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.
“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.”
I doubt if I were to take up the question, it would hardly be with ‘history scholars’. You need to read what I wrote in my initial response to you. The question is not whether there were forgeries, the question is, were they the basis for the papal claims. The answer is a resounding “no”. Read the linked article: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9810fea3.asp.
A couple of additional points:
(1) Even Dollinger, who opposed Vatican I and subsequently left the Catholic Church, in his book “The Pope and the Council” written under the pseudonym of “Janus”, admits the false decretals were written in France (i.e. the popes were not their author), and
(2) that the false decretals were not written with the aim in mind of advancing papal claims. Read the linked article.
Dollinger, mentioned in your post, is the historical source for most (all) Protestant apologists - I presume your ‘history scholars’ - on this subject of the false decretals; yet they all seem to neglect to note the fact that Dollinger explicitly concedes both of these points. Again, read the linked article.
Miles: “Further, you are mistaken in saying that the Council of Sardica - which recognized appeals to Rome - was not received by the East.”
Truth Defender: ‘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.’
You said Sardica was not accepted. Sardica was a local council held in the West; which later was explicitly accepted by the Eastern Church. What you have, here, is a positive proof that the undivided Church accepted the right of appeals to Rome. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it.