Can A True Pope Teach Heresy?

On May 8, 2025, heretic and layman Robert Prevost became the seventh leader of the Vatican II sect, taking the name "Pope" Leo XIV (if you hear grinding noise coming from the Vatican, it must be the saintly Pope Leo XIII turning over in his grave).  He will continue on the path of Bergoglio as he fully accepts Vatican II. Born in 1955, he was but seven years old when the Council began and ten when it ended. He will continue to teach heresy, and the "recognize and resist" (R&R) crowd will be there to try and exonerate him at every utterance of error and evil.

What really caught my eye was a R&R website called Catholic Candle (catholiccandle.org). It is dedicated to the fanciful ideas and false teachings of R&R theology (not to be confused with Catholic theology). The articles are all seriously flawed, but the one I wish to refute is entitled It is Possible for a Pope to Teach Heresy and Remain the Pope? Their answer is, of course, yes, but Catholic theology answers that question in the negative as I shall demonstrate. 

False Ideas About Heresy

For anyone who wants to read the whole article they may do so here: catholiccandle.org/2025/01/12/it-is-possible-for-a-pope-to-teach-heresy-and-remain-the-pope/#_ftnref8. I will only concern myself with the main points. Catholic Candle ("CC") launches into a meaningless distinction between material and formal heresy, and a false idea about infallibility. 

1. CC holds that a pope can teach heresy as a material heretic.

The bottom line of CC is: Pope Francis has taught many heresies but never has he taught them using his ex cathedra authority.  These heresies do not show that he is not the pope.(Emphasis mine). 

The idea of a heretical pope is an oxymoron the same as square circle. From CC:

Definitions – In summary:

 A person is a formal heretic if he denies the Catholic Faith in its formal aspect, i.e., if he denies any statement which he knows is revealed by the infallible teaching authority of the Church (God).  Such denial involves rejecting the Church’s (God’s) infallible authority itself.

 A person is only a material heretic, if he denies a part of the Catholic Faith in its material aspect only.  In other words, a material heretic is a person who denies a statement of the Catholic Faith without knowing that the Church (God) teaches that this statement is infallibly true.  A denial of the material of the Faith only, does not involve rejection of the Church’s (God’s) infallible authority, because the person errs (only) about what the Church (God) teaches. 

Thus, a material heretic can be a Catholic.  However, a formal heretic cannot be Catholic, because in order to be Catholic, one must submit to every single dogma of the Faith that one knows the Church teaches; and yet the formal heretic rejects the Church’s (God’s) authority by denying part of the Faith, knowing that the Church (God) teaches it...

Having seen what it means to be a material heretic and what it means to be a formal heretic, these are the questions presented:

1.    Can a pope ever become a material heretic? 

and

 2.    Can a pope ever become a formal heretic?

Let us first ask if a pope can become a material heretic and then after that, let us ask whether a pope can become a formal heretic.

1. Can the Pope become a Material Heretic?

It is a very superficial supposition to think that a pope cannot be a material heretic (that is, the supposition that a pope cannot hold, even internally, an opinion contradictory to the Catholic Faith).  Further, it is superficial to think the pope cannot then teach his heretical opinion (e.g., through the pope teaching while he is ignorant).  These (false) suppositions are superficial because they fail to take into account the basic truths of the catechism that even children know.

The Teaching of the Church

Theologian Berry nicely summarizes, "Manifest heretics and schismatics are excluded from membership in the Church. Heretics separate themselves from the unity of faith and worship; schismatics from the unity of government, and both reject the authority of the Church. So far as exclusion from the Church is concerned, it matters not whether the heresy or schism be formal or material. Those born and reared in heresy or schism may be sincere in their belief and practice yet they publicly and willingly reject the Church and attach themselves to sects opposed to her. They are not guilty of sin in the matter, but they are not members of the Church. For this reason, the Church makes no distinction between formal and material heresy when receiving converts into her fold." (See The Church of Christ [1927], pg. 226; Emphasis mine). 

