The fact that you responded to this post proves you are Hietanen... I also completely recognize your posts about mortal sin and NFP, not to mention that you say "You know,..." alot. I also remember that you think everyone but yourself is a heretic, and you think Archbishop LeFebvre is a heretic as well....

I must retract that I called Marcel Lefebvre a heretic on this and on Clares forum for a while ago, why? because I simply don't know if he ever was obstinate about his heretical statements or if he ever was confronted about them or if he even understood the dogmas that he denied.

Since I have no evidence of this (that he ever was an obstinate heretic), he might in fact have been a material heretic (an erring Catholic).
Now, his statements on baptism of desire and his other statements that non-Catholics (Jєωs, Muslims etc) can be saved as practicing Jєωs or Muslims - are heretical, however, but he might not have been a heretic himself for holding these opinions (unless he was obstinate about his beliefs, of course, but which I have no proof of that he ever was.) So until someone can prove that he was obstinate about his heretical statements or prove that he ever held a belief contrary to the natural or divine law, it's possible that he was an erring Catholic.

I always thought before that denying the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ or the Trinity (for obtaining salvation) was a heresy against Divine Faith and that a person would become a heretic automatically for denying that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, - however, but this might not be correct. For a person that himself believes in Jesus Christ (and if he does not fully understand the dogmas of the Church that he denies), he could very well in good faith and charity believe that others could be saved, somehow, without belief in Jesus Christ or the Catholic Faith. This is a chartable thought (although an untrue and heretical thought, since no one can be Saved without the Catholic Faith - and this thought would only be charitable so long as he did not know about the dogma he denied, for whenever one denies a dogma of the Church knowingly, then it this not charity, but bad will and pride, because he then he holds his own private opinions as more worthy than what he knows God has proclaimed true from the Chair of Peter).

But I admit that it's possible to hold these erroneous opinions innocently and that one can be a material heretic regarding it until one has had the true position presented. No one that has had the true position explained to himself (the dogmas, the teachings of the bible and the Fathers and Saints of the Church) and that rejects it, can be considered to be a material heretic, but must be presumed to be a bad willed lying heretic headed for Hell.

By the way, Benedict XVI (or any of the Vatican II antipopes for that matter) could never be considered as material heretics (if now anyone even would want to make that argument) because they have had the true position presented to them by SSPX. SSPX have had several meetings with Benedict XVI where they have told him that he must change certain things in the Vatican II "Church" before they would ever even consider a reunion. So what excuse could Benedict XVI ever have for "material heresy" even according to you, then,  who still defend him as Pope? None!, in fact, for he has been confronted about the heresies in Vatican II, and yet is he obstinate about them - since he argues that SSPX must conform to the teachings of Vatican II...


Anyway, this is my position on Marcel Lefebvre at the moment, and I think this to be the true position regarding heresy/and material heretics, - but if I have understood something incorrectly or said something wrong, please point it out to me so that I may change.