But that Protestant viewpoint is not objectively established. It's really not the same thing, because the post is pointing out objective facts.
Honestly, does Rome teach that even you can declare truth by fiat, so that without referencing any Protestants works, and failing to make any distinction btwn historical Protestantism based upon its distinctive view of Scriptural being the supreme authority as literally being the word of God versus the various essentially non-Protestant liberal denoms, you blithely declare what the Protestant view is not, and then complain a Protestant viewpoint is not objectively established?!
It is you who fail to substantiate what you are trying to refute, and passing it off as a universal view. And you even host a blog! No wonder Rome used to forbid such of her laity. You embarrass her (though she lacks clothes herself).
How much of classic evangelical commentaries such as Matthew Henry, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Adam Clark, John Gill, and the like have you consulted? Do you really believe they only hold that punishment for sin is relegated to the soul in the after life? Or that God does not punish sin because He is a jealous God, Scripturally understood? Or that there is no distinctions in sins and accountability, except that all of them leave you a sinner in need of salvation?
All of which is irrelevant to your supposition that the article provides anything close to an “objective” viewpoint.
Most of the Protestants that I know do not consider Rome to be infallible. To be honest, most start from the position that Rome’s teachings differ from scripture on a number of points of doctrine. Again, that is a differing OPINION from the Catholic OPINION.