Dogmatic Theology
volume II
Christ’s Church
Msgr. G. Van Noort

Chapter II
The Members of the Church
Scholion 1. Who are not members of the Church?

“The following classes of men are definitely not members of the Church:
The non baptized;  (b) public heretics;*  (c) public schismatics; total excommunicates.

A heretic is one who denies a truth of divine and Catholic faith: i.e.k, a truth which has been revealed by God and proposed by the Church for our belief.  Heretics are classified as “public” or “occult,” “formal” or “material”.  A public (notorious) heretic is one whose heresy is known to a large number of people, even if he has not formally joined the ranks of a heretical church; an occult heretic is one whose errors in faith are either totally unknown, or known only to a few.  A formal heretic is one who stubbornly and guiltily adheres to heresy; a material heretic is one who innocently and in good faith subscribes to some heretical doctrine. [ 152 pg. 239]



The Church of Christ
An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise
E. Sylvester Berry, STD

Chapter VI
Members of the Church

Article III.  Persons Excluded From Membership

Manifest Heretics and Schismatics [pg. 128]
A heretic is usually defined as a Christian, i.e. a baptized person, who holds a doctrine contrary to revealed truth; but this definition is inaccurate, since it would make heretics of the large portion of the faithful…A person who submits to the authority of the Church and wishes to accept all her teachings, is not a heretic, even if he professes heretical doctrines through ignorance of what the Church really teaches; he implicitly accepts the true doctrine in his general intention to accept all that the Church teaches…

Excluded from Membership.  Manifest heretics…are excluded from membership in the Church….So far as exclusion from the Church is concerned, it matters not whether the heresy or schism is formal or material.


Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
Dr. Ludwig Ott

Chapter 5
The Necessity of the Church

[Section 19] Membership of the Church

3. Inference
b) Open apostates and heretics.  Public heretics, even those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body of the Church, that is to the legal commonwealth of the Church….[pg. 311]


The American Ecclesiastical Review
Vol. CXII. No. 4            April, 1945

Theological Evaluation of the Congar-White Theory

Despite the manifest learning and ability of some of the writers who teach that material heretics are members of the Church, the consensus of Scholastic theology is definitely opposed to this position….the great theologian, Emil Dorsch, writes that “you can take it as certain that these manifest material heretics do not belong to the Catholic Church…the famous Fr. Van Noort holds that public heretics, whether in good faith or in bad faith, are not members of the Church.  The Jesuit, Jean Vincent Bainvel, teaches that manifest heretics and schismatics, even those who are only materially such, are outside the true Church…The same teaching is found in the manuals of Brunsman-Preuss and Cardinal Louis Billot.  The distinguished American theologian, Dr. E. Sylvester Berry, states explicitly that manifest heretics are not members of the Church.  This holds true whether their heresy is formal or only material. [pg. 300: Msgr. Fenton cites the manuals and page numbers from which each theologian is quoted.]




"But They are Material Heretics!" Theological Stun Gun: Are Material Heretics IN the Catholic Church Anyways? No, They Are Not. Lest the Church become one of heretics and not of believers! Read the Theological Proof Here. (chojnowski.me)

Au contraire:

I most certainly am aware of the distinction, but it cannot save Fr. Kramer’s position, for the reasons which follow:


”
PART II: FORMAL REPLY TO FR. FRAMER.

Part II

Exposing the Errors of Fr. Paul Kramer

on Mystici Corporis Christi

You had pretended that I was missing the distinction between the sin of heresy and the crime of heresy.  The article discusses it.

You, like Mr. Johnson, seem to miss the distinction between the "sin" of heresy vs. the "crime" of heresy.  The "sin" of heresy applies to all Catholics.  The "crime" of heresy is nuanced when it comes to a putative pope.  Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis is speaking about the "sin" of heresy.  Pope Pius XII's teaching stands regardless of whether heresy is defined as a crime or not.

Yes.

"The controversy between myself and Salza began when I wrote, 'With or without the law, the heretic by the very nature of the sin of heresy ceases to be a Catholic and is incapable of holding office. Bellarmine explains this in De Romano Pontifice.'"
(Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope. Kindle Edition)

"With or without the law", paraphrasing what I wrote in a previous post(s).  Positive ecclesiastical laws are not required for one to cease being a Catholic because it is of the very nature of the "sin" of heresy that separates one from the Church.  The "crime" of heresy belongs to positive ecclesiastical law.  Therefore, we don't need to bring up at all the "crime" of heresy and the corresponding canonical process in order to judge that one has fallen into heresy and thereby separated himself from the Church.

Let us listen again to Pope Vigilius:

“The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy.”
(Second Council of Constantinople, 553) [Emphasis mine]

And Pope Pius IX:

“Hence, if anyone shall dare — which God forbid! — to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church....."
(Ineffabilis Deus, 1854) [Emphases mine]

And Pope Pius XII:

“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
(Mystici Corporis, 23) [Emphases mine]

Mr. Johnson, there is no point in arguing about a heretical pope (even if such a thing were possible) if we cannot even agree that the "sin" of heresy per se separate anyone from the Church.

Mr. Johnson, you are not correct.  The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.  As a consequence, the heretic loses any office he may have held and the ordinary jurisdiction that comes with it.  This is true regardless of whether he is condemned by the Church for the crime of heresy.