When he promotes an Orthodox guy as "one of his favorite theologians" and "not wrong" ... and then Modernist-heretics like Balthasaar, no Catholic could actually do that.  No Orthodox thinker should ever even make a Catholic's list of theologians, much less his "favorite" ones.  And, of course, the term theologian (for a Catholic) does not apply to some Orthodox thinker.  In no sense is he a theologian, since theology (as St. Thomas defines) requires faith.  He's a "thinker about religion", but the term theologian for Catholics requires the Catholic faith as the foundation.

You are literally over in the newest poll arguing the EXACT opposite. What makes this Benaz-Nishant fellow any different than the "Formal Motive Novus Ordos" you are saying are Catholics? In his mind he may believe that Ortho theologians and Balthasaar can be good - like Ratzinger thought - tons of people on this forum probably think Ratzinger was a saint and yearn to have someone like him sitting on the throne again. Are you going to claim that they are all non-Catholics too here - but then jump back over to other threads and argue that they are Catholic, because of formal motive

No, it only seems that way to those (like yourself) who simply cannot grasp the concept of distinctions.

Try reading my post again until you understand it.

Since the Orthodox have been declared heretical and schismatic by the authority of the Church, there's no room for private judgement and interpretation.  By the Church's authority, they are not Catholic.  Consequently, he's suspect of heresy for pushing an Orthodox "theologian", since the Church's teaching on the matter is clear, that these people are heretics.

Meanwhile, there are Catholics who believe the Conciliar Church's claim to be the Catholic Church, drawing that conclusion for various reasons that we Traditional Catholics consider fault.  Yet, that's our opinion, and even if we think the logic is unassailable, it's lacking the Church's authority, which is necessary to bind consciences.

As I said, please read again my explanation of material error vs. formal error, and how it has nothing to do with "sincerity".  It has to do with whether there is or is not objective certainty based on the Church's authority.

Orthodox are a schismatic sect, simpliciter, due to the Church's authority.  Conciliar Church profess to be the Catholic Church and the actual Catholic Church has not declared otherwise.  We have built up a logical case against it, but that's our judgment only.

It's similar to how dogmas can be in different states.  Let's say it's the year 1800 and I'm a theologian who's arguing that papal infallibility is revealed dogma.  I'm actually right.  It is revealed dogma.  But someone who rejected it in the year 1800 would not be considered a formal/pertinacious heretic, even though papal infallbility is objectively a dogma and they reject it.  That's because it hasn't been defined and proposed yet with sufficient clarity by the Church's authority to render a rejecting of it formal pertinacious heresy.  I could prove papal infallibility is dogma with unassailable logic, up one side and down the other, but no matter what I say, someone who didn't agree with my reasoning cannot be a formal pertinacious heretic.

It's exactly the same situation with the Conciliar Church.  We could argue with the same certainty and be right, just like the aforementioned theologian regarding papal infallibility ... but until the Church's authority confirms our assessment, those who reject our arguments, our reasoning, and our judgment cannot be accused of pertinacious formal heresy.

Maybe that comparison with the dogmas before they've been defined can help clarify the distinction you're otherwise unable to grasp.

This is the same error the Dimonds make, where they keep claiming that people who are exposed to their arguments cannot be accused of formal pertinacious heresy.  That's 100% false.  Unless the Church has defined something, no matter how "air tight" their logic might seem, it can't rise to the level of objectively imposing itself on others' consciences absent the authority of the Church.