I think the point is that since there isn’t biblical evidence, there was a need to create extensive FALSE evidence - assuming the rest of the poster’s sentence is important to understanding.
Of course, Papal Supremacy is based on interpreting a partial sentence, so perhaps it isn’t surprising...
The idea is that them define themselves infallible, and infallibly define the conditions for being infallible, and infallibly define that Mt. 16 renders them infallible, thus no interpretation that contradicts that can possibly be correct, if they do say so themselves.
This is claimed to bring forth unity*, though Rome effectively accepts as members the majority of western Catholics do disagree with her, and relative little of the Bible has been infallibly defined. In addition, the criteria for infallible is imprecise enough that no infallible list of infallibly defined teachings has even been promugated. This lack is useful against arguments that the church and pope has erred or contradicted itself even in “ex cathedra” statements. Some of Rome’s most extensive reproves are those who hold to what they claim is the orthodox form of Catholicism verses Rome after V2, while others with Rome claim the political maneuvering of V1 invalidates papal infallibility. http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/roman-catholicism/RC3W0904.pdf
*An argument can also be made that evangelical denominations show their members to be more unified on essential doctrines (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html#Sec4), while their disagreements correspond to areas in which Catholics may disagree to various degrees, as relates to the ordinary and general magisteriums
“I think the point is that since there isn’t biblical evidence, there was a need to create extensive FALSE evidence”
Far be it from me to claim final or certain understanding of daniel1212’s mind, but as I read it the “extensive polemic” seemed to refer to the “Petrine Fact” series.
“Of course, Papal Supremacy is based on interpreting a partial sentence”
Do you really think that’s accurate, or are you only saying it because you think it sounds good? The question is sincere, not rhetorical: I really want to know.