CC may object that Bergoglio was not raised in a false sect, but was a material heretic because he doesn't know or realize that what he is teaching constitutes heresy. The objection fails miserably. Having shown that material heretics are not members of the Church, the alleged defense of ignorance falls flat. 

The Divine Law demands that the pope must, in the external forum (publicly), demonstrate that he knows and believes in the truths of the Catholic Faith. It is not required that he must have internal knowledge or intention to be heretical. If he denies even one dogma, he must be considered non-Catholic and a non-member of the Church, who can no longer be the head of the Church to which he does not belong. According to theologian MacKenzie, "The very commission of any act which signifies heresy...gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity...Excusing circumstances have to be proven in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action gave rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist." (See, The Delict of Heresy in its Commission, Penalization, Absolution, [1932], pg. 35--Emphasis mine).  

Again, MacKenzie, "If the delinquent making this claim be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine… His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him." (Ibid, pg. 48; Emphasis mine).

Finally, let's use basic logic. Are we to presume that Bergoglio (or now Prevost with his Doctorate in Canon Law) doesn't understand theology as well as CC? CC is culpably ignorant of the correct theological principles and spouts falsehoods. It is shown that (1) material heretics are outside the Church, (2) heretical depravity is to be presumed by any acts which signify heresy, and (3) a plea of ignorance from a cleric regarding the faith is dismissed as untrue because of his training and education. 

2.  CC has an erroneous idea of infallibility and papal authority in teaching.

In their flawed teaching of infallibility, the R&R are like the Feeneyites insofar as they limit obedience to ex cathedra decisions and claim popes can teach heresy when not teaching infallibly. From CC:

 

 A.  To Say that the Pope Cannot Make a Heretical Statement Means that He is Always Infallible When Making Any Statement about the Faith.

If the pope were unable to make heretical statements, then everything he said about religious matters would be infallible.  In other words, Catholics would be sure that everything he said on religious matters was protected from error and must be true.  In other words, under this supposition, the pope would always be infallible when making any statement about the Catholic Faith.

B.  It is Basic Catechism that the Pope Can Indeed Teach Heresy (Error) When He Does Not Invoke His Special Ex Cathedra Authority.

But it is basic catechism (which even children know) that the pope only teaches infallibly under certain carefully-enumerated conditions. 

For example, here is the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X showing when the pope is infallible, viz., on matters of Faith and morals only under certain conditions:

57 Q. When is the Pope infallible?

A. The Pope is infallible when, as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians and in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by all the Church.

Notice the narrow conditions under which the pope is infallible.  All of these conditions must be fulfilled:  he must be teaching all Christians (not just a subset, such as his own diocese of Rome or a certain nation);  he must be using his full authority (not just partial authority); and he must be defining (not just commenting on or exploring) a doctrine regarding faith or morals (not Church discipline, Canon Law, or some other, lesser subject) to be held by all (not just some of) the Church.

Here, CC never mentions the secondary objects of infallibility. According to theologian Van Noort,

PROPOSITION 2: The secondary object of infallibility comprises all those matters which are so closely connected with the revealed deposit that revelation itself would be imperiled unless an absolutely certain decision could he made about them.

The charism of infallibility was bestowed upon the Church so that the latter could piously safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation, and thus could be in all ages the teacher of Christian truth and of the Christian way of life. But if the Church is to fulfill this purpose, it must be infallible in its judgment of doctrines and facts which, even though not revealed, are so intimately connected with revelation that any error or doubt about them would constitute a peril to the faith. Furthermore, the Church must be infallible not only when it issues a formal decree, but also when it performs some action which, for all practical purposes, is the equivalent of a doctrinal definition.

One can easily see why matters connected with revelation are called the secondary object of infallibility. Doctrinal authority and infallibility were given to the Church’s rulers that they might safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation. That is why the chief object of infallibility, that, namely, which by its very nature falls within the scope of infallibility, includes only the truths contained in the actual deposit of revelation. Allied matters, on the other hand, which are not in the actual deposit, but contribute to its safeguarding and security, come within the purview of infallibility not by their very nature, but rather by reason of the revealed truth to which they are annexed. As a result, infallibility embraces them only secondarily. It follows that when the Church passes judgment on matters of this sort, it is infallible only insofar as they are connected with revelation.

