I hear you ma'am, however it mitigates confusion to maintain the distinction "heretical", "heresy" and "heretic".
The most key, bottom line point is to note that, canonically speaking, the presumption of innocence in these types of cases does not apply, and at the same time many tend to forget the key point of pertinacity.
Popes can be wrong, and they can even inadvertently "be" heretical.
What they absolutely cannot be, as was written previously, is a manifest heretic; it takes pertinacity to be such.
This is likely the point when someone chimes in about infallibility, which remains irrelevant no matter how much some would have us fixate upon it.
"He didn't teach anything!"
He doesn't have to "teach" anything, formally or otherwise, to be a manifest heretic. He just has to obstinately doubt or deny an article of faith.
Anyone can look up the definition, and they can see that "teaching", "infallibility" etc. aren't mentioned.
I am not talking about teaching and infallibility. That is another topic.
In this post, I am limiting the discussion to Papal supremacy and Francis as a manifest obstinate heretic
In light of the definition of Papal Supremacy by Vatican I, isn't the Pope now considered to be supreme even over an Ecumenical Council and over a council of bishops? Even if a council of bishops declares Francis to be manifest obstinate heretic, which they have, Francis could deny it, which he has already done.
However, if a heretical Pope, as a manifest heretic, decides to tamper with all the Ecumenical Councils that have ever taken place serious damage could be done.
If a supreme pope can change or void the decisions and canons of all Ecumenical Councils, perhaps that is why Pope Pius XII as Msgr. Pacilli compiled and codified the Code of Canon Law of 1917, just because he could under the authority of Pope Benedict XV, who promulgated this Code on 27 May 1917.
Realize all the damage done in the name of Vatican II:
1. The Latin Mass was essentially destroyed and replaced by the heretical Novus Ordo,
2. The Liturgical books were all perverted, including all the various rites of the sacramentals.
3. The altar was replaced by a table.
4. The sacred chant was replaced by horrible modern music.
5. The beautiful architectural structures of cathedrals and churches was replaced by the profane.
Now consider what damage a Pope who is a manifest heretic can create if he were to change all the church canons. Note that it has already started. These changes in the Holy Ancient canons started before 1917 under the direction of Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII) who served as a canon lawyer. And it continues today because the revised unholy Code of Canon Law of 1983 is now considered woefully out of date. Therefore, these canons are now being changed once again. What will Francis do to these canons?
Okay, since you have more theological training that I do, and have more recently studied the matter, please theologically define the following terms. I do not have a theological dictionary at hand, but perhaps you do. Websters would not be appropriate in this case.