[erelong]

So to add to what you're saying here, a pope cannot teach error in specific infallible declarations on faith and morals, because then the whole Church would fall in to error.

Ergo, some like St. Robert Bellarmine have argued for example if a pope were to teach heresy, he would immediately cease to be a pope; others have argued it impossible for a pope to ever teach heresy at all as this was something they believed God wouldn't allow.

So, if you were to see someone claiming to be pope and teaching error on infallible issues of faith and morals, you'd have to conclude logically they could not be a Catholic pope, from a Catholic standpoint.

[triceratops]

The point I was making was

> [the pope] poses as "conservative" while pushing views strongly opposed to Catholicism."

is a nonsense statement.

The Pope is Catholic and he preaches Catholicism. The Pope doesn't "pose" as anything. Some of what he preaches sounds conservative or liberal or whatever. That doesn't matter to him. What he promulgates was already ancient when any political movement of today was born.

[erelong]

You're getting at the heart of the matter, try this:

Assume it's true "the pope [appears to be] pushing views strongly opposed to Catholicism".

How does a Catholic interpret that situation?

(Hint: See maybe pope Paul IV's "Cum ex apostolatus officio"?)

[triceratops]

> "the pope [appears to be] pushing views strongly opposed to Catholicism"

According to who? It's a safe bet that a pope won't say "actually now you may covet your neighbor's wife" without a head injury or dementia being involved (in which case his staff would cover for him or he'd be retired somehow). That leaves questions of arcane doctrine that a regular Catholic simply isn't qualified to judge. They have the choice of leaving the church or staying and obeying as best they can.