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.
Getting away from personal issues and back to your Scriptural point, it sounds like you are conflating the keys Jesus gives Peter in Matthew 16:19 with the binding and loosing authority he gives him in that verse and that he extends to the other apostles in 18:18. But he does not mention the keys in 18:18, so it can be debated whether binding and loosing should be viewed as distinct from the keys or as the explication of the keys. Either interpretation is compatible with the Catholic position, because the Catholic teaching is not that only Peter's successors have binding and loosing authority--indeed, the Catechism states that the entire college of bishops as the successors of the Apostles have this authority, per 18:18 where all the Apostles have this authority--but rather that Peter was given this authority first because he was the leader of the Apostles. We frequently see Peter exercising this leadership role throughout the Gospels (in addition to Matthew 16, we have passages such as Matthew 14:22f where Peter is the one who walks to Jesus on the water, Mark 9:5 where Peter is the one who speaks up at the Transfiguration, Luke 22:32 where Jesus singles out Peter as the one who will strengthen his brothers, John 20:5-6 where John waits for Peter to enter the tomb, John 21:15f where Jesus reinstates Peter as the one who will feed his "sheep" in emulation of Jesus the Good Shepherd, etc.), as well as various passages in Acts where he takes a leadership role (as the first to evangelize both the Jews and the Gentiles, as the one who speaks back to the Sanhedrin, as the one who denounces Ananias and Simon Magus, as the one who initiates the Council of Jerusalem--a leadership role Luke sums up by referring to "Peter and the other apostles" in 5:29).
The Catholic Church does not teach that this pre-eminent position among the Apostles places Peter and the Papacy beyond correction by the other bishops. The Pope is bound by Scripture, by the Tradition of the Church Fathers, and by the authority of the Magisterium--summed up by saying the Pope is bound by the Rule of Faith--and the other bishops are perfectly within their bounds to correct him when he violates this, just as Paul corrected Peter as recorded in Galatians, just as Cardinal Burke has warned Pope Francis that he can expect a formal correction if he does not respond to the dubia he was issued.
As for the first centuries of the church: yes, the other bishops also held authority, but they looked to the bishop of Rome to settle disputes. 1 Clement, written by a 1st-century bishop of Rome who was with Paul at Philippi and who succeeded Peter in that capacity after Peter and Paul's execution, wrote to the Corinthians about how the apostles designated successors and a policy of choosing their successors: "Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." Irenaeus, the second bishop of Lyon, who studied under John's disciple Polycarp, refuted the Gnostic heretics John warned about by appealing to the authority of the Roman church and its successors: "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles. . .To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. . ."