• you do not simply do not hold to salvation by works, but salvation via the Eucharist
Salvation comes by grace alone, through faith and works of self-denial done for no temporal reward in imitation of Christ. The Eucharist is a natural result of faith, as it is impossible to separate the faith in Jesus Christ and not do what He asked that does not require any sacrifice on our part.
At least you are consistent here with you the literal hermeneutic imposed upon Jn. 6:53,54, but are inconsistent with your own church. Again. And which issue was brought up again as you are basically avoiding it.
Prots cannot have spiritual life in them if rejecting the Catholic "Real Presence" yet V2 says they have the Holy Spirit, and JP2 called some of them formal saints. But it is not surprising that you interpret Lumen Gentium in such as way as to exclude such Prots as being born again and having eternal life, and their church as having Christ's Spirit as means of salvation.. But your take on it is just another example of how RCs can interpret their infallible interpreter (of course, not all RCs think Vatican Two was infallible).
See my previous post to Springfield Reformer; the Catholic reading is the only possible non-contradictory reading of John 6, the scene of the Last Supper, and 1 Corinthians 11.
I saw it and responded there, as it is simply another example of compelling Scripture to “inescapably” teach what it simply does not, and would be inconsistent with John and the rest of Scripture if it did. But which a faithful RC must assent to, and thus the leads back to the foundational issue i keep bringing up, that of your basis for assurance of Truth, which you are still not facing.
As said, Scriptural substantiation cannot be that real basis, as that would mean the evangelical means of assurance of Truth is correct, and we would not need an assuredly infallible magisterium. You can try to persuade us that this is needed, and that Rome is that magisterium , fulfilling texts that you see promising an assuredly infallible magisterium, and thus persuade us to make a fallible human decision to submit to it, but this simply is not Scriptural and the basis upon which the church began. As can be shown.
Surely we can't both be infallible on such important matters
So now you are claiming individual laity have the gift of infallibility, not just speak something that is assuredly true? Little popes indeed.
It also contradicts the concrete text regarding Peter vested with leadership, and of the bishops likewise in a position of authority and leadership.
There is no “also,” and you are incessantly reading your doctrine into the text. There is absolutely nothing in Jn. 14 about Peter or perpetuated leadership being promised assured infallibility, nor is that Scriptural necessary providing and for preservation of Truth, but which is an presumptuous invention of Rome. God has always preserved an elect remnant out of of the whole, and often preserved Truth by raising upon men from without the magisterium to reprove it.
Thus the church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, even though Israel was also given promises of Divine presence and preservation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6; Rm. 3:2; 9:4). And it began following a holy man in the desert who ate insects and an itinerant Preacher who reproved the magisterium by Scripture, and who established His truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power. As did the apostles and early church (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) - not the premise of a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, regardless of Rome defining herself as having such. Under the Roman model, 1st c. souls should have submitted to the historical stewards of Scripture and recipients of the promises of Divine presence and preservation.
You threw away all the specific scripture that does not match the Protestant ecclesiology.
Rather, i showed how it did not support Rome, while you largely dismissed what i substantiated.
• it does not deny what i said, Scripture is not even determinative for an RC
It is determinative together with the patristic reading of it;
Also wrong, as it is only what Rome says Scripture and patristic writings teach that is determinative for RCs, and thus they compel Scripture as a servant to support Rome.
Why is it determinative only patristically?
Again, it simply is not for a RC, as Rome herself judges the “fathers” more than they judge here. Only what Rome says is determinative for RCs, and the premise of her assured infallibility is the basis for their assurance of Truth.
Because the scripture is the product of the work of the Fathers of the Church.
Wrong also, as regards the Roman church, as the Scriptures contradict her, while only the foundational manifest apostles and prophets are the “fathers of the NT church, versus the progressive Roman deformation.
the role of Peter and the bishops, the nature of the Eucharist, the inspired and infallible nature of the Catholic Church - the scripture is especially clear,
Rather, what is increasingly clear is that this is not substantiated, while the incessant recourse to assertive propaganda becomes even more exposed as spurious soliloquy the more it is repeated.
authority of Hell attacking the church
I put that there as that is what many RCs think,even if you reject them, or as possible, that the gates of hell not prevailing means the powers of Hell attacking but not overcoming. Yet Hell does attack the church, (1 Peter 5:8) often using organized churches to attack members of the body of Christ, and which affects its organized structure, if viable.
