CathInfo.com

On Trent, we are agreed.

And if you accept grace, rather than reason, as the starting point to accepting supernatural faith (something your words in the post I initially responded to seemed to reject), then we have no disagreement.

I thought you were suggesting man can reason his way to the Faith, but in light of your subsequent explanations, I see that you were not.

This isn't about grace versus intellect.  Obviously it's grace that moves the intellect.  What's at issue is the activity of the intellect itself, whether it's engaging in natural reasoning (as it does for the motives of credibility) or a supernatural faith.  This movement to accept the Church's authority based on the motives of credibility (natural reasoning) occurs prior to any supernatural acts of faith that follow.

Reasoning, motivated by actual grace, leads up to the very threshold of supernatural faith and disposes the soul to receive supernatural faith (a distinct grace), but actually receiving supernatural faith is a separate grace.  That is why at Baptism, even after a candidate has made the decision that the Catholic Church is the true Church and has all the necessary dispositions, the one about to be baptized is asked what he asks of the Church and responds "faith".  Supernatural faith is then received ex opere operato through the Sacrament of baptism, provide the souls it properly disposed in their natural intellect and will to receive the grace.  It's a mysterious interplay between free will (and intellectual reception) and grace.

I'm not so sure that the Arians were known for their holiness. They were a violent lot, and often ruled through violence and intimidation. But still it was not ever thought that Rome was not where the True Church was, even though it was for the most part occupied by Arians (except for the Pope).

Yes, that was mostly after barbarian tribes had become Arian. The original constituents of the movement were known for their “piety.”

As for the latter, the “True Church” is indeed where Peter is, but I do not think Francis I is a successor of Peter.