It seems many lay posters at CAF assume that random quotes from saints and Popes have the same weight as the Bible itself when it comes to determining Church doctrine, often many posters do little but post such quotes and seem to assume that “if I can find 3 saints and 2 Popes, and at least 1 who is both a saint and a Pope, that agree on something, that makes it Church teaching, and I don’t even have to make any more effort to justify my claim”. I often see this on Marian topics.
On the other hand I get the feeling some on CA are fine with picking and choosing what to defend with this approach and use a lot of handwaving to justify the idea that “Church teaching never changed on this, yes the average Catholic used to be taught this but that doesn’t make it Church teaching”. So, Limbo of the Infants was supposedly “never official Church teaching, just a theological speculation”, though most preVII Catholics were taught this as “official Church teaching”.
Seems there’s a lot of leeway here to disavow Church teachings that are no longer considered socially acceptable. (Same for problematic topics such as slavery.) I can think of only one regular CAF poster who DOES find Limbo to be the most reasonable answer to the question of what happens to infants who die prior to Baptism. And it does seem most of the posters who believe such infants go to Heaven are heavily biased by their own experiences.
Then there are the saints canonized in the past by “popular acclaim” and who have many pious stories taught about them, yet may never even have existed…
Many also don’t find the opinions of current living priests and bishops to be worthy of belief, they are quick to dismiss them as “too liberal” or even “heretical enemies of the Church trying to undermine it from within”. So apparently I shouldn’t trust what the USCCB positions are, I should depend on what saints said 100 years ago, or more?
I wind up feeling very confused as to what sources count towards official Church Tradition and Teaching. Then there are posters who still believe “the only valid reason for annulment is non-consummation” though that has nothing to do with annulment, or who treat it essentially as a Catholic version of “Divorce with Cause”, and think “if a marriage ended due to abuse or adultery then it obviously qualifies for Annulment”. There seems to be a “folk Catholicism” many Catholics follow, that has very little to do with “what the Church really teaches”. (And that’s just in the US - I get a feeling in other countries there is even more of this going on and at times going over the line into syncretism.)