Fr. Kramer specifically said error against faith, and not just any error.

Every error is against the faith, as a pope erring about a historical or scientific fact obviously doesn't count.

You're tyring to pretend that only de fide errors count as errors against the faith,

Fr. Kramer just made up his parenthetical out of thin air.

Perhaps someday you'll honestly reveal your relationship with Fr. Kramer, since you're constantly shilling for him and consider everything he says his rule of faith, even when he's contradicting himself.

Of course, nobody defines "pernicious" in this debate.  I would say that it means that it's harmful to souls.  There are some errors of faith that are harmful to souls and do damage, whereas others do not, but are mere disagreements between different theological schools of thought, where one of them has to be wrong (since they're diamtrically opposed), but that doesn't mean that either opinion is "harmful", i.e. damages souls.

For the Church's Magisterium to harm souls is contrary to the indefectibility of the Church ... but Kramer will deny this just to salvage Ratzinger or JP2 or Montini (Vatican II), since he's already decided ahead of time that Bergoglio isn't the pope but the others must be.

There's absolutely NOTHING that Bergoglio has said or even taught that Montini, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger haven't all said or taught before him.  You and Kramer put on these blinders, this cognitive dissonance, where you just "filter out" the heresies of these others in an exercise of intellectual dishonesty.  In terms of religious indifferentism, Wojtyla's teachings and activity make Bergoglio's look amateurish by comparison, and Wojtyla invented and Ratzinger affirmed the heresy that Kramer first asserted rendered Bergoglio a non-pope, namely, that the Old Testament is salvific for the Jews.  Wojtyla invented it, and both he and Ratzinger repeatedly taught it ... an obvious heresy, verbatim contradicting the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Florence.  In terms of pertinacity, Bergoglio cannot hold a candle to Ratzinger's intellectual ability and his knowledge of Church theology and history ... so that there can be zero doubt that Ratzinger knew that he was contradicting Florence.  Bergoglio, on the other hand, is a low IQ individual who idiotically called Traditionalists "Pelagians", clearly not knowing what the term even meant, but intending something along the lines of Jansenists ... and he could be excused more easily on the higher probability of his ignorance and because he could just be parrotting back the teaching of Wojtyla and Ratzinger, thinking it for that reason to be Catholic.