@San Gusano ora pro nobis You are ignorant of Church teachings. (From wiki)
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith differentiates three kinds of doctrine:

-to be believed as divinely revealed
-to be held definitely following a solemn defining act by a Pope or Ecumenical council
-to be held definitely following a non-defining act by a Pope, confirming or re-affirming a thing taught by the ordinary and universal teaching authority of bishops worldwide

otherwise, to be respected or submitted to (in the case of priests and religious) as part of the ordinary teaching authority of bishops, but without any claim of infallibility.
--
No less that two popes directly contradict your interpretation and they did so explicitlly

In July 2005 Pope Benedict XVI stated during an impromptu address to priests in Aosta that: "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know.

Pope John XXIII once remarked: "I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible."

I have said NOTHING about "the pope erring as a private doctor" I defy you to quote me verbaitim. You won't because a.) you speak English badly and b.) you lie through your teeth.

The First Vatican Council condemned the modernist heresy (which it spreads by @Ultraviolet ) that the pope can err as a private doctor.
On July 18, 1870, Pius IX, the pope of infallibility, anathematizes every person who dares to uphold the thesis of the "pope can err as a private doctor."

Pope Pius IX and the Vatican I Fathers, the pope is "ALWAYS" pure from all doctrinal error and his faith is "ETERNALLY unfailing." Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870: “… the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy faith fail not…’”

The final paragraph of chapter 4 of Pastor aeternus stipulates: "If anyone, which God forbid, has the presumption of contradicting this definition, let him be anathema."

Atte @Don Reto Nay

The Holy Ghost guides us to the fullness of Truth while the antichrist's job lead people to error and lies.
@Ultraviolet acknowledges that Bergoglio operates under the influence of the spirit of the antichrist.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

No, San Mentirosa ora pro nobis I -don't- want to impose Francis on the Catholic faithful. I don't like the Pope. But it's not my choice and it isn't yours either.. Also, he isn't a heretic. Big difference between error and heresy.

Heresy and error are two different things. A Pope may err, everything a Pope states is not automatically infallible. Heresy, as the Church defines it in Canon Law 751, is "an obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; "

Obstinacy shows a deliberate course of action, i.e. "stubbornly adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion."

In this context, the term shows that
a.) the accused heretic has expressed a view
b.) The Church has disgreed with that view as contrary to its teachings.
c.) The Church has attempted to correct the accused heretic
d.) the accused heretic has opposed that correction by the Church.

Regarding Pope Francis,
a.) has happened.
b.)-d.) have not.

You aren't qualified to represent The Church in doing b.-d., not in law or in fact.

Your opinion that the Pope doubts or denies a truth taught by the Church to be divine is not an objective fact. Likewise, your opinion that his supposed doubt or denial is maintained in an obstinate manner is also an opinion. You haven't shown The Church has attempted to correct it and failed has no support.

Go make some empanadas. Pope Francis loves 'em. :P

A scholarly citation, @la verdad corrompida yet irrelevant to the formal styles of address associated with the office. Church History shows numerous examples of men entitled to be addressed as "Your Holiness" who weren't holy at all. They were, however, Pope and the Church recognizes them as part of the apostolic succession. LIkewise, there's a veritable legion of bishops and cardinals who weren't and aren't "excellencies" or "eminences".

This is, in fact, a reflection of your basic problem. The Church has established the styles of address for its various ranks of clergy. They aren't yours to change as you see. Likewise you have no lawful authority within the Church in deciding to whom they apply.

Now get me another Corona and go make some gorditas. :P

Still_I_Rise:"Your Holiness" .... nope.
Ultraviolet: It's a formal title connected with the office, regardless of its accuracy. ⇨ FALSE
St. Thomas Cajetan, O.P. Theologian and Cardinal
He points out that the famous axiom "Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia" (Where the Pope is, there is also the Church) holds true only when the Pope acts and behaves as the Pope, because Peter "is subject to the duties of the Office" otherwise, "neither is the Church in him, nor is he in the Church."

Same team. Tag-teaming against us.

And WHO Director tells you to whom he really belongs and works for: