[Claud]

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.

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.

[daniel1212]

It means picking and choosing what do obey from the pope and councils affirmed by him, even if non-infallible teaching, from bulls, to encyclicals - including social encyclicals - to V2 teaching, based upon your judgment of whether it is valid or not in the light of what you understand certain past church teaching means.

And that even if you can disagree, you are not to engage in public dissent regarding it.

See post 233 .

Do you instead affirm ascertaining the veracity of anything that is taught by examination of the warrant for it from your chosen authoritative documents?