Thus far, the only Magisterial acts that have emanated from Bergoglio are the Recyclical (Laudato si') [there's also Lumen fidei, but that's though of as having mostly been written by Benedict XVI] ... and then the notorious Amoris Laetita (the joy of fornication), a papal "exhortation", whatever that means, but it looks official.
Everything else are just his ramblings as a private theologian.
Now, traditionally, even those two, the Encyclical and the Exhortation, are supposed to received with a spirit of reverence and religious assent by Catholics. When in the history of the Church have Catholics routinely mocked papal Magisterium like we do with these two documents?
That's kindof the bigger picture problem here. Let's say this Crisis passes. Will Catholics ever look at Encyclicals again the same way? Are these merely the pope opining about something as a private theologian or are these actually teachings of the Magisterium? R&R seriously blurs the two so that there's precious little difference. In fact, will Catholics ever look the pope the same way. We have statements from both Pope St. Pius V and Pope St. Pius X to the effect that the Pope IS Christ (on earth) and he is to be treated as such. I get the impression that those were statements of principle and not dependent on the worthiness of the See's present occupant.
Then how do we go back to the pre-Vatican II Encyclicals and credibly hold them up as authoritative? If Vatican II, an Ecumenical Council, was wrong about Religious Liberty, then what if Vatican II was actually right while Pius IX was wrong?
This is just NOT the same attitude that Catholics have traditionally had toward papal teaching.