Rather mordantly, I must observe that Pope Francis rarely communicates anything in such an unambiguous way as to be formally heretical. In fact, that is his main problem, it seems to me: mushiness and equivocation. It's loose, off-the-cuff blather. It's damaging. It emboldens the wolves and perplexes the sheep. (I must interject for the dozenth time, "Oh, how I miss Benedict!")
But clear-cut heresy? -- It would almost be a relief if something he said WERE so clearly that it could not be shuffled back into the deck with "I didn't mean it that way!"
Heresy need not be packaged in a formal statement in order to be recognized as such.
For example, the Pope stated: “In the Gospel, Jesus does not become angry, but pretends to when the disciples do not understand him”.
Fr. Ray Blake, regarding the above statement by the Pope:
"The ancient Fathers would baulk at such a suggestion, I can't think of one who would be be comfortable with the idea that the Gospels did not reveal the plain meaning of what Jesus said and did, it is only the Jesuits of the 17th century who would begin to suggest otherwise.
There is no suggestion in the Gospels that Jesus feigns, or pretends anything, on the contrary he is the 'Truth', he says, "Let you 'yes' mean 'yes' and you 'no' mean 'no'". His Kingdom stands in contradistinction to that of the kingdom of the Father of Lies.
If Jesus really does 'pretend' to be angry but isn't really what else does he pretend? Is he really just 'acting' in other emotional responses, when he sighs, when he weeps, when he rails against the Pharisees. Is he really grinning broadly when he calls Simon Peter, 'Satan'?
I do not agree with Pope Francis on this, we do not need smiley or angry face marks to interpret the Gospels. Perhaps this says more about the Pope than it does about Jesus. Rather than Jesus pretending, is Pope Francis 'pretending'? After all if one believes the Son of God can and does 'pretend', why shouldn't the Pope? and if the Pope can 'pretend', why not the Church?
I really do think this is a very big issue, the ramifications run very deep, the implication is that the plain meaning of scripture is not readily available to the ordinary reader or hearer, it also means that for ordinary Catholics it is alright to 'pretend' for affect or for some other reason. If Jesus did it, why is shouldn't the Vatican Bank in its accounts or a Bishop defending his diocese against accusation of sexual abuse of minors, or why not a divorced and remarried Catholic 'pretend' and receive Communion anyhow. If 'pretending' is alright, why not hypocrisy, or downright lying?"
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/pope-says-jesus-pretends.html