CathInfo.com

I could not tell you why Van Noort doesn't say what he doesn't say.

Could you please rearticulate precisely what your argument is, and how it opposes the position of whomever you are directing it to?

As SS say, and contrary to whatever Fr. Kramer says, Van Noort is on the side of SS:

"Van Noort: “Internal heresy, since it destroys that interior unity of faith from which unity of profession is born, separates from the body of the Church dispositively, but not yet formally.” (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, p. 242.)

Van Noort’s interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi, as well as his theology concerning how the internal sin of heresy severs a person from the Body of the Church (i.e., dispositively) reflects our position perfectly! In fact, Van Noort’s three-volume set of dogmatic manuals was one of the primary theological sources we consulted when writing our chapters on ecclesiology in True or False Pope?"

I'm not sure what this has to do with LaRosa's argument.

His position is that since Francis is (allegedly) a public manifest heretic, he is outside the Church, and cannot therefore be its pope (i.e., a reformulation of the classical sedevacantist maxim, "He who is not part of the body cannot be its head").

The problem -as I've been showing since p.1- is that Mr. LaRosa has no idea what a public manifest heretic is.  He thinks its just someone who says something heretical in front of a bunch of people (i.e., He's imputing colloquial definitions to canonical and theological terms to arrive at false conclusions).

Suarez: “in no case, even that of heresy, is the Pontiff deprived of his dignity and of his power immediately by God himself, before the judgment and sentence of men. This is the common opinion today”.