I'm not sure of your point in posting citations from a bunch of 1960's liberal Jesuit types. They aren't my authority; are they yours?
Pelikan left Lutheranism and converted to Orthodoxy later in life, supposedly at least in part as a result of meeting John Paul II. The theme of his 1959 book was that Catholicism was an ossified and medieval faith, incapable of change and with nothing to say to the modern world. Unfortunately for his argument, Vatican II began a couple of years later.
The point is what is stated, that while it is expected that RCs seek to negate the contrary testimony these sources provide, the reality is that they provide support against Peter being the rock of Mt. 16:18, and against the cherished Roman Catholic view of an infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy proceeding from the book of Acts.
Your response is typical, but does not disprove their finding, and your own pope is a Jesuit which many TRCs see as liberal, and these writers (not all Jesuit) are your brethren in the church you defend, just as the authors of your own American Bible commentary are, as well as the liberal laymen which make up the majority of your members, for Rome treats them as such in life and in death. Even a notorious apostate as Ted Kennedy. And as long as Rome does so, this is the church you defend and would have us leave conservative evangelical churches for.
The theme of his 1959 book was that Catholicism was an ossified and medieval faith, incapable of change and with nothing to say to the modern world. Unfortunately for his argument, Vatican II began a couple of years later.
Unfortunately for you argument, Vatican II, for traditional, RCs, much represents the kind of liberalism whose work you impugn.