In Louisville, KY, on July 22, Raymond Cardinal Burke delivered an address at the Church Teaches Forum, “The Message of Fatima: Peace for the World.“
Before we take a look at the address itself, let it be said that as His Eminence’s frequent flyer miles are piling up, so too are the days and weeks and months since the dubia was delivered to Francis (to say nothing of the souls that are being misled as a result).
As I write, the one-year anniversary of the dubia is less than six weeks away.
One can only hope and pray that Cardinal Burke will soon find time in his busy schedule to make the “formal act of correction” that he promised to deliver so many conference appearances ago.
Based on the content of his Louisville address, however, one may well be moved to ask:
Has Cardinal Burke reconsidered; i.e., has he decided that a “formal act of correction” is no longer necessary?
We will return to this question momentarily.
In his presentation, His Eminence states:
In the Middle Ages, the Church spoke of the two bodies of the Pope: the body of the man and the body of the Vicar of Christ … Pope Francis has chosen to speak often in his first body, the body of the man who is Pope. In fact, even in documents which, in the past, have represented more solemn teaching, he states clearly that he is not offering magisterial teaching but his own thinking.
These “documents which, in the past, have represented more solemn teaching,” is an obvious reference to the Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia; obvious because Cardinal Burke’s initial reaction to the document included his insistence upon its “personal, that is, non-magisterial, nature.”
It was perhaps with this in mind that the 45 theologians (mentioned in a recent post) stated in their critique:
Some commentators have asserted that the document does not contain magisterial teaching as such, but only the personal reflections of the Pope on the subjects it addresses. This assertion if true would not remove the danger to faith and morals posed by the document.
Notice the qualifier “if true;” i.e., the 45 theologians are unwilling to concede Cardinal Burke’s point that Amoris Laetitia is simply a personal opinion. In fact, they reject that position explicitly:
It is however not the case that Amoris laetitia is intended to do no more than express the personal views of the Pope.
In either case, they are clear: The document poses a danger to faith and morals.
With respect to the authority of Amoris Laetitia, the 45 theologians, I believe, spoke well in referring to the document’s “official character.”
On this point, there can be no disagreement – the promulgation of an Apostolic Exhortation addressed to the entire Church is most certainly an “official” act.
Yes, but is it a ‘teaching’ act?
To be precise, in Amoris Laetitia, Francis does not, as Cardinal Burke maintains, “state clearly that he is not offering magisterial teaching.” He simply says of the text:
I thought it appropriate to prepare a post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation to gather the contributions of the two recent Synods on the family, while adding other considerations as an aid to reflection, dialogue and pastoral practice, and as a help and encouragement to families in their daily commitments and challenges. (AL 4)
This sentence in no way renders the entirety of the text to follow merely a personal opinion as opposed to an act of teaching.
Shockingly, part of Cardinal Burke’s difficulty in acknowledging as much lies in a misapplication of papal infallibility; in fact, well beyond its limits.
At one point, he states:
It is simply wrong and harmful to the Church to receive every declaration of the Holy Father as an expression of papal teaching or magisterium …
This is undoubtedly true, but he then goes on to say:
Thus, it is absurd to think that Pope Francis can teach something which is not in accord with what his predecessors, for example Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Saint John Paul II, have solemnly taught.
This enough to leave one speechless.
Clearly, Cardinal Burke – co-author of the dubia – realizes that Amoris Laetitia contains any number of things that are not in accord with what Benedict XVI and John Paul II “solemnly taught” (to say nothing of what the Council of Trent taught!)
So what gives?
You see, in Cardinal Burke’s estimation, a pope can never put forth a false “teaching” – even in cases where the act is devoid of any intent to define and bind (as is the case with Amoris Laetitia).
As for those times when a pope may propose that which is false, according to Cardinal Burke’s manner of thinking, such cannot properly be considered an act of “teaching” at all; even if it is set forth in an “official” document like an Apostolic Exhortation. To his mind, “it is absurd” to think otherwise.
This simply isn’t a Catholic thought.
No one among the well-informed denies that Pope John XXII was guilty of teaching error in the fourteenth century when he publicly proposed his personal opinion, which was incorrect, concerning the beatific vision.
