Rather, true to form, the "misrepresentation or hiding" allegation of your post was fallacious, and it is your attempt damage that is "flawed.
The Kenrick quote in isolation misrepresents his overall view of Peter as the Rock. It’s just that simple.
Which is what that the quote was prefaced as saying -while yet seeking to support Peter as the rock - but which you ignored as well as the link by which anyone could read it, but which link seemed to be hiding from you!
In any case, Kenrick still believed in papal infallibility. His view was that it was exercised in union with the world’s bishops.
But which was not supporting "the infallible Roman papacy as V1 declared it" which is what he objected to, as that the pope was infallible when exercised in union with the world’s bishops was accepted, but,
At the Vatican Council of December, 1869, he was one of the prelates who were opposed to the definition of the dogma of Papal Infallibility, and voted "non placet" at the preliminary private sitting. He did not attend the session at which the dogma was promulgated, but publicly submitted to the voice of the majority as the authority of the Church, when he learned of the proclamation.
That still means his view rejects every contrary Protestant view.
That is irrelevant, as that was not the issue, and the quote was not provided as being from one that supported Peter not being the rock nor as one that denied Rome's claim of perpetual magisterial infallibility.
It’s always funny when Protestant anti-Catholics - not really knowing what they’re talking about - cite a Catholic as an ally to their heretical views when that same Catholic still doesn’t believe what Protestants believe
Which construance is just the fallacy i addressed, as the fact is that the preface to the quote stated that author supported Peter as the Rock (because the context of the speech had been consulted), and it is perfectly valid for an author to enlist a quote from someone for one side even though that same source still doesn’t believe what the author is arguing for.
And as said but ignored, you did so yourself, as do others RCs, such as in quoting Prots in cases when they see Mt. 16:18 as referring to Peter, even though they do not believe what the RCs extrapolate from that, among other things.
The rest of your post is simply more irrelevant damage control and ranting, which just adds to your record.
In the end Kenrick accepted papal infallibility as taught by the Council. He ordered it taught in his schools, his seminary, his parishes. He believed in infallibility of the Church. I doubt you do. he believed in the infallibility of the pope when working in union with the bishops. You don’t, right? He accepted papal infallibility as defined by the Council.
I think you described your own post: “The rest of your post is simply more irrelevant damage control and ranting, which just adds to your record.”