"A conveniently anonymous "Roman Catholic scholar"; perhaps fabricated, for the sake of the anecdote? Heh, heh.
Perhaps, but I tend to doubt it. I've read a lot of what some would call anit-Mormon material over the years, and I've never seen the veracity of this "anecdote" challenged (sorry for the anecdote). I think you might be the first to do so! ;)
"The truth of the matter is, the best Roman Catholic apologetic scholars (like Hilaire Belloc) regard John Calvin as the greatest of all "heresiarchs", and Calvinism as the most lively and effective of all "heresies". Mormonism, to the extent that Catholic apologists even consider the small Utah-centered religious sect, is generally regarded as a rather silly little theological absurdity; hardly worthy of the big guns of Roman Catholic apologetic scholarship."
This I don't doubt. My aim in posting this wasn't to defend the LDS church, but to toss out some food for thought. You seem well read. What's your take on the substance of the either/or claim? Is it true the Protestants don't have a leg to stand on?
Well, in the spirit of "food for thought", I'd say that one problem I have with the argument attributed to Mr. Reiner, is that he's only considering one aspect of the question, "What makes a continuing Church"?
Is it:
Reiner seems to be saying that if the Roman Catholic church can't prove their first claim (An unbroken succession of Leaders), then the Mormon claim to have "restored" the proper Leadership of the Church becomes the next, strongest alternative.
But I don't think that you can say that, until you first establish that an unbroken succession of Leaders is the key defining characteristic of a "continuing" Church, and that not only the Roman Catholics but that every Christian Church has lost such Succession (which the Eastern Orthodox, for example, might dispute on their own behalf; in addition, some Protestants -- such as some Anglicans -- do claim to be part of the Apostolic Succession of Bishops, just outside of Roman Communion). And speaking just as a Presbyterian, I might tend to place more weight on the latter two characteristics of a "continuing" Church, anyway.
So, there's a number of preliminary issues that need to be established as points of agreement or disagreement, before the main question being asked can even be answered. If'n that makes sense (hopefully I'm not rambling too much).