When one uses the term "heretic" without any qualification, then it is interpreted as "formal heretic". The 1917 Code of Canon Law includes pertinacity in its definition of "heretic".
No ... you and Mr. Kramer blur formal heresy with pertinacity ... not the same thing.
So Canon Law doesn't use the term "formal" heretic, but according to you it's merely INTERPRETED (because you want it to be), but then because the word "manifest" doesn't appear, then it doesn't exist because you don't "interpret" it that way.
Manifest is common sense, and the Church only judges the external forum (taught by Popes and unanimously by theologians, since, duh, it's common sense that one cannot judge the internal forum, by definiition). As mentioned, unless you hold that occult heresy results in loss of office, then "manifest" is what's assumed in Canon Law, and not "formal", not in the way you define it, where it becomes an internal forum judgment.
You and Kramer are just desperate to salvage Wojtyla and Ratzinger while jettisoning Bergoglio and Prevost ... so you make garbage up to justify what you've already decided you want to believe.
Wojtyla, Ratzinger, and Bergoglio were all persistent in holding that the Old Covenant is still in force and salvific for the Jews, contrary to the dogmatic teaching of Florence. Both Wojtyla and Ratzinger were well educated theologians, educated prior to Vatican II and undoubtedly knew that they were attempting to change prior Church teaching on the matter, and they persisted in teaching this error repeatedly ... which renders it pertinacious manifest heresy. If anyone was just clownishly repeating stuff he heard and had no clue that Florence taught the opposite, it was Bergoglio.
But then either my opinion or your opinion or Kramer's regarding who "really means" the heresy and who doesn't ... that and $10 might get you a medium-size Starbucks coffee. We're both speculating, since neither of us can read the internal forum ... that's why the criterion is manifest pertinacious (not formal) heresy.
Manifest is merely opposed to ... occult.
Pertinacity is merely opposed to ... where there was a slip of the tongue, brain fart (didn't mean it), or honestly were wrong about what the Church taught.
So if a priest utters a heretical proposition from the pulpit, and you go ask him and he says "oh, sorry ... that was just a slip of the tongue" or you point out, "hey, Father, that's technically heretical" and he looks it up and says, "oh, you're right", that is contrary to pertinacity. I once listened to a sermon by an otherwise-wonderful priest that contained close to double-digit Christological heresies, but it's clear that he made those statements in ignorance and not any kind of pertinacious rejection of Church teaching. That's what pertinacity is contrary to ... not whether he truly, really "meant it" in the internal forum.
If you know that the Council of Florence teaches that the Old Covenant is defunct, replaced, and no longer salvific for anyone ... and you teach the opposite anyway. Now, when you teach it in an official papal teaching, something that appears in AAS, it's no accident, no slip of the tongue, as things that go out there are reviewed and then formally approved ... unlike if Bergoglio had been shooting the breeze on a papal plane or in an interview with Scalfari or the like.
Now, given that Wojtyla and Ratzinger, even if they were Modernists, were no dummmies ... having received advanced degrees prior to Vatican II when they meant something. There's no chance that they did not know they are contradicting the teaching of Florence. Wojtyla invented the teaching that the Old Covenant remains in force and is salvific for the Jews, and then Ratzinger taught it multiple times. They had to know they were contradicting Church teaching, and because they taught it officially and multiple times, that suffices to establish pertinacity. Bergoglio on the other hand ... he's a moron that couldn't pass a quiz based on Baltimore Catechism No. 2. Of course, that doesn't matter, since as Pope, his duties of state require that he know Church teaching, and his ignorance would be culpable.
Poll