This is what Cardinal Burke had to say about this in his December 2016 interview with Catholic World Report:
[John XXII] was corrected for a wrong teaching he had on the beatific vision.
Get that? A wrong teaching…
Here, His Eminence is referring to the fact that Pope John XXII, in several sermons, preached his personal (and erroneous) opinion that the blessed departed will not enjoy the beatific vision until after the bodily resurrection takes place at the end of the age. Underscoring the fact that this was merely his opinion (as opposed to a binding proclamation), the pope even expressly stated that theologians were free to disagree.
As his comment to CWR indicates, Cardinal Burke considers this to be an example of a pope elevating his personal opinion to the level of “teaching.”
And yet, he does not consider the dissemination of grave falsehoods throughout the Universal Church in an Apostolic Exhortation – a document that clearly has an “official character” – a matter of teaching!
Clearly, Cardinal Burke is not only inconsistent, he is quite confused; in particular as it concerns the limits of papal infallibility.
Even so, wouldn’t you know, there are those even in the “traditional” community who are so invested in the cult of personality surrounding His Eminence that they are publicly applauding him specifically for his discourse on this very topic!
In any case, at this, let us now return to the question at hand:
Has Cardinal Burke decided that a “formal act of correction” of Francis’ errors, as set forth in Amoris Laetitia, is no longer appropriate much less necessary?
The answer, I believe, is made evident by the way in which His Eminence prefaced his previously cited remarks concerning the distinction between papal teaching and the personal opinion of the man who is pope.
He said:
The way in which I have come to understand the duty to correct the popular understanding regarding Church teaching and the declarations of the Pope is to distinguish, as the Church has always done, the words of the man who is Pope and the words of the Pope as Vicar of Christ on earth.
What he appears to be saying is that he has come to understand that his duty to correct in this case extends no further than making the aforementioned distinction.
Setting aside Cardinal Burke’s clearly overblown conception of papal infallibility (specifically, his claim that it is absurd to imagine Francis teaching error even in a non-binding way), let us consider whether or not his sense of duty in this case is sufficient.
According to the 45 theologians, it is not. They state:
If the Supreme Pontiff expresses a personal opinion in a magisterial document, this expression of opinion implicitly presents the opinion in question as one that it is legitimate for Catholics to hold. As a result, many Catholics will come to believe that the opinion is indeed compatible with Catholic faith and morals. Some Catholics out of respect for a judgment expressed by the Supreme Pontiff will come to believe that the opinion is not only permissible but true. If the opinion in question is not in fact compatible with Catholic faith or morals, these Catholics will thus reject the faith and moral teaching of the Catholic Church as it applies to this opinion.
While not conceding that Amoris Laetitia can be dismissed as something other than an act of teaching, I agree wholeheartedly with this statement concerning the real and present danger to souls posed by the document.
As such, it is my firm conviction that Cardinal Burke deceives himself if he believes that he has already sufficiently fulfilled his “duty to correct,” if indeed that be so.
Perhaps His Eminence will be asked about this directly in a future interview (which, if history is any indication, cannot be very far removed from today).
In the interest of space, I will not delve any further into Cardinal Burke’s Louisville address in this post.
I will, however, return to it later, at which time I will gladly point out whatever good and praiseworthy things he had to say, while also shining the light of truth on those things that are false and dangerous.
It was never on the table.
Burke decided to cave. It is everyone for himself at this point. Every Catholic needs to find a good TLM, SSPX chapel, or any Eastern rite. At least the Church in the East is not infected with the errors of the post-conciliar Church in the Latin rite.
So in other words, when the shepherd says something Catholic, it is considered teaching. When the shepherd says something not Catholic, it is not considered teaching and the onus is on the sheep to know the difference. This doesn’t seem quite right. Of all the things a Pope says or writes in his Papal term, on average, what percentage of it is considered officially binding? Also, didn’t Pope Francis say once that when he makes comments, gives interviews, etc…, that this is magisterium. Cardinal Burke on the other hand says documents such as apostolic exhortations aren’t magisterial. Such confusion!
Yes the confusion is self inflicted if you insist to believe that modernists are Catholic.
