I don't see what is wrong with it, K, you know we Catholics interpret the Church Fathers to have believed in the Petrine Primacy, that doesn't necessitate "simplistic revisionism".
“...you know we Catholics interpret the Church Fathers to have believed in the Petrine Primacy....”
Orthodoxy does not doubt for a minute the fact of Petrine Primacy, G. What we reject is Petrine Supremacy. Its telling that you focused on the role of the Pope. It seems that at base, that’s the real issue for Rome. All other theology pales to insignificance in Rome’s mania that all Christians submit to the Pope of Rome and accept as dogma his claims of “immediate universal jurisdiction.”
In fact, G, saying, for example, that “confirmation” in the early church was often conferred on the same day as baptism, ignores the fact that to this day all of Orthodoxy and virtually all of the Eastern particular Churches in communion with the bishop of Rome do the exact same thing and also give the newly baptized communion too...even to little babies. The article is shot through with this sort of revisionism.
I will grant you that a faithful and accurate history of The Church, one whose purpose is other than the promotion of a late 19th century innovation about the Pope, will call into question Papal Supremacy, but otherwise it will demonstrate the essential faithfulness of the Church of Rome to the teachings and dogmas of the early Church and conversely, the falling away of Protestantism (only for the most part since in Anglicanism and Lutheranism there are truly “catholic” teachings and beliefs and practices) from those teachings. Hundreds of millions of Orthodox Christians and likely Protestants too hear this constant Papal Supremacy spin and simply tune Rome right out.