You posted a long tract, with many claims; a response to which might require multiple times the length. I do not have the time to dig into each claim. However, a few broad points on some of the issues you raised:
Regarding, the alleged use of forgeries to build the papacy, it is untrue to say that the case for the primacy relies upon them for its basis. See http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9810fea3.asp.
Further, you are mistaken in saying that the Council of Sardica - which recognized appeals to Rome - was not received by the East. Rather, in fact, it was explicitly received by the East in the so-called Quintisext Council (in Trullo) in 692 AD; giving it, it the eyes of the Eastern Orthodox Church, ecumenical force. Nor is that the only proof of Eastern recognition of papal authority. For example, circa 518 AD, the Eastern bishops signed the “Formula of Hormisdas” which in part declares: “The first means of safety is to guard the rule of strict faith and to deviate in no way from those things that have been laid down by the Fathers. And indeed the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church’ [Matt., xvi, 18], cannot be disregarded; these things which were spoken are demonstrated by the results, for the Catholic religion has been preserved ever immaculate in the Apostolic See.” See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07470a.htm
In the case of Diotrephes (III John 9-10), it is not clear what this case, in your mind, has to do with the papacy. From what John says, he does not deny Diotrephes is the leader, but faults him instead for his bad leadership. A bad example of leadership does not disprove the case for a leader.
Further, to the cited papal claims to be “God on earth”, etc., there is OT precedent for use of the term “gods” applied to men in a restricted sense, as in having authority (e.g. as judges) from God himself - not in the sense of being divine. Scripture itself refers to the judges as “gods” (e.g. Psalm 82:6). As Peter received authority to bind and loose directly and personally from the Son of God himself, could not the same be said, in the restricted sense, of him (and his successors) as said of the OT judges? If not, why not? Regardless, it is clear from the context what sense the popes intended the word.
Please provide the citation for the alleged letter written by Augustine. It is surprising you cite him, as there any number of quotes in his works that show his high regard for the See of Rome. In fact, it is from Augustine’s pen that the paraphrase “Rome has spoken, the case is closed” is derived.
Regards.
According to history, what was posted is correct. Those forgeries were definitely used to build up the case for the papacy. You will have to argue with the History Scholars on that.
Further, you are mistaken in saying that the Council of Sardica - which recognized appeals to Rome - was not received by the East.
Negative. At the time it was held the Eastern Church didn't accept it. That is history, without being rewritten by Rome at a later date and with new leadership in the Eastern and Western churches.
In the case of Diotrephes (III John 9-10), it is not clear what this case, in your mind, has to do with the papacy. From what John says, he does not deny Diotrephes is the leader, but faults him instead for his bad leadership. A bad example of leadership does not disprove the case for a leader.
It has Apostolic application towards all churches, regardless of their institutional standings. The Apostle John does not say nor indicate that Diotrephes was "the" leader, but simply one of them who "loved to be first." Read it without "blinders" on to understand the application.
Further, to the cited papal claims to be “God on earth”, etc., there is OT precedent for use of the term “gods” applied to men in a restricted sense, as in having authority (e.g. as judges) from God himself - not in the sense of being divine. Scripture itself refers to the judges as “gods” (e.g. Psalm 82:6). As Peter received authority to bind and loose directly and personally from the Son of God himself, could not the same be said, in the restricted sense, of him (and his successors) as said of the OT judges? If not, why not? Regardless, it is clear from the context what sense the popes intended the word.
Yep, make excuses for the papacy. That seems to be the normal thing apologist of the Roman Catholic church do for exercise. The context is already quite clear, and I believe they meant it literally!
Please provide the citation for the alleged letter written by Augustine.
I'll try to see if I can find it, it not, I'll check with the author.
Thanks. I knew someone would go through that with a finer comb than I had time to.