The Church belongs to Our Lord first. If the Holy Ghost wanted to define a dogma tomorrow, He could use Pope Francis to do it. That is yet another reason why Sedevacantists are wrong.
It appears to me that PF is using his Free Will to dismiss the Holy Ghost.
More determinism and nonsense from Rush….you really did miss your calling to be a Calvinist didn’t you?
As for Card. Burke, he’s like all ‘conservative’ modernist clergymen: he wakes up in the morning confused and by the time he goes to bed at night he’s disorientated.
Al, I’ve always wondered about that. If the Eastern rite Churches were as “infected with the errors of the post-conciliar Church in the Latin rite”. I’ve asked the question but never receive answers.
Would you be so kind as to elaborate? I’m especially interested to know if the apostasy of the faithful is anywhere near as great in the Easter rites?
Thanks in advance
I was interested to see Cardinal Burke’s mention of the ‘young pastor’ who asked him whether we are in the end times. And Burke says he responded, without hesitation, “It may be so.” Burke states later his presentation, “The young pastor who asked me the question about the possibly apocalyptic nature of the present time in the Church and in the world spoke from an experience of ever greater challenges in teaching the truths of the faith with integrity, while witnessing a seeming lack of clarity and courage on the part of higher ecclesial authority.”
And it strikes me that ‘a seeming lack of clarity and courage’ can cut two ways. If we may be in the end times, wouldn’t it be even more critical for shepherds to ensure the flock is not led into error?
I have predicted for months now that there will be no formal correction since modernists cannot condemn modernists. What eveyone should really be concerned about is why Bp Fellay has stopped comdemning modernists.
At the end of the day…..the pride, perks, and power of the position(s) have thoroughly corrupted and compromised the Cardinal Burkes of the Church….however well meaning they may be.
Courage has been replaced by self-delusion. In this case Bloviation (Blowing Hot Air) has been mistaken for the Spiritual Works of Mercy.
I am reminded of a quote from Bishop Sheen….
“Make no mistake about it..There are no cowards in heaven”
….may I add…especially if you are a Prince of the Church.
Last I checked there is no such thing as a “Pretend Prince of the Church” any more than there is a Pretend Pope.
May God Help Us and Mary Protect Us
Of course they are affected. I live near a melkite church. The say/chant their mass in English, they are wobbly on their view of the papacy (they think that they have their own pope), and they LOVE the CCC. I had a long discussion with them. They think protestant churches are vehicles of salvation.
The melkites were especially active in promoting divorce at VII.
IMHO, any institution that accepts VII as a Catholic event, is corrupt. The East has done just that.
Also, there is a feel of schism there. That they have their own church….
Jacobum.I agree with your synopsis of Modernism in The One Holy Catholic Church.The positions they hold have made them prisoners of Self.We will get through this odious Papacy-what an odious man he is-but we will win with Christ at our Head.Bergoglio ,and his crew,don’t believe in Christ so there you go!God Bless.
You guys make me want to pull my hair out! How can you call him Pope in one sentence and then say he isnt even Christian in the next?
The official Papal documents promulgated by the Pope or by the various Offices all have specific names, the name indicating to a certain extent the weight of the document. For example, an “Encyclical” has more weight than an “Apostolic Letter” and an “Apostolic Letter more weight than an “Apostolic Exhortation”. It is the name of the document that reflects whether it is magisterial, and not the contents. Hence, an Apostolic Exhortation is still a magisterial document even if it is said to be the opinion of the Pope–he intends to teach by such a document.
Now, If Amoris Latitia, a Post-Synodal Exhortation, of Francis is not a “magisterial” what makes it “not magisterial”, as Cardinal Burke wants to have it, when Pope John Paul II’s Post-Synodal Exhortation Familiaris Consortio is considered magisterial, and in fact is used by Cardinal Burk and others to contest Amoris Laetitia? The assertion that A.L. is not magisterial seems a bit of a “cop-out”.
The Church is in dire need of Churchmen who will stand up in staunch opposition to whatever endangers the Faith, even if it comes from Francis. Unfortunately, today too many consider that loud, clear and unrelenting opposition to teaching and opinions is an attack against the person and thus their silence or weak opposition, in fact, becomes “respect of persons”; but what about respect for Almighty God and the teachings of His Mystical Body, the Church?
