I don't really understand the point of your objection.
Obviously the Catholic Church thinks Protestants are in an objective state of heresy (although the term "heretic" is usually reserved for a Catholic who departs from the faith to found a new sect), and Protestants* think Catholics are in an objective state of heresy.
*(Most, all, some: you pick)
That's not picking a fight or being nasty; it's just being clear and concise about doctrinal points.
Obviously -- to pick one example -- the Blessed Virgin Mary cannot both be immaculately conceived and not immaculately conceived at the same time, so somebody is a "false teacher" on that particular subject. And the list of such subjects is unfortunately a rather long one.
Most of those men you mention are Catholic (although I'm not entirely clear why Rabbi Daniel Lapin made your list). If Protestants want to listen to them, they are free to do so; if they don't, they're free not to. Presumably they listen to them because they have something to say (and a skillful way of saying it) with which those Protestants agree or from which they learn.
No, not necessarily. The statements from the Pope (for example, before he became Pope) focused on what he deemed as lack of authority of the Protestant churches (for example, lack of authority to administer the sacraments). That's a different focus than calling Protestants "heretics."