When theologians go on to break up the general statement of this thesis into its component parts, they teach that the following individual matters belong to the secondary object of infallibility: 1. theological conclusions; 2. dogmatic facts; 3. the general discipline of the Church; 4. approval of religious orders; 5. canonization of saints. (See Dogmatic Theology, 2:110; Emphasis mine).

The pope cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to the whole Church. According to theologian Herrmann:

"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, Para. #9:

"[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced."

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, Para. #66

"Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors."

The pope's infallibility extends to universal disciplinary laws. The pope can give "opinionative" decisions, which by their very nature could be modified or abrogated. In that sense he could be "wrong," but not in promulgating universal disciplinary laws, or deciding upon doctrinal issues. CC demonstrates a misunderstanding of the 1870 Vatican Council's teaching on the papacy.

CC makes absurd claims, to wit: Contrary to fact, if it were true that a pope could never teach heresy, this would mean that the pope cannot err if he says something about the Faith or morals even at the dinner table or in a sermon or in private correspondence. False. The pope cannot give error or evil to the Church. It does not mean he cannot err as a private theologian "at the dinner table." 

Here's what the popes themselves have taught:

Pope Leo XIII:

In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the [1870] Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.” But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See.

(See Sapientiae Christianae, para. #24; Emphasis mine). 

Pope Pius IX:

Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.

(See Quanta Cura, para. #5; Emphasis mine).

Pope Pius XI:

Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

(See Casti Connubii, para. #104; Emphasis mine). 

In the face of all of the above, which R&R and Feeneyites deny, they will claim that in non-infallible teaching, a pope could introduce a heresy as an "innocent mistake." This is impossible because of the dogma of Indefectibility, which states that the Catholic Church must endure as an institution until the end of time, and must remain essentially the same until the end of time. This means that She must have perfect continuity of dogma and moral teaching, with no contradictions, perfect continuity of worship, and perfect continuity of all of its essential disciplines. It is based on the very words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (St. Matthew 28:20).

Christ also said to the Apostles: “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me.” (St. Luke 10:16). This means that every Catholic can, and must, listen to the Church teaching as the teaching of Christ Himself. What if they are not teaching infallibly? Such teachings are nevertheless protected by the Holy Ghost from teaching any pernicious doctrine. This means the Church cannot teach anything which is contrary to Catholic doctrine or morals, and which would be a sin to embrace. The Church also cannot impose evil disciplines, and thereby prescribe something evil to the faithful, making it sinful to observe; nor can the Church give anything which would constitute an incentive to impiety. 

This completely rules out any possibility of the pope teaching heresy, for the protection of the Holy Ghost precludes it. Theologian Fenton teaches:

To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.

(See "The American Ecclesiastical Review;" [August 1949], “The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals, Part I”, pgs. 144-145). 

Hence, the protection of the Holy Ghost precludes the pope from teaching heresy to the Church. Only in his capacity as a private theologian could he teach heresy.

Did the Church Have Popes Who Were "Material Heretics"?

CC claims their thesis is true using two alleged "historical examples:"

We see that various popes have been material heretics.  Let us look at two examples that illustrate this: 

Pope John XXII (reigned 1316-1334) taught heresy insistently both before and during his papal reign.  He was a material heretic and refused to be corrected until shortly before his death.[14]

Pope Nicholas I wrote a letter to the Bulgarians, in which he spoke as if baptism were valid when administered simply in our Lord’s Name, without mention of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity.  But he was not teaching ex cathedra.  The question asked of Pope Nicholas was actually a different one: viz., concerning the minister of baptism, viz., whether a Jew or Pagan could validly baptize.  He correctly answered in the affirmative.  But Pope Nicholas then answered “that the baptism was valid, whether administered in the name of the three Persons or in the name of Christ only.”  This is heresy!  Cardinal Newman cites this example quoting St. Robert Bellarmine in De Rom. Pont., iv. 12. (Emphasis mine).