Uh, yeah, we’ve known for about two months now, the formal correction would not be issued at any point. That’s it, there is no more to be said on that except, it is a huge disappointment, and now we know what we would rather not know about all the men who run our church.
This debate about whether what PF says is his opinion or papal teaching seems to be extreme hair splitting. Of course what he says has great weight and influence, all of it, does it matter in any way what is opinion vs teaching? I don’t think it does, he has a veritable cheerleader squad waiting for whatever they can use, and he has given them plenty. I can’t see the difference. What care I if theologians yammer about whether or not something is “formal teaching”. Non-issue, the result is the same. To use that as an excuse not to issue a formal correction is to break our hearts a bit more by allowing us to be abused then giving us a weak reason for it to go on and on.
He does not cease to be Pope unless he becomes manifestly guilty of the CRIME of heresy. The bar for the crime of heresy is a bit higher than for the SIN of heresy.
Dennis, I am a former seminarian from years ago (I spent three and a half years in the major seminary before withdrawing just six months before ordination to deacon in the Latin rite). From vast experience, the Eastern rite Catholic Churches mostly escaped the Modernism that so infected the West (Roman/Latin rite- Mass, etc.). I always found it interesting in my years in the seminary (1988-91) while studying the Second Vatican Council, that the Eastern rite bishops seemed so quiet. The fact is that the Eastern Catholic Churches had no skin in the game. None of the changes voted on at the Council had anything to do with the Divine Liturgy in the East. Only the Latin rite of the Catholic Church seemed to go down the road towards heresy. I currently attend a Catholic Byzantine rite parish. We use the Divine Liturgy of St. John Christostom or the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil. Both have their roots in the Apostolic era. Although the liturgy in the Eastern rites do use the vernacular, the language is very sacred and beautiful. The entire liturgy is sung with exception of the homily, and, as with all Eastern rite liturgies, the priest celebrates ad orientum- ALWAYS! The Catholic Churches of the East make up the one of the “lungs” of the Faith- the other is the Latin (Roman) rite. I would encourage you to try out any of the twenty-three other rites in the Catholic Church. They do not disappoint in a complete sacredness and sense of the awesomeness of the Holy Trinity- incense included…all throughout the liturgy!
Arthur McGowan—Please explain the difference between the CRIME of heresy and the SIN of heresy. Never heard that one before. What is your source? I would think that the Sin of heresy committed by a pope would be a CRIME against the Holy, Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps I am a little naive.
@Rushintuit: Are we to understand the teachings of the Church that the Pope IS the proximate rule of faith and the visible sign of unity as ontological realities or merely aspirational goals for the person of the Pope?
I wish there were one close enough, but they’re even further away than the nearest Latin Mass. I have been to an Orthodox Liturgy, with all the icons, and sung in Greek, and Holy Communion by intinction. Very beautiful and other worldly. Thanks so much for your explanation. And thank you, too, prettyboy for your response.
That is something John Salza made up based on a mistranslation and misinterpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi. The relevant paragraphs of Mystici Corporis Christi are reproduced here:
–
“22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. ‘For in one spirit says the Apostle, ‘were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.’ As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
–
23. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. It is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.”
–
John Salza, ignoring the English translation appearing on the Vatican website, and the expert commentary on this passage by those far more qualified than he, translated “sin” in paragraph 23 in the phrase beginning, “for not every sin, however grave . . .” as “crime” to lead the unwitting to conclude that heretics, apostates and schismatic are only separated from the Church by an ecclesiastical proceeding. When paragraph 22 and 23 are read together is it is clear that those who commit manifest sins of heresy, apostasy or schism separate themselves “from the unity of the body” WITHOUT the intervention of ”legitimate authority.” John Salza is clearly in error on this point.
Im just curious here…but Im wondering what earthly authority could bring a true pope (Im talking about an actual pope, not an interloper like Mr. Bergoglio) to trial for the “crime of heresy”, and therefore find him guilty of such? Last I heard, a true pope has no earthly judges.
