[BluffTHIS!]

Surely you haven't forgotten the New Guinea question: A man in New Guinea dies 1 day after Christ, thus absolutely never having had the opportunity of hearing the gospel. Is it at all likely from your interpretations of scripture that he could have been saved? And don't cop out with a "I trust such matters to God's providence" stuff. This is a question about your interpretation of the requirements for salvation.

And another key difference between catholic and most protestant theologies is over "faith alone" versus "faith plus works". Which is the reason Luther wished to exclude the Book of James from the canon of the NT.

[ QUOTE ]
Unlike you I don't place human reason above Scripture.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. But I do recognize that if there are multiple conflicting interpretations of scripture, then they all can not be right. And my human reason correctly allows me to know from scripture that God does want us to know on fundamental matters which is the correct interpretation, else He would not have said something and allowed it to come to pass that the correct meaning of what He said cannot be known in at least one denomination.

God gave us reason. Obviously it can be used correctly, i.e. logically, or it can be applied incorrectly. If you don't see that difference it is because you are not being intellectually honest with yourself so as not to have to deal with logical contradictions inherent in your protestant beliefs that would make it necessary to re-examine the specific christian views you hold.