You have purported this to be a direct quote, in reality it is only a PARTIAL QUOTE and the remainder is YOUR COMMENTARY.
Here is the ACTUAL QUOTE which says something far different from what you claimed:
The oldest links in the chain of Roman bishops are veiled in impenetrable darkness. Tertullian and most of the Latins (and the pseudo-Clementina), make Clement (Phil. 4:3), the first successor of Peter;228 but Irenaeus, Eusebius, and other Greeks, also Jerome and the Roman Catalogue, give him the third place, and put Linus (2 Tim. 4:21), and Anacletus (or Anincletus), between him and Peter.229 In some lists Cletus is substituted for Anacletus, in others the two are distinguished. Perhaps Linus and Anacletus acted during the life time of Paul and Peter as assistants or presided only over one part of the church, while Clement may have had charge of another branch; for at that early day, the government of the congregation composed of Jewish and Gentile Christian elements was not so centralized as it afterwards became. Furthermore, the earliest fathers, with a true sense of the distinction between the apostolic and episcopal offices, do not reckon Peter among the bishops of Rome at all; and the Roman Catalogue in placing Peter in the line of bishops, is strangely regardless of Paul, whose independent labors in Rome are attested not only by tradition, but by the clear witness of his own epistles and the book of Acts.
Lipsius, after a laborious critical comparison of the different catalogues of popes, arrives at the conclusion that Linus, Anacletus, and Clement were Roman presbyters (or presbyter-bishops in the N. T. sense of the term), at the close of the first century, Evaristus and Alexander presbyters at the beginning of the second, Xystus I. (Latinized: Sixtus), presbyter for ten years till about 128, Telesphorus for eleven years, till about 139, and next successors diocesan bishops.230
It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preeminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople; and this must carry great weight with those who ground their views chiefly on external testimonies, without being able to rise to the free Protestant conception of Christianity and its history of development on earth.
Good catch.
Anti-Catholics are just full of intellectual dishonesty.
Excuse me, but I did not. I put his quote in quotation marks. That’s what a quotation mark is.
Quotes are from Philip Schaff. If it's not in """", smvoice said it.
LOL. This "historian" claims "impenetrable darkness" on Peter's succession but then goes on to admit there are numerous references to the line from wide ranging sources. After Peter was executed by Roman authorities, there were a series of short-lived successors who were executed amidst an environment of secrecy and disorder. With such a great volume of evidence on Peter's line, it is not surprising to find discrepancies that leave out or confuse some of the short and secretive reins.
Your post clearly demonstrates that nobody doubts the fact that Peter had successors.
Thanks for pointing out the misleading quote from smvoice.
However, I will point out that your "quote" was incomplete and I can find no evidence that it was acknowledged. I will not accuse you of dishonesty nor will I call in a small army of hangers-on to smear you.
"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preeminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue,..."
Given that the list "has by far the premenince in age..." at the time the book was written in no way is an indication that it is, or was, historically correct.
The current List of Popes, like all prior lists, is a matter of "constructed" history and cannot be construed as complete and accurate.
This "fluid" list has constantly been revised and is subject to change to this very day.
Corrections Made to Official List of Popes
New historical research has prompted almost 200 corrections to the existing biographies of the Popes, from St. Peter to John Paul II.
The discoveries are included in the opening pages of the new edition of the "Pontifical Yearbook 2001," the "who's who" of the Catholic Church published by the Vatican Press.
The 13 pages entailed are the most rigorous study to date on the history of the papacy, confirming the uninterrupted succession of the Bishops of Rome. Researchers, however, are uncertain of the exact dates of the first pontificates and, in one case, doubt the exact order. This is why the yearbook does not assign a succession number to each pontiff.
CORRECTIONS TO THE LIST OF POPES
"...It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preeminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople; and this must carry great weight with those who ground their views chiefly on external testimonies, without being able to rise to the free Protestant conception of Christianity and its history of development on earth."
Schaff is saying that Rome has been fairly consistent in its apostasy and superstition, and this consistency appeals to RC apologists who do not base their beliefs on Scripture but upon "external testimonies." Thus they are incapable of achieving the Biblical validity of Protestants.
Keep reading Schaff. It can only help.