Recently, we've seen some interesting thinking on another blog.
I'll draw your attention to these statements:
"Again, I continue to be misunderstood about a fundamental point (something I’ve underscored over and over again): Just as an evangelical is not defined by majority opinion about what evangelicals believe, a Catholic is not defined by official pronouncements about what Catholics believe."
and from here:
"While we, as Protestants, may interpret Trent and other official statements prima facie, we have to be careful not to require all Catholics to interpret their documents the way we do."
I'll just say this much. It may sound nifty and attractive to some to say that we shouldn't take Roman Catholic official pronouncements as not being definitional of what Catholics believe, etc., but why should we take this sort of commentary seriously when Pope Benedict himself is saying that Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation? Catholicism has a particular rule of faith, and when the individual Romanist acts like an evangelical, it is in spite of, not in accordance with that rule of faith. It is by no means problematic to interpret Trent and these sorts of statements as not representative of Catholicism, when they are coming from the Magisterium, indeed, the Pope himself. It is no more unfair to Catholics to interpret these documents according to their original intent, as did Bellarmine, et.al., when the Pope himself has taken it upon himself to do it for us. So, if Benedict says so, why shouldn't we?