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. . ."
What Elsie had posted in #208 was all about "intercessory" prayers ---you say. Sorry -- it was not. I'm not buying your spin, doctor.
The types of quotes from Catholic sources that were being showcased there, and again in comment #505 go far beyond being limited to merely referencing "intercessory prayer".
Even if going only that far with things, asking those in heaven to "pray for us", that alone is still problematic for a variety of reasons I'll not go too fully into for the time being other than to say were not part of the earliest, primitive church. Prayers were originally given for, and about the dead, as attested to by earliest liturgies. There were not prayers directed to those whom had passed on (but thought to be in Heaven) to plead with departed saints for their own personal intercessions ---not until some time contemporary with Chrysostom.
You may fool yourself with such talk ---but you are not fooling me.
Perhaps to the "tone" (but I still seriously doubt that, despite your objections) yet not to the intent -- afaict. I would have to be correct in the latter ---or else it would be you who simply does not well enough understand the import of the small sampling of Marionist hyperventilating that was posted --- and is but a limited part and parcel sampling of how, theologically speaking, "Mary" has been portrayed as more accessible than God Himself -- while being attributed to herself also possession of many of God the Father's own, and Jesus Christ's own attributes.
Spare me the piety act. It's like enlarging the hems of one's garment, then standing out on a street corner praying loudly -- so everyone passing by will notice the "piety".
Yet if you actually do pray for me (not that I am asking you to, far from it)-- try listening, instead of talking. God knows who I am. I've encountered Him quite directly, many times over. Listen to hear if He tells you something you may not expect -- like -- something that does not fit in with whatever presuppositions you may have.
Of course you didn't. There was any easy way to avoid doing anything like approaching that. Instead, you took an easy way to deal with it and distance everyone from further examining what was posted ---by way of having projected this kind of nonsense into the mix;
"Judging by..." and "I guess you think...". That's where things went haywire (and even became rude, and potentially offensive) and that's right where I stepped in to straighten you out. So sue me for having called attention to that piece of slick as snot mind reading...
Complaints now about myself being rude --- mean little at this point. Look to your own, and in the future, I may possibly be troubling you less with mine.
It was yourself who had first engaged in conflating the alleged "keys" that adorers of "Mary" write (poetically?) that Mary allegedly possesses, with the keys mentioned in Matthew 16. REMEMBER???
If leaving Mary out of it, focusing upon the Apostles written of in scripture texts; what other authority was Jesus talking about? As I touched upon, and gave scriptural support for; it was not that Peter would have some over-riding authority over other Apostles. We could include the thought that within scriptural texts Jesus PRECLUDED His own approval of later doctrinal developments within the Latin church, namely; the idea that other bishops' and priests' own alleged "authority" would be derived from, and be dependent upon so-called "Petrine authority" that was intended to be possessed by whoever happened to be bishop of Rome at any particular time, although I do detect that nowadays -- there is effort to unwind/modify that position (while still clinging to it!) at the same time...
That's when the RC secret decoder rings get to twirling with great rapidity -- in order to cover for all the talking out of both sides of the face that the Latin Church in past ages (and now also) indulges itself with...
Regarding singular "papacy", the early Church most certainly did not see things the way Rome alone eventually asserted things were to be. If Rome's way of looking at this subject were to have been what was "instituted by Christ" -- NOBODY NOTICED for many centuries. Why is that?
Was the early Church that dumb, even stupid -- they did not notice? They would have to have been, yet there is evidence against that...
THE ASSUMPTION OF MARYA Roman Catholic Dogma Originating with Heretics and Condemned as Heretical by 2 Popes in the 5th and 6th Centuries.
You said;
Horsefeathers. Though there were isolated appeals to Rome made here and there among early centuries Church history, it was not as if all anyone had to do would be to gain assent of the bishop of Rome in order to settle theological dispute.
That becomes more plain when the fuller contexts and setting of the few appeals to 'Rome' there were are critically examined, rather than cherry-picked in truncated portion and paragraph. Many of those appeals also began after concept of patriarchate had taken root, and from among the Western, or Latin Church, with ourselves needing to bear in mind here that there were once three (or even, five) See's of Peter in existence.
None of those latter relied singularly upon a bishop of Rome, nor had elevated that bishopric to be a place of "bishop of bishops". A Latin church "Pope", Gregory the Great wrote against the very notion of there being a singular papacy, a "bishop of bishops" as he put it (if memory properly serves) terming the very idea of it --- demonic. It's no real wonder why persons such as John Calvin described Gregory as the last "good" Pope.
Citing questionable (& problematic) material from Irenaeus [see & clic upon footnote 3313 in just previous link] in isolation of the argument he was making -- hardly makes the case which you need to make, for Irenaeus was pointing to Rome at that early juncture as a place where Gnostic heresies had not gotten much traction, rather than to have been pointing to Rome as some seat of authority that he himself relied upon.
If it was a simple matter of appealing to Rome -- why is there not yet more of "appealing to Rome", and repeated instances of more explicit directing everyone to simply go there in order to settle any dispute from this one writer (Irenaeus) who wrote extensively against a variety of heresy?
Irenaeus himself corrected two different Latin Church bishops. One of them, Victor, he corrected for having gotten carried away with the idea of a bishop of Rome having overweening authority over other bishops. Imagine that!
It amazes me how Catholics will cite Irenaeus in the one place where they think they can squeeze in sideways early support for Romish notions of Latin Church Supremacy -- while ignoring anything and everything else which goes contrary to that precise sought for ending point...
If how you are laying out the case for what in the end does equate/will be converted into equating to Romish Supremacy [see Vatican I: http://www.catholicplanet.org/councils/20-Pastor-Aeternus.htm] were that simple, then there would be much more material available to support the cause from widely among the earliest Church ----rather than reliance be chiefly upon isolated snippets of scripture, and cherry-picked citation from early church fathers.
You say;
I noticed that you had seized upon that qualifier I had employed --- "not...beyond correction of other bishops". It's about time the Church of Rome woke up and smelled the coffee.
Coffee must not have been partaken of all that much during Vatican I;
"...Hence we teach and declare that, by the appointment of our Lord, the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world, ... "
[snip] "... And since, by the Divine right of Apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is placed over the Universal Church, We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, and that none may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, for none has greater authority, nor can anyone lawfully review its judgment. Therefore, they stray from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an Ecumenical Council, as if to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff. ..."
There is no real room for a Pope be subject to "the correction by the other bishops" in the above, from Vatican I.
Spare me the assertion that there is, based upon it being insisted that there is -- now, in more recent time -- and asserted only by v*some* among the Latin Church --- for it was once, not so, not at all. No one would dare, although there may have been more "Popes" whacked (killed, that is) by other popes, and various interests within the Latin Church than is freely confessed to...
To end this, let us focus again on what Matthew 16 meant among the early Church. Although notions of Peter having what came to be widely referred to as "primacy", a being "first" in a variety of things, arguing for that is near-meaningless when not considering also how the Church of Rome took it to be inheritable, and inheritable for themselves alone, while rather simultaneously adjusting the meaning of the word to equate with Supremacy over all the rest of the Church.