There are gradations of teachings, but anything of any seriousness will be published as a document in a journal called the Acta Apostolic Sedes (abbreviated AAS), and formally addressed to those who need to actually read it.
Spouting off to the New York Times is great fun, no doubt, but it is a private hobby.
The teachings of one Pope also need to be read in light of the teachings of other Popes. With this one, unless it either appears in the AAS or pertains directly to something I am doing or teaching about, I generally simply go with what other Popes have said, in light of a principal outlined by Pius XII in an encyclical addressed to everyone and published in the AAS which runs to the effect: interpret the less clear in light of the more clear, and not the more clear in the light of the less clear, no matter which one was published first. (I believe this is fro Humani Generis, published in 1950, but it may be from Divino Afflante Spiritu, published in 1943).
Spouting off to the NYT is not really private, is it?
Thank you for your kind replies
I went through catechism classes as a kid and attended Mass weekly until I was a teen when I left.
My parents remained Catholics until they passed.
I was quite happy as a Methodist for many years, but sadly they have gone leftist as well. Currently, I am unchurched.
I’m not as well versed as many here, but what this Pope is saying seems not just divergent from traditional Catholicism but completely at odds with what I was taught.
I have always respected and looked up to previous Popes, this one I find that impossible.
He seems intent on changing what had always seemed to be an unchangeable institution. The Church has always stood against homosexuality, abortion, divorce regardless of the pressures of popular culture.
I sincerely hope he does not completely ruin the Church.
That seems to be his mission.
Also Evangelli Gaudium contains heresy:
“Pope” Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”. This text is an explicit profession of heresy, directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set forth repeatedly and explicitly citing the definition of Florence, to wit, that the Mosaic covenant has been “revoked” and “abrogated”. I have been saying for years that when a “pope” will officially teach explicit and clear heresy flatly contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith, then you will know that he is the false pope prophecied in many Church approved prophecies and Marian apparitions. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alohonsus Liguori, St. Antoninus and Pope Innocent III all teach that when the pope demonstrates himself to be a manifest heretic, i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases to be pope (or, if already was a public heretic he was invalidly elected) because he is not a Catholic — not a member of the Catholic Church. Bellarmine explains that the Roman Pontiff is the visible head of the Church, and the head is a member. One who is not a member cannot be the head, and therefore the election to the supreme pontificate of a public heretic is canonically null & void. The heresy of Bergoglio in no. 247 is such a clear cut case of manifest, public heresy, expressed in stark, unequivocal terms, that it can be said without doubt that if this proposition of no. 247 is not manifestly heretical, then nothing else can be said to be so. It is morally impossible that one who manifestly displays such clearly expressed contempt for a defined dogma of faith by plainly denying it, can be believed to validly hold the office of Roman Pontiff. St. Francis of Assisi foretold of the uncanonically elected pope who would not be “a true pastor but a destroyer”. Bergoglio plainly fits the description. Fr. Paul Kramer.