Meanwhile Catholic Knight knows better than Suarez.

Pope Pius XII knows better than Suarez.

Agreed.

But Pope Stubborn knows better than Pope Pius XII.

Pope Catholic Knight knows less than Pope Pius XII.

Stubborn, are we to take these words to mean exactly what they say?

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis 

I do. I also understand Suarez's position and agree with Suarez's  "Once a Catholic always a Catholic." IOW, as he said in your quote, mortal sinners separate themselves from the unity of the Body. The Church is not the one who does the separating.

So you agree that someone who doesn't profess the true faith is not a member of the Church?

If that person was never Catholic, I agree. If that person professed the true faith then committed the sin of heresy, that person is a Catholic with the sin of heresy on his soul. Should he decide to repent, he can go to confession and be absolved, something only members can do. The nature of the sin makes this unlikely.

One must accept that heresy is a sin, the worst of all the sins, but that is what heresy is, a sin, one that Catholics can always be absolved of in confession.

OK, regardless of whether you hold any particular heretic to be Catholic or not, Pope Pius XII teaches that membership in the Church is limited only those who:

1) Are baptized

And

2) Profess the true Faith

And

3) Have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body

Or

4) Have not been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed


So, if any one of the four things is lacking a person is not a member of the Church.

Do you agree with this?

OK, regardless of whether you hold any particular heretic to be Catholic or not, Pope Pius XII teaches that membership in the Church is limited only those who:

1) Are baptized

And

2) Profess the true Faith

And

3) Have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body

Or

4) Have not been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed


So, if any one of the four things is lacking a person is not a member of the Church.

Do you agree with this?

As long as #1 and #2 is present, that person is a member of the Church.

#3 is the definition of excommunication: "Excommunication is the gravest of all canonical punishments ; it separates the delinquent from the communion of the faithful, and, practically speaking, deprives him of all the rights of membership in the Church of Christ." Still a member.

#4 is the censure of excommunication decreed by a Church authority. Still a member. 

You have a conundrum, which is why you simply ignore it.....your conundrum is: If a Catholic committed the sin of heresy, that person is a Catholic with the sin of heresy on his soul. Should he decide to repent, he can go to confession and be absolved, something only members can do. The nature of the sin makes this unlikely.

One must accept that heresy is a sin, the worst of all the sins, but that is what heresy is, a sin, one that Catholics can always be absolved of in confession. 

All you gotta do is use yourself as an example, it is not complicated. You would need to explain how you (only using you for the purpose of an example only, no insult intended), a Catholic with the sin of heresy on your soul, can go to confession at all, and also be absolved of the sin of heresy if you are not a member of the Church.

I expect you will continue to ignore this, but there it is regardless.

 

No, I have not ignored it. I actually responded to it and I do not believe I received a reply.   

Stubborn, does or does not a heretic have to abjure his heresy before being able to receive absolution?

Does or does not a heretic have any censures/penalties/etc. against him lifted (not a sacrament) after having abjured his heresy and prior to receiving absolution of his sins (a sacrament)?

I found where you responded, and I replied to your response, which answers the questions in this post.

Well, I'm not seeing it. This is what I posted:
>Heretic enters confessional. *No sacrament at this point*

>Heretic abjures his heresy and confesses other sins if necessary. It is evident he is no longer a heretic *No sacrament at this point*

>Censure is lifted, former heretic is now a member of the Church again *Still no sacrament at this point*

>Former heretic receives absolution *The Sacrament is effected, which only Catholics (/members of the Church) can receive

Replace the word "heretic" with what a heretic is: "Sinner." Hopefully that will clear it up for you.

Otherwise, a Catholic guilty of the sin of heresy could not receive the Last Rites, which they can even when unconscious and dying without any abjuration, and can even receive them from a priest who is also an excommunicant for heresy, schism or apostacy. Clear now?

1) Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized...

2) Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who [...] profess the true faith...

3) Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who [...] have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body...

4) Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have [...] not been [...] excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed

And do you believe that heretics and schismatics "profess the true Faith"(#2)?

Schismatics: it is possible that Schismatics profess the true faith -  The problem with Schismatics is that they refuse to submit to the authority of the pope or to hold communion with members of the Church subject to him. Schism differs from heresy and Apostasy, but schism very often leads to heresy and Apostasy.

Heretics: No. Heretics profess things contrary to the true faith.