I had not meant to engage in any personal attacks. If such was implied my apologies. I know that heated discussion is to be expected unless the thread is a Caucus one. It is however tiring to have to correct the premise of an argument before one can address the errors arising from it.
I don’t expect Protestants to agree with each other on all points of doctrine let alone with Catholics. I totally respect where there is honest disagreement arising from a valid logical, theological, and historical difference in perspective over Scriptural passages or church practice. For example, The different views on Holy Communion. I respect too where common beliefs are held such as the Divinity of Christ.
I do expect Catholics and Protestants alike not to take quotes out of context or fail to reveal the conclusions an author may have met that supports or contradicts those quotes. I expect a person to be able to understand whether an argument for a certain point is the sole support given by the body being debated or if it is a minor consideration in light of all other evidence. I expect if one claims to be on the side of history they be able to produce arguments from history which are at least in veracity equal to the arguments of the other side.
I also think it important to examine the logic of a presumption. In this case it would be “If St. Peter did not establish the Church in Rome and if there was not a known early Bishopric as we know today does that invalidate the claim by the Catholic Church that St. Peter was First Pope being given primacy by Jesus Himself?” Are there writings from early Christian sources which support this teaching?
If a person is going to argue that St. Peter could not possibly be Pope because of “A” they better be sure that the argument proves what they want it to prove. Using passages from well respected historians out of context and without a full consideration of all the arguments put forth is not the way to do it.
Personally I think the best arguments non Catholics should give about the Papacy is a simple one, “They do not believe in it”. Why should they? Whether it is valid or not has no bearing on their current beliefs. The Papacy and its reach is an argument for the Reformation. It was a way to establish the legitimacy of Protestant churches independent of both Rome and the State. It no longer matters. The Pope holds no sway temporal or spiritual over non-Catholics. You get to follow your faith according to your conscience, which I think is a good thing.
Likewise...
If a person is going to argue that St. Peter could possibly be Pope because of “A” they better be sure that the argument proves what they want it to prove.
Due to the weather I wasn’t able to reply before now.
On the personal attacks that have been going on here, it is troubling, as I said, for people to be attacked, especially their motives, for merely posting a legitimate article. If the articles are acceptable to Free Republic, and people are supposed to discuss and debate what’s in them rather than attacking people personally, then there’s no legitimate reason to question why someone posted an article, much less to the frequent extent that this has been going on, and all the outright accusations of the original posters having some evil motive or agenda. As someone accused of this myself on numerous occasions here, and who understands the motives of others who post articles critical of Catholicism, I know that’s simply untrue.
And on this article, if there are things that you don’t believe are accurate about it, then bringing them to the original poster’s attention is in order. Others might not agree with all your conclusions on it, either, and also feel that they have to endure and address a lot of specious arguing by Catholic apologists.