I recommend the essay Just Trust us on this one...wink, wink, on a blog called Beggars All (which I have not seen before this week). In it a writer named John Bugay says:
"One of the reasons why people misunderstand Roman Catholicism is because, for centuries, the Roman Catholic apologetic has not been one of honesty and clarity, but it’s one of deflection. It’s a classic bait-and switch, which I would argue, is fundamentally dishonest, on a regular basis...
"Roman apologetics that came out of the Reformation had a certain character that asked (maybe in disbelief) 'Where was your religion before the year 1517?'...By 1688, this appeal to authority and antiquity was so etched into the public mind that bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossuet (1627-1704) had produced a work, Histoire des Variations des Églises Protestantes (1688) in which he asserted: '...There is no difficulty about recognizing false doctrine: there is no argument about it: it is recognized at once, whenever it appears, merely because it is new…'...But as it turns out, Rome cannot hold itself to that standard. Less than 200 years later, Newman was crafting a 'theory of Development' that was necessary to explain away all of the many changes that Rome HAD incorporated. ..
"It’s really a classic bait-and-switch. I have two thoughts on this: First, there is very much in 'Catholic Sacred Tradition” that is quite 'anti-biblical'. Beginning with an apologetic that says, 'you can’t understand what the Bible is or says without an infallible interpreter.'"