Sorry for the late reply I have just been trying to work my way through the rest of the book. You asked for an example of how the author seems not to present the Catholic side even less make an attempt to deal with its arguments. For the sake of simplicity I will just use one example but I find it representative of the whole work as far as it deals with the Catholic Church.
The author states,
"The pope in Rome was originally simply the bishop of Rome—the head pastor of a local city church. Through the centuries, however, the Roman church expanded its political and ecclesiastical influence over the churches in the West and North Africa. Then it attempted to triumph over the entire universal church East and West—an attempted takeover rejected by the Eastern Orthodox as well as by the Protestant churches. Thus, the Roman Church is not “catholic”in the sense originally intended by Ignatius or the early church fathers. Rather, it must be regarded as a renegade local church that has transgressed its jurisdiction and claimed for itself powers never given to any single apostle or bishop. Christ alone, not the pope, is the “Shepherd of the catholic through out the world".
He makes this statement with out giving any further information to allow us to validated the claim. He just seems to think we should except it at face value. But let's take each of the claims in this statement one at a time.
Was Rome simple a local city church?
Or was it the capital of the whole empire.
Let's take into consideration this quote from St. Irenaeus,
"Since, however, it would be very tedious in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; 30 [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church 31 should agree with this Church [of Rome], on account of its preeminent authority, 32 that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” 33
Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3
And how about his claim that, "Through the centuries, the Roman church expanded its political and ecclesiastical influence over the churches in the West and North Africa. Then it attempted to triumph over the entire universal church East and West"
Well he has already sited a few places in his book The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians dated around A.D. 96. and apart from the Didache the earliest Christian writing we have outside the New Testament. That he does not seem to appreciate about it is that we have a bishop of Rome intervening in that matters of another church and not only claiming he speaks for God in the matter but claiming they engage in no small sin if they do not receive his instruction.
Here is what Protestant historian Philip Schaff has to say about it. He writes, “The first example of the exercise of a sort of papal authority is found towards the close of the first century in the letter of the Roman bishop Clement. . . . It can hardly be denied that the document reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as it appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome.” 37
So far from going from minding its own business to trying to claim universal jurisdiction over a few centuries, the church of Rome was exercising to some extent such authority from the start.
Now lets look at his claim that the attempt was rejected by the Eastern Orthodox as well as by the Protestant churches.
As for the Eastern Orthodox churches rejecting it, well lets see how Clements letter was received, Eusebius in his ancient history of the church gives us a clue.
"There is extant am epistle of this Clement which is acknowledged to be genuine and is of considerable length and remarkable merit. He wrote it inn the name of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth, when a sedition had arisen in the latter church. We know that this epistle also has been publicly used in a great many churches both in former times and in our own".
Eusebius, Church History 3
As for the modern day Eastern Orthodox it is not true to say that the papacy had been fully rejected either. To illustrate this point I would like to quote the famous Orthodox historian and convert to the church from Anglicanism Archbishop Timothy Ware, “Orthodox believe that among the five Patriarchs a special place belongs to the Pope. The Orthodox Church does not accept the doctrine of Papal authority set forth in the decrees of the Vatican Council of 1870, and taught today in the Roman Catholic Church; but at the same time Orthodoxy does not deny to the Holy and Apostolic See of Rome a primacy of honor, together with the right (under certain conditions) to hear appeals from all parts of Christendom".
And one from Eastern Orthodox theologian Alexander Schmemann, “We do not need to go here into all details of this ecclesiology. The important point here is for us to see that in the light of this doctrine [of a universal Church] the need for and the reality of a universal head, i.e. , the Bishop of Rome, can no longer be termed an exaggeration. It becomes not only acceptable but also necessary. If the Church is a universal organism, she must have at her head a universal bishop as the focus of her unity and the organ of supreme power.
As far as the Protestants go he is probably on safe grounds to say that they reject, or at least most of them do, the authority of the papacy. Scents, most of them eject the office out right. Which has been illustrated by the Reformers tendency to refer to the Pope as the Anti-Christ and the Rome church as the Whore of Babylon.
Last but not least I would like to address some of the scriptural evidence for the office of the papacy. Though the author does not explicitly says there is non I think he strongly implies that that is the case.
The Gospel of Mathew, being written for a Jewish audience, has a particle emphasis on the Davidic kingdom and God's promise that it would not end. And how Jesus as a dependent of King David fulfills that promise as the king of kings. With this in mind, let's take a look at Matt 16:17-19
Jesus replied,“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
First we notice that Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter, which means rock. This is significant because in the scriptures when God chances someone's name, it comes with a fundamental change in that person's function.
Secondly, we see that Jesus promises to build his church on Peter as the Rock.
We know that Jesus is the Rock in a primary sense. But we see that Jesus makes Peter the rock in some secondary sense. I think this will become more clear when we look at the key and their meaning.
And thirdly, we have a promise from our Lord that the gates off hell will not prevail against the Church.
