Francis Says His "Faith" Needs Doubts

The Catechism identifies several sins against faith, including voluntary doubt, incredulity:

2088
There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

Dear Ultra, as a slight of hand....you use the word 'error'.
As you know.... I used the word 'heresy'...... referring to the heresies that Bergoglio has announced to the world since March 13, 2013. Since that time, he has been serially, manifestly and pertinaciously heretical.
Pertinacious as per his refusal to answer the 'Dubia' questions put to him by the four cardinals.
Every time he makes a public statement, it goes out to the whole world within minutes, through the facility of the modern media for all to see.
So when he announces a heresy publicly......it is manifest to the whole world.....
and he knows it!!!
Moreover, those heretical statements cannot be deleted from the internet, not to mention the blasphemous ones and the Pachamama idolatry in the Vatican gardens.

St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621)
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.", De Romano Pontifice, II.30 [citing passages from Cyprian, Driedonus, and Melchoir Cano in support of his position]

St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622) Bishop and Doctor of the Church
"Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . ."

St. Alphonsus Liguori, (1696-1787)
Doctor of the Church
."If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the Pontificate." If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notoriously and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant."

St. Antoninus of Florence (1389-1459)

"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. "A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub. St. Antoninus

A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Deposition 466"A heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still claiming the Roman See a general council can be called, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope."

That isn't a "slight of hand" @Tony M I'll thank you not to imply deceit on my part unless you've got better proof than a technical correction. It is a correction on my part because you are in error as you will soon learn.

Heresy is a precise term within the Catholic Church, and a formal charge.

Canon Law 751 states "Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith."
This is how people lie by subtly rephrasing Canon Law.

I underlined the word obstinate because The Church is making an important distinction. between an obstinate act (denial or doubt) and an act (denial or doubt) per se .

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

Citation (Merriam-Webster dictionary entry: "Obstinate")

An obstinate denial or an obstinate doubt 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.) He has certainly expressed his views.
b.)-d.) have not.

We Catholic laity do not have the legal authority to represent the Roman Catholic Church in making legal judgements, unless so authorized. A formal, lawful judgement of "heresy" must come from the Catholic Church, not the laity (that means you, bub). One may opine someone's statements or actions constitute heresy, but it remains an informal and unofficial view, an opinion, nothing more.

Second, please Canon Law where a Pope refusing to answer questions put to him by subordinates (i.e. the "Dubia") is defined as heresy. If you can't, then it isn't heresy much less "pertinacious" heresy or heresy done "pertinaciously" as you claim.

You're not a canon lawyer and it shows. :D Putting it a bit more bluntly, the Pope remains the Pope because you do not have sufficient ecclesiastical authority within the Church either to judge heresy or depose the Pope on those or any other grounds.

On that point, who does have the temporal authority to represent The Church in correcting the supposed errors of The Church's highest temporal authority?

I'm just scratching the surface of the subject, mostly using cut 'n paste from a previous article I wrote addressing this same error when it was made by someone else. If you'd like a more throrough treatment of the subject with loads of historical background included I refer you to CanonLawMadeEasy's more comprehensive treatment of the subject..

If you're wondering, I wrote my article independently of CanonLawMadeEasy. I was much gratified to note our points overlap and corroborate one another in several areas.