CathInfo.com

Depends on semantics.  Many theologians don't consider material error to be "heresy" and would not classify those in material error as "heretics" at all.  I read a big discussion on this in one scholastic theology manual.

I don't consider it heresy either, and I made that clear already.

See, the truth always comes out eventually.

Also, dozens of other sedes before those three other sedes said the same wrong thing. The Church is not a democracy, there really is no strength in numbers when it comes to error.

What are you on about?

This:

Heretics are not Catholics until they abjure their errors. As three other people have told you. Get behind me Satan

Does not contradict this:

Council of Florence (1442: DS 1351): "It firmly believes, professes and preaches, that none who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics, can partake of eternal life, but they will go into eternal fire... unless before the end of life they will have been joined to it [the Church] and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body has such force that only for those who remain in it are the sacraments of the Church profitable for salvation;"

I never denied that heretics can convert and return to the Church. Not once. Admission of the sacraments being only accessible to Catholics doesn't contradict that either, as to abjure the error is to re-enter the fold as a dead member. 

Antipope Francis, for example, has never done such and he remains outside the Church, therefore, he has no right to command in the Church nor can he be the Pope. Further, he was a manifest FORMAL heretic before his "election", so either way its impossible that he is the true Pope. The same goes for his predecessors after Pius XII.

Many theologians don't consider material error to be "heresy" and would not classify those in material error as "heretics" at all.

My beef is not with theologians but with those on this site (and MHFM) who repeatedly generalize a complex topic such as heresy.  They lump all manner of errors into one big bucket and call it 'heresy'.  Then they build upon this faulty foundation the next step, which is to (personally) throw out any and all "heretics" from office, with not even so much as a hearing or a repudiation (which, by the way, is a canon law requirement and also taught by St Paul).  They act as the canon lawyer, judge and jury...all the while, being simple laymen.  It's ridiculous and beyond anything in church history.

Church History examples:
1.  Martin Luther (one of the most famous and public heretics in all of history), even after nailing his 100 thesis to the door of a church, was not excommunicated until a OVER A YEAR later, after multiple talks, hearings, etc.  Does this matter to some in our day?  No.  They can throw out any and all persons they deem necessary.  No matter that they are simple laymen, monks, or priests, with no jurisdiction, no canon law training, and not one iota of ecclesiastical authority.

2.  Those who correctly point out that Fr Feeney's excommunication was faulty (and therefore probably null), in that he requested a public hearing with rome officials (as is his right under canon law) but was ignored.  Yet these same people don't blink an eye when it comes to deciding that this or that priest, bishop or pope is no longer in office, ignoring all pretenses of a trial, or canon laws, or any kind of procedure whatsoever.

It's shocking in its lack of common sense.  It's a (sad) triumph of theory over reality, where "imaginary righteousness" takes precedent over the laws of justice.