Christ breaks the gates of Hell and rescues men in bondage of sin, -- and He does it through His Church.
The body of Christ which includes Prots. "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities [code for Prots] as means of salvation... — CCC 818.
Once again you are at variance with what your church most plainly teaches.
• For your interpretation to work, the body of Christ must refer to one church in submission to the pope
Correct, if you substitute "communion" for "submission". That is how it works, and in no other way can the text be making sense.
According to annalex, but it is clear that while “submission” to the pope and remaining in the bosom of the church of Rome was necessary for salvation according to major past official teaching, Rome now calls baptized Prots who are not in Catholic communion as the EOs are to b Christians born of the Spirit and working for salvation. Yet which itself means you can reject papal infallibility and power, among other things — as long as to worship bread and wine as God).
...all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and Roman Pontiff." Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (On The Care Of The Churches), Encyclical promulgated on April 8, 1862, # 3. http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P9AMANT2.HTM
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos: "No one is found in the one Church of Christ, and no one perseveres in it, unless he acknowledges and accepts obediently the supreme authority of St. Peter and his legitimate successors." Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, PTC:873, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM
"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself." “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html
Note, some translations say “when the Greeks,” which is how the Catholic Encyclopedia has it. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm)
“By heart we believe and by mouth confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside which we believe that no one is saved.” Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, 18 December 1208
St. Thomas Aquinas: It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation....Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks, Pt. 2, ch. 36 http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38
One does not have to obey the Pope blindly, but one must seek communion with the Catholic Church where he arbitrates disputes, for otherwise the promise of the Church being inspired, inerrant and final authority in disputes -- fails.
And some past teaching also rejected the Greeks due to the lack of submission to the pope. But what utterly fails is the premise that an assuredly infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy and magisterium is necessary for both writings and men of God to be recognized and established as being so, and Truth provided and preserved. It never was nor is promised except by contrived Roman devotion-driven wresting of Scripture, and upon this invented necessity Rome justifies her bureaucracy. But what is the assuredly infallible authority for Truth is the only body of Truth that is wholly inspired of God, the Scriptures.
Correct, it is not. Individual Catholics may end up in hell; individual non-Catholics, even non-Christians can be saved. The promise is to the Church as a single institution.
Non-Christians cannot be saved if Jn. 6:53,54 is literal unless it is not taken as an absolute statement, but which RCs invoke it as, but that the promise is a single organized institution is patently false. Again, as substantiated but ignored, the Scripture teaches that the church Christ builds is that of all believers, Jews and Gentiles, “In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:21,22)
Of course. But Peter is named after Him, Rock. That cannot be insignificant.
And i did not say it was. Peter is to be as a rock in upholding the truth of Christ.
The keys are described as opening or closing the gate of the Heavenly Kingdom, so yes, that metaphor speaks of the Church in communion with Peter, and by extension, his successor, being the final arbiter of salvation.
Again i am shaking my head in amazement. You just roll on with propaganda, despite the reality that what is said to place one in the kingdom of Christ or exclude on is their response to the gospel of grace, which all the church also preached. As shown, there is simply no Peter reigning as a supreme exalted infallible pope as per Rome in Scripture, and the NT church.
Can the final arbiter of salvation be fallible? Invincibility comes not from the metaphor of the keys but from the direct speech, "gates of hell shall not prevail".
Which is begging the question. Peter is never manifest as the final arbiter of salvation except in Roman imagination. The Roman papacy is simply nonexistent, as is the perpetuation of Peter's apostleship. You only are proceeding from one propagandist error to another.
• not once in all the NT is he shown doing so
. and even being quite fallible on some occasions. Yes, popes are generally sinful men;
This is avoiding the utter absence of Peter being described as the exalted infallible head whom all the churches looked to, or even one exhortation to the churches to submit to Peter their supreme corporate head, or of that being made an issue, or any manifest preparation of a successor for him, despite the wealth and scope of material in writing to the churches.