Like the 45 theologians stated, whether or not he is speaking in a magisterial sense or not (I believe that a true pope ALWAYS speaks magisterially when setting forth any universal teaching; I dont believe a true Pope can spread universal error like Mr Bergoglio did with AL), many Catholics who dont know any better will take this AL nonsense as truth simply because the man who they believe to be pope is teaching it. As a sede I reject him fully and therefore dont care what he says about anything….unfortunately most Catholics arent sede’s and actually think that this person (Mr. Bergoglio) speaks as the Vicar of Christ and therefore have no desire (through laziness of course) to discern the Catholic truth outside of what the wolf (currently Bergoglio) tells them to believe.
I have heard that too so if he has “no earthly judges” that would include not just the hierarchy but everyone of us also. If hierearchy isn’t allowed to find him guilty than why would any of us be allowed.
He cant be FORMALLY tried by any earthly court….but this is something that has been discussed ad nauseam on this site. I think we all should know the difference by now between formally bringing a pope to trial for heresy and declaring ipso facto his heresy.
Actually I think one of the problems is that all the theologians and Popes opinions that we are basing our opinions on were trying to figure out what would happen if we had just ONE heretical Pope (some even thought that could never ever happen), not 5 in a row. The difference being with 60 years of heretical or no Popes at all the visible and indefectible Church no longer exists. I think if they had known that their opinions may have been more in line with St. Cajetan, John of St. Thomas and a few others that believed some type of council of cardinals needed to be in place to bring the Pope to trial for heresy first and after that if found guilty excommunicated by God.
So, Arthur, you don’t know a member of the Church from a non-member, unless the Church tells you?
If this is the case, then the Church must be invisible, since the knowledge of who is a member of the congregation of the Faithful cannot be known simply by observation.
You say that you, Arthur, have no way of identifying a Catholic from a heretic, unless the Church tells you. But then, how can you see the Church who makes these supposed declarations, if you can’t know which individuals belongs to her?
No, the truth is that the ordinary man in the street can distinguish a Catholic from a heretic (a non-member) simply by seeing and hearing. If you deny this, then you don’t believe in the visibility of the Church. Think it through, and toss TOFP in the trash.
Our great theologians, fallible humans that they were, never imagined vatican 2, and with it the almost universal abandonment of the Catholic Faith. God help Mr Bergoglio and his vatican 2 buddies if St Robert Bellarmine were alive today.
Actually, God help Mr Bergoglio and his vatican 2 buddies (especially Fr Ratzinger) regardless. Who would want to be in their shoes at the Judgement?
I think Burke is missing the point with his hair-splitting analysis. Whether or not AL and the other ravings emanating from Bergoglio are to be considered “magisterial” by the faithful really doesn’t matter, because the faithful automatically accept them as “magisterial” and ask no further questions. Do the sheep send their feed off for chemical analysis before eating it? No, they trust the shepherd.
Bergoglio has, in a sense, destroyed the brand. Once upon a time everyone could say what the Church believed in the area of faith and morals, whether they liked it or not, but thanks to Francis, that is no longer the case. I realize that it was really VII that formally installed and implemented Modernism and its attendant relativism, but Bergoglio has certainly taken it the final step. Therefore, the bishops and cardinals have the obligation not merely to sit around and scold us for rejecting Bergoglianism, but to firmly and visibly reject it themselves and hope to rebuild the Catholic “brand.” We all know what silence means, and that is how the world is seeing the silence of the hierarchy.
Wrong Arthur. Read this http://www.dailycatholic.org/cumexapo.htm
And to the naysayers this document is specifically cited as doctrinal in the 1917 Code of Canon Law 188.4 concerning the criteria for loss of office due to heresy.
He has destroyed not only the brand of the Novus Ordo (good) but also that of the Roman Catholic Church..(unspeakable evil) This Church that since Lumen Gentium only “subsists” mysteriously within its confines in the hearts of the few remaining faithful. As an instituion the Novus Ordo is NOT the Catholic Church, for She is indefectable while the Novus Ordo is most certainly defectable.
