[Quix]

No place in Scripture is there anything that shows that Peter's Roman bishopric was not 25 years. And absence of additional evidence is not a witness against them; that's the fallacy of the argument from silence.
= = = =

SOUNDS LIKE THE INSTITUTIONAL STANDARD IS:

"THEIR arguments from silence are evil and heretical and nonsense. While mine are orthodox, righteous and wonderful."

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, if I may ...

There are two worldviews:

1. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

2. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I go with #1 which is typical in physics and math.

The second is more typical of the historical sciences, e.g. evolution, anthropology, archeology and Egyptology.

And of course the same two worldviews apply to theology. Again, I go with #1.

[adiaireton8]

"THEIR arguments from silence are evil and heretical and nonsense. While mine are orthodox, righteous and wonderful."

That's an example of the straw man fallacy. Catholicism does not depend on arguments from silence or secret gnostic/deistic theories (e.g. that God at some time in history lifted His anointing from His Church, only to return it to some American charismatics in the twentieth century). If you want the evidence, dig deep into the history of the first four hundred years of the Church. The evidence is all there.

-A8