Peter made the key decision to overturn the biblical prohibition on certain foods, and to accept the Gentiles,
Which “proves too much,” as this works against Rome's papacy and doctrine, for this also testifies to the keys to the kingdom being the gospel, (Col. 1:13) besides that of a “pope” living as a guest in the house of a tanner (no wonder he was on the roof) , he refused to allow any believer to bow before him, obeying Christ, (Mt. 23:8) that of Peter defining that the heart is purified by faith, (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9) which was before baptism (though it can be the occasion of it), while showing that Peter was still a kosher Jew at that point.
And who would protest even being told to consume unclean animals, (Acts 10:13-19) let alone human flesh and blood, but which Rome has all the apostles doing at the last supper (and drinking a cup), and thus Christ being in their stomach (and in His as well) as well as before them ignoring the Jewish use of figurative language they were quite familiar with.
Moreover, Peter did not provide the conclusive decree on what was to be done, but James, after which the church acted. (Acts 15:3ff) Thus Peter acted as the street-level leader among brethren that he was, but not as the Roman pope that he was not.
We had bad popes as well
Which also is contrary to Rome being the One True Church®, as in the NT church is not one that can allow a Caiaphas (who was not assuredly infallible as per Rome's claims for her popes) but such were not fit to be members let alone a leader among leaders, (1Tim. 3:1-7) but where never to be ordained, and put out if immoral. “Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” (1 Corinthians 5:13) But you cannot dispose a pope without his consent!
Rome acted contrary to the NT requirements for pastors, besides distinctively titling them priests (which the Holy Spirit never does, and as i showed you before is still wrong, and is based on imposed functional equivalence, assigning to pastors a unique sacrificial function which they nowhere are seen exercising). Thus along with others things this renders the OTC that you promote to be a false church.
Yes, Peter (Cephas) is mentioned among others and not the first. We don't know if that is due to the temporal order in which Paul met them, or the authority he saw in them, or the fact that in Catholic practice today also, the faithful seek approval of the priest of his parish, then the bishop and very rarely the Pope.
This is simply damage control. Paul is not talking chronologically in the temporal order in which Paul met them, or seeking permission from James and John to met Peter, but it listing those who “seemed to be pillars,” and goes on to single out Peter was one who was to be publicly rebuked. More proof Rome did not alter the Bible.
Generally, you construct a straw man of the pope being some kind of spiritual generalissimo, above everyone else, then defeat it.
I am the one constructing a straw man of the pope being some kind of spiritual generalissimo? That IS Rome's idea of Peter, who despite the humble demeanor of your present pope, who has traditionalists alarmed, in from power and dress he is exalted far above all other bishops, being the supreme and infallible arbiter of Truth, alone possessing the gift of assured infallibility, and having full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered, (CCC 882 ) and who cannot be deposed (without his permission), and that it is “absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam)
And who historically came to reign much as emperors, as in the caesario-papacy, who “himself may be judged by no one,” and “that of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.” (Dictatus papae [1075])
Q. 539. What do we mean by the "temporal power" of the Pope?
A. By the temporal power of the Pope we mean the right which the Pope has as a temporal or ordinary ruler to govern the states and manage the properties that have rightfully come into the possession of the Church.
Q. 540. How did the Pope acquire and how was he deprived of the temporal power?
A. The Pope acquired the temporal power in a just manner by the consent of those who had a right to bestow it. He was deprived of it in an unjust manner by political changes.
And
And despite any modern demeanor, the presumed supreme position and unhindered extent of power of popes remains a claim, and is summed up in the words of Dollinger:
“The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice; for the Pope carries, according to the expression of Boniface VIII, all rights in the Shrine of his breast. As he has now become infallible, he can by the use of the little word, 'orbi,' (which means that he turns himself round to the whole Church) make every rule, every doctrine, every demand, into a certain and incontestable article of Faith. No right can stand against him, no personal or corporate liberty; or as the Canonists put it -- 'The tribunal of God and of the pope is one and the same.'” - Ignaz von Dollinger, in “A Letter Addressed to the Archbishop of Munich”, 1871 (quoted in The Acton Newman Relations (Fordham University Press), by MacDougall, pp. 119 120
A spiritual generalissimo indeed. It is no straw man i described, but the straw man is that which Rome makes of the NT church and the place and powers (and exercise thereof) and doctrine of Peter in Scripture.
