A decent book but a few problems.

Webster quotes personal views of certain church fathers as if it negated the church coming to a conclusion on the subject via a council or some other means. He also seems content to cite those who would disagree with him elsewhere, so why are these disagreements any different than where they would disagree with him? He also seems to confuse what the phrase "unanimous consent of the fathers" means. Typically when an informed Catholic refers to the unanimous consent, they're talking about interpretation, not tradition. (Though interpretation can be part of tradition) They are also not claiming that every single father agreed personally.

He just causally dismisses Aquinas on pg. 134 when talking about faith and justification, erroneously claiming that Aquinas denied the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ.

It is an otherwise well-researched book and brings up good points, but these errors should not go unnoticed ( )

Focusing on major issues and in a non-polemical way, William Webster raises questions about doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church that current Catholics claim as part of a changeless creed, but which were not held by predecessors.