Catholics make fine distinctions and your post reveals that you fail to do that. All those “examples” have to be measured as to their status as opinion, heresy, certain, infallible etc.
For instance, a lot of what Pope Francis says is just opinion. Nothing more.
Not so, as souls look for the interpretation of what is officially said by how the preachers of it explain it and translate it into actions, and Christ and James taught that what one does and effects constitutes the evidence of what one really believes. (Mt. 7:20; 23; Ja. 2:18)
The scribes and Pharisees could deny that they would kill the OT prophet as their fathers did, but they testified otherwise by their words and actions.
And RCs in particular have been taught that
"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906),
And every time Rome honors a Teddy K//Menino publicly known liberal RC as a member in life and in death then it effectually teaches how it understands canon law. And such treatment also implicitly conveys to the average liberal RC that he/she is OK with Rome. And the liberal revisionism taught for decades in Rome own officially sanctioned Bible interprets past statements to the contrary.
V2 interpreted historical teaching that damned Prots as meaning properly baptized SS faithful Prots were part of the body of Christ, and Francis giving the high five to evangelical tells others that this is how RC teaching is to be understood.
TradRCs who reject the above based upon their understanding of historical RC teaching, even if they are correct, are charged with being Prots, since they do not follow the leaders as they are, but instead rely upon their interpretation of their supreme source for what Truth is, even though they censure Prots for doing the same.
That is the problem with sola ecclesia, in which the church is the supreme authority rather than unchanging Scripture, for when the leadership of the former goes South, either in requiring extermination of heretics or going soft on immorality or liberal teaching, then the laity overall follows.
In contrast, those who hold most strongly to the authority of Scripture as literally being the wholly inspired and accurate word of God are the most conservative.