1) Francis is not very competent and really believes that this new heresy he has spoken is reconcilable with Catholic dogma, his mind is sick and he knows no better.
Do you really believe this is credible? Does a man get ordained in the Conciliar church, rise to the rank of cardinal archbishop, and be elected to the [Conciliar] papacy who is truly "incompetent" and really has no idea what the Catholic Church teaches on fundamental matters?
And, pray tell, why did Christ warn against following false leaders? Because, he said, both will fall into a pit. Even if he didn't know any better because he had been taught by false teachers, does that really excuse him or does he, too, fall into the pit?
People today seem to think that ignorance or "mental sickness" actually excuses people. Perhaps a true mental sickness, i.e., a sickness obviously similar to Alzheimer's or people who have to be locked, literally, in a padded room, might (I mean to say "might") be excused. But why do Catholics today seem to excuse any and all people who personally claim to be Catholic yet absolutely reject Catholic doctrine as just being "ignorant" or "mentally sick"?
Why don't we simply use the same standard as we use to judge Arius, Nestorius, Martin Luther, or any of the other heresiarchs in history? Why do we seem to think it's different today just because we happen to be living through it?