Louie: Sorry but this is off the subject of this post but I was wondering if you know how Fr. Michael Rodriguez is. If you provided an update, I’m sorry I missed it.
rich,
I believe you are correct in your remark about “a true Pope spreading universal error”–at least in the case of Francis. However, your “sede” position is very dangerous, to say the least. Have you ever considered that Pope Emeritus Benedict may still be Pope? If, as has been suggested as a possibility on this Blog, there was something that invalidated Benedict’s renunciation or invalidated the election of Francis, and thus Benedict remains the true Vicar of Christ then one could avoid that slippery slope position of sedevacantism.
Personally, I don’t consider the invalidity of Benedict’s renunciation can be proved. However, it can be demonstrated that Pope Benedict intended to keep the Papacy by means of FREELY placing himself officially in the position of a Pope in exile or a Pope in prison–through the way he worded his renunciation IN LATIN. He did this precisely in order to prevent Satan (whom Our Lady said at Akita would infiltrate into the Church and Sr. Lucy stated that Satan’s final battle against God would be over Marriage and the Family) from having official control of the Church–which, if it could indeed happen, would make a mockery of Our Lord’s promise to Peter at Caesarea Philippi. Please ask Our Lady of the Rosary–the Immaculate Heart Of Mary–and her Spouse, the Holy Ghost, for guidance concerning this possibility.
I have written much on this position and if you or anyone is interested, you can email me at frdbelland@netscape.net and I will send you my thesis–including a thorough analysis of the Official Latin text (just mention that you are interested in my thesis Why Benedict is Still Pope).
I attended a wonderful mass at my SSPX parish today as usual. A sermon that actually addressed things dogmatic, right/wrong, heaven/hell and, interestingly enough, hypocrites and the faithful (Pharisee and publican Gospel today of course). I no longer worry if SSPX is in communion; Bergoglio and his crew are not. I no longer worry about being excommunicated someday by a pope of the modernist persuasion. I don’t pay much attention to the Bergoglio canonizations so why worry about any other thing he or his lavender, death culture ilk might pronounce. For me Benedict is still pope and Bergoglio is the template for an anti-pope. All that’s left of the true Church is the remnant. Find a TLM (FSSP is you can overlook their caving to the cult of Vatican II), SSPX or something else orthodox. Time is growing short. I wouldn’t waste any of it following anything the hierarchy supports today.
The FSSP is in full communion with the FALSE church of vatican 2. If you know that and attend their “mass” then I dont see how its possible to have not committed a mortal sin.
Dear Al, thank you for such a detailed explanation. I am desperate to find help/answers to a mass issue, and wondered if I may bother you for some of your time.
We are attending the NO mass (which recently transferred from Latin when an older priest was moved). And while we have another reachable FSSP service I am now hearing negative things about the Society. We don’t have an SSPX near us, but we do have a Byzantine church not too far away – but (there’s always one of those) on the website it claims to be ‘
– fully in Communion with the Pope of Rome.
– While fully Catholic & in Communion with the Roman Catholic Church, we follow the Byzantine Eastern Christian Tradition.
Is this one to steer clear of?
My family desperately want to follow Our Lord correctly but are finding it really difficult. Any advice you can give would be much appreciate. Thx in advance.
Today is a day of fast & abstinence according to the 1917 code.
Our Lady of Revelation
https://youtu.be/o3aIedB9Owc
AClay, I see no reason to steer clear of any Eastern rite as long as they name themselves “_________ Byzantine Catholic Church.” All of the Eastern rites remain in full communion with the Catholic Church. Do not let the “Pope of Rome” or “Bishop of Rome” phrases throw you off! The papacy in an office, but the man changes- whether he- as pope- is teaching faithfully or not. The pope can only teach authoritatively on matters of faith and morals, and/or to re-affirm what past Church Councils definitively taught. Anything else out of the mouth of any pope or written by him that is contrary to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture is of the Evil One.
Apply this to where you see fit.
“We must remember that if all the manifestly good men were on one side and all the manifestly bad men on the other, there would be no danger of anyone, least of all the elect, being deceived by lying wonders. It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh…. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side.” —Fr. Frederick Faber
Al, thank you very much. That really helps.
God bless.