Faber, expressing a different form of BoD wherein you don't necessarily have to be a catechumen, and stretches the definition of what it means to be a member of the Church, despite the corrections of Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII on heresy and membership of the Body later.

I really don't see any way out around the fact that it would be formal heresy for any traditionalist to hold to such a position these days.