If one does not understand what the magisterium means by the various means with which they make know their mind and intent, eg. within documents that have been promulgated, then you need not rely upon private interpretation as your rule of faith, as your norm for determining Catholic doctrine. We have a living magisterium, which means Catholics have two-way communication at their disposal.
Ask the magisterium what they mean to teach as certain teaching (sententia certa), and what they mean to teach as *de fide dogma, *and what they mean to make binding as ecclesiastical discipline.
Catholics are not permitted to simply remain in ignorance about these matter, or voluntary doubt, dismissing the Acta Apostolicae Sedis of the Roman Pontiff as if it were nothing that need be listened to or because you lack understanding about what it means. Seek understanding of the mind and intent of the Roman Pontiff through the institutions of the Church. St. Thomas Aquinas calls it a sin to neglect to know what one is bound to know.
There are three pastors in my “chain of command” : 1) my parish pastor, 2) my diocesan bishop, and 3) Pope Benedict XVI. These and only these are my superiors in all things religious. Others may have derived authority from these, and when they exercise that authority I am bound to submit to them as well. I am bound to obey and submit to my leaders (cf. Heb 13:17). If I don’t know what I am bound to know, I have an obligation to overcome that ignorance by asking my leaders questions. It is certainly NOT traditional Catholic teaching to use one’s private interpretation of past writings to determine Catholic doctrine or discern that which binds me. Instead, the authority to interpret that which binds my soul belongs only to the Divinely authorized pastors of my soul, because they are my superiors by God’s providence.
The proximate norm for Christian doctrine and discipline is not “clever or convincing explanations” but instead, even according to pre-Vatican II Catholic teaching, the proximate norm for Christian doctine and discipline is AUTHORITY.
St. Thomas Aquinas affirmed:
“obedience is a special virture, and its specific object is a command tacit or express, because the superior’s will, however it become known, is a tacit precept, and a man’s obedience seems to be all the more prompt, forasmuch as by obeying he forestalls the express command as soon as he understands his superior’s will.” *Summa Theologica, *IIb, 104, 2]
Thus, when one seeks to authentically understand the mind and intent of the Roman Pontiff and submits to it, they are virtuous. If they seek instead to quibble over words and contend against what they know to be the mind and intent of the Roman Pontiff, then they lack virture.
This is precisely what St. Pius X was getting at in his allocution against dissidents:
"If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the precise limits to which this duty of obedience** extends**… one does not seek to restrict the domain within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope. " (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)
This isn’t hard…even a child can understand the Baltimore Catechism, No.4: “we should have the very greatest respect for the opinions and advice of the Holy Father on any subject. We should not set up our limited knowledge and experience against his, even if we think we know better than he does”