I read it, but it is full of heterodox theologians’ and revisionist historians as experts. They are not. There are only the ecumenical councils which teachings on faith and morals ratified by Pope and two Ex Cathedra statements which constitute infallible teachings. History only as reiable as hisorian. Johnson has an agenda.
Lots of misunderstandings on FR.
"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours."
--Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215
Lots of misunderstandings on FR.
There is a lot of understanding; too!
And just who claimed that the writings of Catholics was infallible teachings? We are dealing with scholarship, whether it be Newman or a Klaus Schatz. Blithely dismissing those (many more than Johnson) who provide history that is contrary to RC propaganda is what exposes an agenda.
In addition, concerning "Lots of misunderstandings on FR," would you care to answer the questions pertinent to this issue of authoritative teaching such as another poster has avoided? What, in your opinion, requires assent? Do only Ex-Cathedra statements require assent, or does other papal public teaching, including all social encyclicals, and that of councils, all require assent, and what level and manner? And what do you consider authorative in defining what requires assent?