Nor there any reason why the royal Coronation of the past could not take place, except in sensitivity to modern tastes:
The Coronation, one of the most magnificent of Vatican Ceremonies, takes place shortly after the election. With the Pope carried high in a golden chair and attended by brilliantly attired chamberlains and soldiers, the Coronation Mass is an unrivaled spectacle of beauty, dignity, and ancient pageantry. At the Coronation, in the midst of the pomp and splendor, a master of ceremonies recites in Latin: "Holy Father, thus does the glory of the world pass away." As the first Cardinal Deacon places the three-crowned Tiara on the head of the Pope, he says: "Receive the three-crowned Tiara, and know that thou are the Father of Princes and Kings, the Pastor of the earth, and Vicar of Jesus Christ, to Whom be honor and glory forever. Amen." The CORONATION of Pope Pius XII took place on the balcony of St. Peter's in March 1939. (From the book "The Vatican and Holy Year" by Stephen S. Fenichell & Phillip Andrews -- 1950 edition. http://www.users.qwest.net/~slrorer/ReunionOfChristendom.htm)
• what Rome wrests from Matthew 16:18
They can hardly be derived from Matthew 16:18.
Of what Rome wrests this is true.
Again, you can argue with Steve Hays if you want on the merits of each; I am not a Church historian.
No, why would an objective study of Scripture be necessary, and which testifies contrary to the imagination of the perpetuated Petrine papacy? Only what Rome says Scripture history and tradition teaches is authoritative for you.
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers."
“The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit... (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )
Again: to read you is to wonder why the Bible has all these things that require many kilobytes of denials from you.
Rather, to read you is to wonder why the Bible does not have all these things that as ascribed to Peter, and require many kilobytes of propaganda from you and Rome.
Somehow the prayer of the Lord that the faith of this poor, married leader among brethren would persevere, and strengthen his brethren, is asserted to mean, via extrapolative RC imagination , that Peter was the exalted infallible head
Yup; ...infallibility, -- immunity from sustained error.
No, it means for Rome that the office of Peter uniquely posses assured infallibility so that whenever a pope speaks, even if he is a devil, that he will be preserved from error. In contrast, what Christ prayed for is that Peter's faith would not fail, which was not a promise that Peter never would fail of faith, or possess assured infallibility, but was realized in that while Peter denied Christ out of weakness, he did not apostatize, but persevered so he could strengthen others.
Which is not unique, as the Lord ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, certainly not that they fail, and promised the Thessalonians, “the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil. “ (2 Thessalonians 3:3) And as Paul expressed, “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: (Philippians 1:6) “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:13)
Thus perseverance of faith does not translate into assured infallibility, neither was an assuredly infallible pope ever necessary for providing or preserving Truth. Nor again is the church shown looking to Peter as her infallible supreme head, or set forth as a solution or ever criticized for not doing so in writings to the church.
• not referring to doctrinal legislative action but that of settling personal disputes
Riight. One wonders why these mundane trivialities are in the Bible,
Wonder no more in trying to make a text speak of something it is not. .Mt. 18:15-20 simply is not referring to binding and loosing in doctrinal legislative action, though in principal that can be seen elsewhere, but of settling personal disputes.
while those all-important to the Protestant mind adjudication of theology through scripture alone is not.
Who knows what version of the usual straw man of SS you are again employing. Perhaps you have a short memory, but it has already been substantiation that it did not mean scriptu • re alone was used in understanding what Scripture means, nor as containing all that can be known, but that Scripture alone infallibly provides, formally to some degree, and materially, all that is necessary for faith salvation and and Godliness, and alone is the supreme infallible standard of faith and Truth claims.
And that Scripture is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims is what is abundantly evidenced. Not a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium being so.
The text in Matthew 18 does not restrict the issues between brethren that the church is to resolve in any way. Maybe because there was not such distinction?
Then we are back to arguments from silence, and the Lord not knowing how to make things clear. It remains that the Lord did not speak of binding and loosing in Mt. 18 as referring to doctrinal legislative action.
And why would Christ refer to "binding and loosing" right next to the key to salvation if He means healing medical problems? And "loosing" I take it is to kill the patient instead of "binding" him?
