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.
I do not accept Peter as being given any primacy in the church. Peter was given authority in Matthew 16 to bind and loose. This binding and loosing is the keys to the kingdom but was not exclusively given to Peter. Rather, it was a power given to the disciples of Christ (who are more than just the Apostles but were the followers of Christ -i.e., all of us) two chapters later Matthew 18:18-19.
The church fathers can be helpful. I do believe that they can be ignorred however and even rejected when their views go against the teaching of Scripture. I base this upon the Bereans and Paul. If Paul were to speak something anti-Scriptural, they would have been right to ignore him. Paul says if he or an angel of anyone else were to come preaching another gospel, ignore them. So, while I believe the Church Fathers are instructional they must also be measured against the rule of Scripture. Where they say something extra-biblical that is not concerning an essential (essentials being salvation, the triune nature of God, the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin), then most often a certain amount of liberty is warranted. If however, their statements can end up being distorted to where they are affecting a matter of essential doctrine - then I believe that their extra-biblical statement should be rejected and we should go no further than what Scripture says.
I do not see Peter as Pope/bishop of Rome. He was probably in Rome when he died (though I can't be adamant on that), but we see his ministry in several places in Scripture none of which is Rome. Acts doesn't mention him with any primacy in Rome. Acts mentions him as a key leader, but not THE key leader.
I am not implying that Peter wasn't given a specific authority apart from the rest of the apostles. I am declaring that he was not. He had no more authority than the apostles on any matter. Yet he had all of the authority entailed in apostleship.
I seek not to demote Peter from his rightful place in church history. If he truly was the bishop of Rome, I don't really have a problem with that as I do not see Rome being given any primacy. But I also do not wish to elevate him above where I believe Scripture teaches he was. He was a key leader. But he was not the prime leader of the church and his words counted no more and no less than the other apostles. He could be questioned and rebuked, and was. He could be lauded and recognized as one having authority - and was. But he was not prime.
Jesus alone is the head of the church. We have direct access to Him according to the Scripture. He alone is our mediator to the Father. Peter was one of His key men, but He was not vicar. In other words, this statement from the catechism is unbiblical:
For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.""The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."
Peter did not have this power over the other apostles and neither do those deemed his successors have such authority over the whole church.