That means; no more singular papacy. It was a mistake from the get-go anyhow.
Glad that's finally settled.
Amusing but not persuasive. The metaphor "keys" means different things in Matthew 16:19 and in the quote from St. Ambrose that is being taken out of context there (most likely borrowed via St. Alphonsus de Ligouri, Chapter 8). And in any case, "keys" doesn't imply worship in either context, which is the key point--no pun intended. . .
Same to you, and then some. What you say is not persuasive, and whatever possible humor there may have been, fell flat. As was noted by another, your guesser is broken too.
The very keys given to Peter, in NT scripture, were given to others also (though not explicitly "Mary") and that was my point.
Surely you could have see that, having known of it already? Yet, you would have us focus on some point you thought you were making -- which was no point at all? phhffft.
There was far more than mere mention of "Mary" having "keys to heaven" in what you had jokingly(?) replied to.
Or, was your response there no joke at all, but more was mere diversion away from the main point(s) Elsie had been referring to, himself having brought to us here on this thread some measure of proof for it all ---from Roman Catholic sources?
I'll leave it to you to guess at what the main points were that Elsie was pointing at --- or, you could simply go back and read through it again, this time without allowing oneself be so distracted by shiny objects, like "keys", that the original, greater point ends up lost, swept aside.
Then again, that was the point of your own reply, wasn't it? To sweep the evidence aside by way of snarking it out of main focus of conversation (at that point) by stretching for a way to ridicule the bringer of the news? If so, then same to you, and then some. You want to dish stuff like that out(?) then here, eat some of it yourself;
How's that taste? Yummy? If you don't like that sort of thing -- do not so casually flip it towards my general direction in the future, or else you will be served it forcefully right back in your face.
More seriously;
Again, this different & other point I was making; the very keys given to Peter to bind and to "loose" (loosen, free from bounds) were given to the rest of the apostles also.
I cannot help but to notice and to compare how in RC practice and application the so-called Petrine keys are to be exercised from upon earth ---and "Mary's" alleged keys ballyhoo-od to function from Heaven itself. That serves to highlight & underscore how cult-of-Mary Catholics do not typically pray to Peter, or worship Peter --- not like they pray to Mary, and even some of them worship her.
Those kind of considerations, that comparison in regards to who is prayed to, and who is not, reveal the paucity of the snarky comment you posted at #309.
As for the keys-- the binding and loosening mentioned in Matthew 16, the Lord settled the point a mere two chapters on in Matthew, at what became the same verse number (go look it up) then again re-confirmed much the same principles two more chapters later (Matthew 20:20-28, and in Luke 22:24-30 where it is recorded for us that they began to argue among themselves who would be the greatest among them.
In NT scripture, that there was not a "chief apostle" whom all others owed unilateral subservience towards is further confirmed in general sense, and a bit more specifically at many places from within Paul's Epistles, and confirmed yet again by Peter's own hand in 1 Peter 1:1 wherein he speaks of himself the same way as had Paul wrote of himself (Paul) in his Epistle to the Romans (chapt.1 verse 1), and as a "fellow elder" in 1 Peter 5:1.
This is also confirmed in the first centuries of the Church. In general, all bishops were considered successors to all Apostles. Not a one of them was beyond the correction of any of the others.