"You are confusing the canonical process for declaring someone a formal heretic with what makes someone a heretic by fact."
No I'm not. We've had this discussion before. Just because YOU claim something is a "fact" does not make it so. All facts can be proven to be such. This, inevitably leads to deciding what standards of proof are to be mutually accepted and what criteria will be used to judge, and so on.
Likewise, just because you claim someone is a heretic because of what you claim is fact, does not make them so.
"It goes back to the argument we had before."
...and you lost that one so badly you were compelled to drag it up on a post where it didn't belong. Very telling behavior, that. :D
"Someone is a murderer if they commit murder, regardless of if they are punished for it."
The moment YOU (or anyone else) accuses anyone of "murder" then immediately the question becomes "according to whom, using what as proof, and by whose standards OF proof"? According to the eternally butthurt Left and THEIR standards, George Zimmerman is a murderer. They're doing what you're doing....
They say so, They claim it's a fact. They advance all sorts of silly standards to support their claim.
But what counts as a "fact"? Who decides? What standards for determining "facts" and admissable evidence are to be used? Those from the radical Left? Those of the racist Right? Ask some Klansmen and they'll argue killin' some dang "colored" ain't no crime 'cuz they're all animals anway.
This is why civilizations are founded on law and why such accusations are arbitrated in courts of law. It keeps every idiot (or group of idiots) from using whatever standards they choose to determine what counts as "evidence" or as "fact".
"Likewise a person is a heretic by fact regardless of if the canonical process..."
Same problem, same mistake. You are not the sole arbiter of what is "fact." Your standards are not absolute. Based on this, you are not the sole arbiter of who is a heretic "by fact", meaning your standards of "fact" or your interpretations of Church teaching.
For that matter, neither am I. This is why I defer the judgement to those in The Church whose authority it is to decide such things.
You don't speak for The Church. I don't speak for The Church, either. Even if you claim to be using "Church" standards to determine heresy-in-fact, that is no different than someone ELSE claiming the individual is NOT a heretic for the same reason.
"Once the court finishes the canonical process they move from material heretic to formal heretic."
...but both determinations are for The Church to decide, not you. The Church decides who is a material heretic, before attempting to correct them. Someone must be a material heretic before they are declared a formal heretic, but someone is NOT a material heretic because YOU call them one.
As I've said elsewhere, throwing such accusations around is Lutheran-style "Sola Scriptura" for Catholics with everyone usurping an authority they do not have based on their own interpretation of Church teachings.