I have not been following this debate closely, but here your response is more of a rant rather than dealing with the support for the alternative interpretation (which was/is not necessarily mutually incompatible in the eyes of all, incldg. Kenrick as it appears you are not reading all that Elsie posted, for that quote is prefaced by,
And Catholic archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick (1806-1896), while yet seeking to support Peter as the rock , stated that,
Emp. mine. Here it is clearly stated that Kenrick supported Peter as the rock, and the spelling is correct, even if the end attribution has a k instead of an r, while the quote proved a link to the source (cached here ).
Thus nothing is being "hid," is misrepresented, which charge is another overreach by you, at best. It is perfectly valid to use such a statement from an author while noting that the author does not share the same conclusion as the writer who uses it, and who even provides access to the source. Some RCs authors do likewise in citing Prot authors.
You yourself invoked a edited quote of Luther that appears on some RC sites (indicating you never read the context), unaccompanied by any note stating what his argument and conclusion was, as well as utterly failing to even provide the source, let alone a link:
As Luther said, “We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all.”
RCs authors also sometime cite ECFs as if they are supporting the RC apologist when they are not. And do not even mention many other RC quotes of Luther, which also abound on the Internet.
And what would be misrepresenting Kenrick would be to invoke him as one who always supported the infallible Roman papacy as V1 declared it.
Your post, as usual, is flawed.
The Kenrick quote in isolation misrepresents his overall view of Peter as the Rock. It’s just that simple.
“And what would be misrepresenting Kenrick would be to invoke him as one who always supported the infallible Roman papacy as V1 declared it.”
In any case, Kenrick still believed in papal infallibility. His view was that it was exercised in union with the world’s bishops. That still means his view rejects every contrary Protestant view. It’s always funny when Protestant anti-Catholics - not really knowing what they’re talking about - cite a Catholic as an ally to their heretical views when that same Catholic still doesn’t believe what Protestants believe and in fact believes something much closer to what the Protestants are condemning. The Protestant anti-Catholics are usually too stupid to realize that is the case. Archbishop Kenrick submitted obediently to the decision of the Council. He died. The Church didn’t. The papacy didn’t. Papal Infallibility didn’t either.