Can you post where the Church has ever taught that? That's a strawman. If anyone is "cherry picking", it is you. For you have picked out just two novel popes, I have ALL the popes of ALL antiguity in union. Catholic doctrine is determined by what has always been taught.
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS (400-450 AD)CONFESSOR OF THE CHURCH
"What then should a Catholic do if some part of the Church were to separate itself from communion with the universal Faith? What other choice can he make but to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted member the whole of the body that is sound. And if some new contagion were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of the Church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty." (Commonitorium)
The personal likes and dislikes of EVEN popes, when opposed to ALL of 1900 years of POPES, are simply not Catholic (universal in time). Honorius I was excommunicated 45 years after he died, for "seeming to go along" with heresy.
Um..........a novel Pope?? What makes a Pope novel and who decides??
You? SSPX? The blogosphere?
That makes you the Pope doesn't it?? Or would that be the uber-Pope, seeing as you are apparently above the Pope?
I've picked out the two most recent Catholic Popes who have spoken on the Charismatic renewal. I accept their words.
You have zero Popes because neither Pius XI nor Pius XII spoke about the Catholic Charismatic Renewal because there simply wasn't one at that period in the twentieth century.
What you actually have are the words of laymen....people like John Vennari who are attempting to apply the words of previous Popes to the Charismatic Renewal. You're giving us the viewpoints of laymen who are interpreting the words of previous Popes for us and attempting to post-date them to the Charismatic Renewal.
No sale.
Outer darkness, awaits my friend.
Benedict XVI........ad multos annos!!