It is, of course my opinion, but I base it on the post Dan made to me. The summary of them is that he denies Christ meant what he said about the Eucharist, to wit: "this is my body, which is given for you" and "my flesh is meat indeed" and "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day". And on another topic: renaming Bar Jona "Rock" was not naming Bar-Jona after God; the promise of the keys was not the promise of ability to determine people's salvation; the "binding and loosing" was not an expression of supreme judicial ability of Peter and of the Church in all matters. I understand that Dan follows the line of thinking common to virtually all Protestants and you guys have forgotten that at root of this is denial, obfuscation and explaining away the clear text of the Holy Scripture. Nevertheless that is what it is. When Christ says "This is my body" and you argue "no, He meant 'this is a sign of my body'", -- then you deny the scripture on that point. I am not trying to insult Dan's person, I point out the horrific implications of his posts.
As to the binding and loosening --- in Matthew 18 it is Christ who again raises the same issue, pointing out that it is He that is doing so -- while addressing them all as to having (or will have) this very same binding and loosening.
I'm sorry, but your own twisted eisegesis may suit what developed later in Rome (alone) as to singular papacy and that particular branch of the church's own preferred opinions of itself (and the "horrific implications of that) but the earliest church, even in Rome, didn't quite see it the same way.