Fact: Neither Pope John XXII nor Pope Nicholas I were guilty of any heresy. Pope John XXII  preached a series of sermons in Avignon, France in which he taught that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God (Beatific Vision) until after the Last Judgement. It was open to debate among the theologians and had not yet been a made a dogma, so its denial is not heresy. Finally, he expressed his opinion as a "private theologian who expressed an opinion, hanc opinionem, and who, while seeking to prove it, recognized that it was open to debate." (Le Bachlet, "Benoit XII," in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 2:662.). Therefore, he lacked the pertinacity required for loss of office as he declared himself expressing an opinion, and was willing to submit his judgement to the Church.

What about Pope Nicholas I? Ironically, Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine proves Pope Nicholas not guilty of heresy. In Papal Error? A Defense of Popes said to have Erred in Faith, the great Bellarmine sets out to defeat the calumnies of the enemies of the Church who leveled charges of heresy at several popes. The same calumnies are now repeated by CC. In defense of Pope Nicholas, the Doctor of the Church writes:

The Twenty-Sixth [pope falsely accused of heresy] is Nicholas I, whom several condemn, because he taught that baptism conferred in the name of Christ, without expression of the three persons, was valid.  That is contrary not only to the Evangelical institution, but even to the decrees of other Popes, namely, of Pelagius and Zachary, who condemned the baptism of those who are only baptized in the name of Christ and not expressly in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; as is clear in the same place.  Nor can the response be given that, in the time of Nicholas, it was still not defined whether baptism was invalid if conferred in the name of Christ, for that was defined in the English Council, confirmed by Pope Zachary who preceded Nicholas. 

I respond: Nicholas was not defining a question on faith when he spoke, rather, he only expressed his opinion in passing as a particular doctor. For, what he intended to teach in that canon was not on the form of baptism, but only on the minister concerning which he had been asked. Therefore, after he responded and defined that baptism was valid, even if given by a Jew or a pagan, which the question was especially about, he added in passing that baptism is valid whether it is given in the name of the three persons or in the name of Christ alone. 

In this he followed the opinion of Ambrose as he says himself. Still, in my judgment, this opinion is false, but not heretical. There is no certain definition of the Church that is discovered on this affair, and various opinions are discovered among the Fathers. Now those canons of Pelagius and Zachary also do not obstruct the case. In the first place, Pelagius did not define anything, but only as a teacher in his epistle to Gaudentius explains his opinion. Moreover, the canon of Zachary is exceedingly suspect. In the first place, Gratian cites the epistle of Zachary to Boniface, when he places this canon, but such an opinion is not discovered in the epistles of Zachary to Boniface, which are extant in the volumes of Councils. 

Next, Bede makes no mention of this English council in his history, where he always makes mention of other English Councils. Nay more, Bede himself follows the contrary opinion, as he approves the opinion of Ambrose on baptism in the name of Christ. Still, one could not ignore a decree of an English Council, if it were real, which Zachary mentions, since he lived in the same time and still outlived Zachary. It does not seem at all believable that he would wish to contradict a Council celebrated in his own country and confirmed by the Apostolic See. Yet, if we admit the authority of this Council and Zachary, we can respond twofold. 

Firstly, with St. Peter Lombard: In that Council it was only defined that baptism was not valid without the invocation of the three persons. Still, it was not defined whether the three persons ought to be named explicitly, and hence this cannon is not opposed to the opinion of Ambrose and of Nicholas, who taught that it sufficed to implicitly name the three persons in the one name of Christ. St. Bernard also understood that canon of the Council in this manner as well as Hugh of St. Victor and all other teachers of that age who taught, not withstanding the canon of the English Council, that baptism in the name of Christ was valid.

It can be said secondly, that the English Council was not truly and properly approved by the Apostolic See, and therefore does not make the matter de fide. Zachary certainly praised the English Council, and cited its decrees for his proposition; still, he did not properly approve it as Pope and with the intention of confirming the acts of the Council. It is one thing for the Pope to confirm the decrees of Councils in earnest, and another to commend something that other [Councils] proposed.

