But what are the keys?
Claud, a lot of this, most of it, is a matter of interpretation. The Church Fathers weighed in on it - sometimes in opposition to one another.
I do not accept that Peter had an "extraordinary role" above the other apostles to play. I do not see it in Scripture (contrary to your assertion). I see him having the same role as the other apostles. His word was no more or no less authoritative. The only area in Scripture we really see him as "lead" is at Pentecost. At the Council of Jerusalem, he was one of several voices speaking with the final decision being made by the apostles elders "and the whole church."
The Church Fathers are not Scripture. They provide some insight into what some were thinking then, but they should not be used for doctrinal purposes. Doctrine is derived from Scripture.
Post #106 has an explanation. The keys are symbols of authority: "what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"
Claud, a lot of this, most of it, is a matter of interpretation.
Indeed! And I have gone through great pains on this thread to keep it on a purely Scriptural level. I have only mentioned the Fathers with Kolo because he's Orthodox and that's a language we speak together. If you want, we can go there, but only if you are prepared to accept that--even though they are not Scripture (you're right there)--their opinions cannot simply be ignored, especially when they all agree on a topic. And I think you will find that there is not such wild disagreement among them as you think on the interpretation of this passage.
Bottom line, and I will repeat this until my fingers fall off. The grant of Peter's authority is taught plainly in Scripture. What exactly that authority *entails* is a different matter. And I'm sorry that you "do not accept it", but I'm sure you will understand that I cannot make your non-acceptance the basis of my exegesis.
I'll grant this to you if it'll help you see it better...all that is *still* a long way from the Papacy as we understand it. You can accept this grant of Peter's authority *without* believing Christ passed it on to other bishops (apostolic succession), you can accept this grant of authority *without* believing that it protected him against error (infallibility). There are any number of gradations on how you see Peter/the Bishop of Rome/the Pope as *some* kind of head of Christianity. So if you are worried that I am forcing you to accept the whole enchilada here, rest easy.
But to imply that such authority was not given to Peter--no way. Scripture is very very clear on that point.