This Beckwith quote seems like many I’ve seen here on FR.
“Some of the hostility was not surprising, for some of it came from well-meaning Protestants who simply do not have a good grounding in Christian history or the Catholic Catechism. Many of these well-meaning folks, unfortunately, have sat under the teachings of less-than-careful Bible-church preachers and pastors who approach Catholicism with a cluster of flawed categories that make even a charitable reading of the Catechism almost impossible.”
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/2772/#ixzz3bQumwMRf
If there is some actual flaw or misunderstanding of my own, then point at it, directly.
Or else don't beat around the bush about it, providing some link I'm supposed to go to in order to see what it is that you may be thinking could apply here, for you've not touched in the slightest the substance of the one narrow consideration I was addressing in my comment to another here.
As for that narrow consideration, it stands unrefuted by yourself or anyone else.
If there is something yet again you would desire myself to spend time paying attention to, show me here what that is.
I'll not play the game of 'go fish' for some less-than well stated argumentation of your own --- which is doubtful would much apply to myself, for the portion which you quoted certainly does not.
I understand better than most [Roman] Catholic how RC apologetic (including the CCC) can seem to appear to fit flawlessly together...but that breaks down at junctures here and there... only not appearing to do so, when or if various other sets of valid, well established info is entirely set aside, along with pretty much any or all critical examination of what is assembled there and elsewhere among RCC theological goings-on.
It takes fair criticism to be set aside --- if that examination does not include a form of "I'mma gonna swallow all this" (all the assembled and isolated statements gleaned from Church Councils and past papal pronouncements) confirmation bias to make it appear "infallible".
Or in other words, it's only infallible in the imaginations of those who NEED for it to be thought of as infallible.
Did you miss the context in which Beckwith was first mentioned here on this thread?
I had provided a link to it.
Beckwith was being held up as an example of a 'leading theologian'.
And the quote I had gleaned from a past interview of Beckwith had arisen from some short time after he had reverted back to the Roman Catholicism of his youth.
It's not like Beckwith can be honestly characterized as being less than "charitable" with [Roman] Catholicism, simply for reason he was being charitable towards the scholarship of his past (evangelical) colleagues, now is it?
Since the quote (from wherever) you supplied does not apply to Beckwith, and does not fit myself either ---- for it is not accurate description of my own motivations, then you could as well have saved that little arrow for some other set of targets, for some other day.