> My understanding of current teaching is Protestant beliefs are material heresy but not formal heresy.

Beliefs, as such, cannot be distinguished as formal or material heresy, because if a belief contradicts a necessary belief of the Catholic faith, whether a person holding it engages in formal or material heresy depends on other aspects of the individual heretics relationship with the belief, not the content of the belief.

And the Church doesn’t hold that “Protestant beliefs” as a class are heretical for the baptized to hold. There are beliefs within the Protestant community that the Church holds to contradict necessary elements of the Catholic faith so as to be capable of being heresies when held in the requisite circumstances, sure.

Also, there’s an evolving view both theologically – which kind of follows on practical treatment – that the doctrinal divisions between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches, as well as those between the Catholic Church and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are, in general, as relates to (even validly baptized) members of the respective communities of a distinct theological character from heresy (which is essentially the religious equivalent of “treason”), even if heresy was the right frame early in the respective splits. This provides a theological reinforcement for (and in some respects follows from) efforts focusing on dialogue, clarification, and resolution of disputes rather than condemnation, which have made some progress in (in the case of the Protestant direction) both the Anglican-Catholic and Lutheran-Catholic dialogues.

> Beliefs, as such, cannot be distinguished as formal or material heresy, because if a belief contradicts a necessary belief of the Catholic faith, whether a person holding it engages in formal or material heresy depends on other aspects of the individual heretics relationship with the belief, not the content of the belief.

My understanding is the individual heretic's relationship with the belief separates material heresy from formal heresy. What aspects of the individual's relationship with the belief separate material heresy from not heresy?

> Also, there’s an evolving view both theologically – which kind of follows on practical treatment – that the doctrinal divisions between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches, as well as those between the Catholic Church and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are, in general, as relates to (even validly baptized) members of the respective communities of a distinct theological character from heresy (which is essentially the religious equivalent of “treason”), even if heresy was the right frame early in the respective splits. This provides a theological reinforcement for (and in some respects follows from) efforts focusing on dialogue, clarification, and resolution of disputes rather than condemnation, which have made some progress in (in the case of the Protestant direction) both the Anglican-Catholic and Lutheran-Catholic dialogues.

I know of the desire to avoid the word heresy. Has this evolving view yet produced a new preferred term?