 Bellarmine thus shows that (1) Pope Nicholas was not teaching the Church, but expressing an opinion as a private doctor. However, wouldn't that be professing heresy and cause loss of office? NO, because (2) it was not yet defined if the Three Persons of the Most Blessed Trinity need be named explicitly, or if it sufficed to implicitly name the Three Persons in the one Name of Christ. Pope Nicholas was therefore not a heretic, just as Pope John XXII was not a heretic.  

Heresy and Authority

Having shown CC to be clueless on Church teaching regarding heresy, infallibility, and the alleged "historical examples" of popes teaching heresy, the final section of the article must be addressed. It is alleged that the pope can never be a formal heretic and teach heresy ex cathedra. While it is true that no pope can teach heresy ex cathedra, no sedevacantist claims that such could ever happen or is necessary for a pope to lose his authority. The Church makes no distinction between formal and material heresy and loss of Church membership. With loss of Church membership comes loss of authority. In the case of a heretic prior to election, no such heretic could ever attain the papacy as in the case of Prevost. Finally, the heresy must be manifest and done in his capacity as a private theologian.

The great saint, theologian, and Doctor of the Church Robert Bellarmine teaches, "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be pope and head of the Church, just as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church [precisely because he is no longer the pope!---Introibo] All the early Fathers are unanimous in teaching that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. St. Cyprian, in particular, laid great stress on this point." (See De Romano Pontifice, II:30)

 According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10).

Theologian Iragui: "...theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head."

(See Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium [1959], pg. 371). 

Canonist Badii: "A publicly heretical pope would no longer be a member of the Church; for this reason, he could no longer be its head."( See Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Florence: Fiorentina [1921], pgs. 160, 165). 

Theologian Prummer: "Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church....A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church."(See Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian [1943],  2:453). 

1917 Code of Canon Law: Canon 188, section 4: "There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” 

N.B. Theologian McDevitt writes:

"The defection of faith must be public. It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non-Catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that the canon demands." (See The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office, [1946], pg. 139).

The great canonist Ayrinhac taught in his General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law,:

Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices. Canons 185-191 “...applies to all offices, the lowest and the highest, not excepting the Supreme Pontificate.” (p. 346). 

How is heresy made manifest? According to theologian MacKenzie, "Words are the ordinary, but not the only means of communication. Complete externalization of thought may exist in signs, acts, or omissions." (Delict, pg.35) Let's break it down:

(a) Words. A dogma may be denied by a contradictory or contrary statement. For example, it is a dogma that "The Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation." The contradictory statement negates it--"The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation." A contrary statement is not a direct negation, but it goes against the dogma. Hence, Vatican II was heretical when it stated in Unitatis Redintegratio, para.#3 that Christ uses non-Catholic sects as a "means of salvation." It is heretical because if you can obtain salvation by being a Lutheran, then there is salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church.

(b) Acts. Think of "Saint" John Paul II kissing the Koran which denies the Trinity and Divinity of Christ. Remember Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis) celebrating Hanukkah with the Jews in 2012 when still a "cardinal."

(c) Omissions. Think of Bergoglio hiding his crucifix from the Jews and failing to try and convert them.

Heretics are incapable of keeping or attaining to papal office. In the case of one validly elected pope, should he fall into heresy as a private theologian, he falls from office. In the case of a manifest heretic prior to "election," he fails to attain the office. According to theologian Baldii, "Barred as incapable of being validly elected [pope] are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics..." (See Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1921]; Emphasis mine).

Ergo, Robert Prevost (aka "Pope" Leo XIV) could not attain the papacy as he publicly professes the heresies of Vatican II and that of his predecessor Conciliar "popes." 

Conclusion

The first American false pope will begin to pile more heresy on top of Bergoglio's heap of errors and evils. Don't be fooled by the false R&R theology that seeks to keep people believing that a pope can teach heresy. If you want to make it through the Great Apostasy, better to put out the "R&R candle" and curse the darkness of the Vatican II sect.