Just because you say there is no warrant doesn't make it so. Why would I assume that there is? Because it is part of the same thought: 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." "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. --Matthew 16:19; 18:18
The keys are Christ's authority. THey are the authority to bind and loose - and they are something that Jesus gave the whole church (all believers).
2nd, it is NOT strange ecclesiology to believe that the CHURCH is the body of believers. It is Scripture. An organizational structure, be it a centralized hierarchy like the Vatican or the local church is a temporal institution. Christ's CHURCH, His Bride, lives forever. The fellowship IS the Church. Temporal leaders, be they bishops, Pastors, whatever are still subject to the body of believers. Look at what Jesus said in Matt 18 regarding forgiveness. If your brother sin against you, you are supposed to do things in a certain order 1) confront him one on one 2) Bring a witness and if he still doesn't repent 3) bring him before the church - the church being the local body of believers.
The Corinthians dealt with their erring brother not by going through an ecclesiastical order, but by dealing with it as a local church body themselves.
So seeing the Church as separate from the fellowship of believers is a bit of a brainwash. You have been taught this by the ecclesiastical order and you are used to it making sense to you. You're having trouble seeing it any other way. I understand that. To many protestants it makes less sense.
During the initial founding of the church, there were times where there would be councils to decide some point of doctrine. You still had apostles back then too. The church of Christ, however, is His bride. It isn't an institution. It is a living organism.
See these verses below in support that it is the body of believers...
Acts 5:11
Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.
Acts 8:3
But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.
Acts 9:31
Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord
# Acts 11:26
and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
There are many others. But it is clear hear that the Church is not a centralized structure headed by Peter residing in Rome.
As to Peter's being in Rome, I've said he probably was at some point because it is indeed likely that he was martyred by Nero. But where is the Scripture that says such? It doesn't exist. Therefore the claim that it is "beyond doubt" is false. It is not beyond doubt.
Irenaeus is a fair source on your side of the case, but you have to remember he was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John, so Irenaeus is a 3rd generation Christian. He wasn't an eyewitness. But giving him the benefit of the doubt at this point (just for arguments sake, I'm not saying I buy that we have historical proof for Peter in Rome) Irenaeus refers to Peter's missionary efforts in Rome- not his papacy (and yes, I know the term was invented some time later though the Bishop of Rome was active early on- even though his supremacy wasn't recognized until later). So, all we have is that Peter MAY have evangelized the Romans. So far we are batting 0 for 2. Not in Scripture. Not in contemporary/earliest records.
Paul wrote to the church. Does'nt make mention of Peter. Knowing the timing of Roman's writing, it is highly doubtful that he wouldn't have greeted Peter were Peter not the Bishop there. It is argued that Peter wasn't bishop at that particular time. Okay. Whatever. He apparently wasn't at any other time either though he may have been active working with the believers there.
What the Catholic church is asking us to believe is that in Matthew 16, Christ called Peter the Rock upon which he would build his church establishing Peter's primacy above all other apostles. We are then asked to ignore the fact that nowhere else in all of Scripture is Peter referred to as the head of Christ's church on earth. All of the New Testament letters which were written at the time of Peter's ministry fail to mention Peter in the least bit as head of the church. A leader in the church, not disputed. Head, disputed.
Peter, like Mary, is a wonderful Christian for us to study because there are so many things we can learn from them. The vast majority of the doctrinal books, however, were written by Paul. Peter writes to encourage persecuted Christians. Paul writes on meatier areas of doctrine. Peter is not show as head in Jerusalem in Acts 15 (James appears to be). In fact, beyond Pentecost, Peter's role is somewhat tame compared to his role in the gospels.
Back to Acts 15 for a second, you have Peter speaking to the apostles and elders. He stands to speak of how God chose to use him, Peter, to reach the Gentiles. But his is not a keynote. It is after much discussion. He is giving his put on the matter. But he isn't making any decision. Next, Paul and Barnabus share what God did through them and the "whole assembly" was silent listening. Finally, James speaks. When he speaks, he does so as one with authority. It definately appears that James is the chosen leader of this assembly, not Peter. He says "9"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God..." But even there, It wasn't the Apostles and Elders that made the final decision alone. It was the apostles elders with the whole church who voted on the matter and put the plan into action. Again, while there is organization in the body - the body is not an organization. It is an organism.
bind and loose means to legislate. Both Peter and the apostles got that power. The key is to the Kingdom of Heaven. This is a different power, that to direct people to heaven and open is to them. When you compare the two "bind and loose" passages, the first one is in the context fo salvation, the second is in the context of dispute resolution. Two different, albeit related, things.
1) confront him one on one 2) Bring a witness and if he still doesn't repent 3) bring him before the church - the church being the local body of believers.
No, it does not compute. The local body of believers was covered by (2). (3) here is something else: a Church capable of uniform decision that determines just excommunication. It cannot be local. It has therefore to be hierarchical.
The Corinthians dealt with their erring brother not by going through an ecclesiastical order, but by dealing with it as a local church body themselves.
This is what S.t Paul had to say to them:
16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. 17 For this cause have I sent to you Timothy, who is my dearest son and faithful in the Lord; who will put you in mind of my ways, which are in Christ Jesus; as I teach every where in every church. 18 As if I would not come to you, so some are puffed up. 19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will: and will know, not the speech of them that are puffed up, but the power. 20 For the kingdom of God is not in speech, but in power. 21 What will you? shall I come to you with a rod; or in charity, and in the spirit of meekness?Here we have an apostle ready to assert temporal power through his bishop over a local church.(1 Cor 4)
Your examples from the Acts sometime use the "church" in other senses. But we have enough scripture, as well as the practices of the Early Church, to say that it was hierarchical.
beyond Pentecost, Peter's role is somewhat tame compared to his role in the gospels.
Why is it dispositive as to his role as pope? He is the connection to Christ's ministry on earth. Paul cannot claim it, and the other apostles were clearly subordinate to Peter, given the keys and the "feed my sheep" episodes. Peter did not have to evengelize anyone at that point. He was however, the root making all the evangelizing work possible. It also doesn't matter if he ever was in Rome, -- althouigh we have archaelogical evidence that he was. Papacy does not come from Rome, or Avignon, or any other particular place. It comes from Christ's charge to Peter.