His "out" of using the "formal" vs. "material" heresy distinction is contrary to Bellarmine himself, who writes of MANIFEST heresy.

But the point was that he doesn’t advance Cajetan/JST.

And secondly, that even conciliarists are conceding Francis is at least a material heretic.

…and I might add that Vigano has been the catalyst for these conciliarists even considering the pope question.  7-8 years ago, I don’t recall a single one discussing the matter.

Are you disassociating subjective sin from external acts or claiming that it is not important in asserting that one is a heretic?

A formal heretic is one who pertinaciously denies or doubts a proposition that must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith.  Pertinacity is the element that constitutes the "formal" in the term "formal heretic".

Incorrect.  Formal in formal heresy refers to denying Catholic dogma in such a way as to undermine the formal motive of faith.  You can have a Protestant who grows up believing his heresies and who is inculpable, i.e. has committed no sin against the faith, but he is nevertheless a formal heretic, since he does not accept the formal motive of faith, the authority of God revealing as proposed by the Holy Catholic Church.  You could even (in theory, though this doesn't happen in reality) have someone who happens to materially believe every dogma taught by the Catholic Church, having derived it from the Bible using his own devices, but he's nevertheless a formal heretic because he lacks the formal motive of faith.

In other words, the "material" is what you believe and the "formal" WHY you believe it.  One can be a formal heretic without having committed a sin.

Hold on.  In your use of the term "formal heresy", are you speaking about it as a "sin" or as a "canonical delict"?  I am speaking about formal heresy as a "sin".  That's why I have often stated that the public "sin" of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.  I should have made this explicit earlier.

Do you see the word sin anywhere in this Latin or any discussion of culpability?  No, because the terms formal and pertinacious do not have to do per se with culpability.  While in practice there's often an overlap of these various conditions, they're formally distinct terms and cannot be conflated.  Father Kramer falsely injects culpability as the criterion for membership in the Church.  This is false.  Again, take a Protestant who may be inculpable (due to some invincible ignorance) of his heresy.  Is he a member of the Church?  Is he capable of being the Pope?  Of course not.  He's in formal heresy ... regardless of whether he's culpable or not.  Father Kramer makes the same error of injecting culpability and sin into the equations, matters which can only be known ultimately to God in the internal forum.

Cf. the quote from St. Robert Bellarmine above that we do not judge people to be heretics by reading hearts but simply from their external works (and statements).

But if one starts speculating about culpability, and it can only be speculation, who would be more culpable, someone like Bergoglio who was educated already in Modernist seminaries or a Ratzinger, who had a classic pre-Vatican II theological training that would have exposed him to all the sources of the faith?  In fact, in theory, neither can be considered inculpable on account of ignorance, since it is a requirement of their duty of state (aka the papal office) to be informed about the faith.  Ignorance doesn't excuse when one is required by his duty of state to know something.