As exampled by the Assumption , "immemorial tradition" is only whatever Rome or the EOs (the 2 sometimes being in conflict) say it is, not the weight of Scriptural evidence, in which the Catholic distinctives are missing .
Thus the recourse of Manning; It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. - Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
NO ONE has the right to change Catholic teaching.
And as a laymen you do not have the right to judge popes and bishops as changing Catholic teaching versus clarifying it, as in v2, and engage in public expression of that dissent. See post 233 above.
Yeah, if you just so happen to conveniently interpret those Scriptures where the Catholic distinctives are cut out or explained away. "This is my body" doesn't mean that. The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth doesn't mean that. Baptism now saves you doesn't mean that. You are not saved by faith alone means we are saved by faith alone.
You inextricably duct-taped the Scriptures to your own dopey interpretations that no Christian *anywhere in the world* ever heard of before 1510--not just Rome, but Constantinople, Alexandria, Persia, Antioch, Ethiopia, Malabar in India--and then have the unmitigated gall to claim that there are no Catholic distinctives there. Of course! You conveniently ignore every single one of them. From Luther on, whenever you found a passage you didn't like, you came up with a hundred ways to explain it away.
This is why we have to settle the exegetical issue by asking a historical question: what did Christians in the first century, second century, third century on....how did they interpret it? How did they understand the Scripture we are fighting over today?
Of course, going down that road is a losing bet for you, and that's why you've steadfastly refused to go down it. Because it proves Protestantism is exactly what we've always said it was: a made-up conflation of heresies with absolutely zero claim to antiquity or primitive observance.
What do you mean "judge"? Privately judge? Or judge juridically? Because I'll be the first to admit I have no authority to judge juridically in the matter. If Bergoglio is to be judged juridically it is only by a reigning Pope through a Council: Honorius I was anathematized precisely under those conditions.
Manning was a papal maximalist. He is not the ne plus ultra of papal theory. There are plenty of contrary examples, going from St. Paul rebuking Peter, to St. Catherine of Siena, to the Counter-Reformation speculations on how a Pope could lose his office due to heresy.