“Bellarmine is clear and explicit on this general point: that the separation from the body of the Church, as well as loss of office and all jurisdiction, are accomplished by the very act of heresy, ex natura hæresis, and not by the judgment of the Church, or as a penalty for an ecclesiastical delict. This sententia is de fide regarding firstly the separation from the Church, in virtue of 1) the unanimity of the Fathers, 2) the teaching of the universal magisterium set forth in the Roman Catechism, and, 3) the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis; and secondly, it is de fide regarding the loss of office and jurisdiction, because of 1) the unanimity of the Fathers on this point which Bellarmine amply demonstrates in his refutation of Opinion No. 4, and 2) the canonical doctrine of the Church proposed by the papal ordinary magisterium in Canon 188. 4°; which, therefore, qualifies it as a doctrine pertaining to the universal and ordinary magisterium. Thus, it is not a mere question of law, but of definitive magisterial doctrine that heretics and schismatics are separated from the Church by their own actions suapte natura, apart from any ecclesiastical law or judgment; and that the consequent loss of office and jurisdiction is not the result of any penal sanction or any judgment pronounced by the Church, but is the direct effect of the act of defection from the Church, sine alia vi externa; which therefore, not by any human law, takes place ex natura hæresis or ex natura schismatis.”

Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.

Didn't Fr. Chazal associate with Fr. Kramer for some time? Have they separated because of Fr. Kramer's Bennyvacantism?

"Definitive magisterial doctrine". Poor Father Kramer. Why then did the Church tolerate so many 'heretics' among her distinguished theologians for so many centuries after Bellarmine?

Yes.  It is definitive magisterial doctrine.  It seems that you have not been paying attention to what has been placed in front of you.

Yes.  I read it right and you read it wrong.

With all due respect, Fr. Paul Kramer has exhaustively written in his two volumes to demonstrate that it is definitive magisterial doctrine that the pubic sin of manifest formal heresy separates the heretic from the Church, and consequently any cleric holding office automatically loses that office and the jurisdiction that comes with it.  On my part, I have given you many quotations from his works and also the quote from Pope Pius XII and the theologians that reiterated his teaching that heresy by its nature separates one from the Church.  Yet you still question whether it is definitive magisterial teaching as if Fr. Kramer just pulled what he wrote out of thin air.  My suggestion to you is to read his works and then rebut if you don't agree.

One who was baptized in the Catholic Church and then separates himself from the Catholic Church by the public sin of manifest formal heresy can return to her through confession and receive absolution.

Is one who is baptized but who separates himself from the Catholic Church by heresy still considered Catholic, in your view? If not, then what would he be called, if not Catholic?