That is one application that is a consequence of binding and loosing in Mt. 18:15-20 not simply applying to apostles, and loosing can refer to being “loosed from thine infirmity” (Lk. 13:12,16) if you allow the Lord and others so do so from these and from other bondages. (Jn. 11:44; Acts 6:8; 8:13; 19:11,12) Corporately binding and loosing can be seen in the Scripture-based doctrinal disciplinary ruling of Acts 15, while it is Paul who most manifestly binds souls to obedience to his own writings, disfellowshipping those who do not, (2Thes. 3:14) and together with the church binds a man to chastisement by the devil, while Peter tells a man who is bound in the gall of bitterness to pray himself for forgiveness. (Acts 8:22,23)
In contrast, and as regards “killing,” it is the RC application of James 5:14,15 that typically is as the kiss of death.
However, the principle of leadership and the teaching office, remains, but not as possessing perpetual assured infallibility
Because you say so? Christ spoke of the Holy Ghost teaching "for ever" and about "all things" and about Hell "not prevailing". So these were not promises? Or Christ did not know what He was talking about again?
Rather, Christ know exactly what He was talking about, again, in quite clearly only speaking about the giving the Holy Spirit that He may abide with you forever, (Jn. 14:16) as that is what He shows all believers possessing eternally. And promises to lead into all Truth, (Jn. 16:13) and then showing how “all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.” (Luke 24:45) And in Divinely inspiring the writing of His words and deeds, and “many more things” seen in Scripture.
And in contrast, nowhere is a promise made that whatever the church would ever speak universally on faith and morals would be infallible, nor was an assuredly infallible magisterium ever necessary for providence and preservation of Truth.
The assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome is simply an invention of Rome who presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. Quite the system, and which has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes.
But as this premise of assured infallibility is the basis for that assurance, and who according to you no more needs eternal proof than God, then you cannot allow anything to contradict here, and thus largely use our time up arguing the meaning of Scripture when it is simply a servant to use which must be compelled to serve Rome.
• the assurance of which really cannot be based upon the weight of Scripture?
This words I showed you and you denied them.
Wrong again. The words you showed me do not teach what you compel them to mean, nor can the weight of Scriptural substantiation the basis for your security, as that would be ceding to evangelicals that there basis is correct, and the assuredly infallible magisterium is not needed for that. Instead you have decided to render implicit assent of faith to Rome, and Scripture etc. can only assuredly mean what Rome says it means, or can whatever can be compelled to support her. Which devotion-driven assertions you have amply exampled. Why should we endure more of such?
your basis for assurance of Truth, which you are still not facing.
You invited me on this unrelated to anything thread because you wanted to discuss the statements of mine that expressed the said basis. Remember? So no, I don't think I was evading any questions. The pillar and ground of all truth is the Catholic Church (1 Timothy 3:15)
If you are puzzled why I listen to the Church but argue from the scripture, -- I believe I answered that as well: The Holy Church produced the inerrant scripture precisely because she wished to provide a set of absolutes from which to argue and understand the doctrine. So, the texts of John 6, the three synoptic accounts of the Last Supper and 1 Cor. 11 provide such purely scriptural basis for the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
you are claiming individual laity have the gift of infallibility
LOL. Two fallible men disagree. They cannot both be right. Does this mean that the one who is right is also infallible? I am right because I learn from the Church who is both infallible and right. Doesn't say anything about me. The least, wholly illiterate bungling goatherd somewhere up in the Andes cannot speak a falsehood as pertains to the matters of Catholic faith so far as she had retained it correctly; that has nothing to do with her merits either.
There is absolutely nothing in Jn. 14 about Peter or perpetuated leadership being promised assured infallibility
Read the holy Scripture every once in a while and you will discover amazing things.
"The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. (John 14:17, several similar in the chapter)So the spirit is (1) of truth; (2) is known and received in the Church rather than in the world; (3) abides in the Church. That is not infallibility?
No Peter is not mentioned, because the Holy Ghost is not in St. Peter alone but in the entire Church. Of course, of Peter we also know the ability to recover from error and confirm fellow bishops (Luke 22:32), and the possession of the Keys to Heaven; but here Jesus is talking to the Church and of the Church as a whole.
the church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses
What does that have to do with anything? That every heretic should also dissent every time he hears from Christ something he doesn't like?
Rome ... Rome ... Rome
What you think of "Rome" does not interest me. I would like to focus on the Holy Scripture, however unpleasant it is to you.
"communion" vs "submission"
Matter of translation and of context. Certainly, theological communion is the least requirement; we have such with the Orthodox. On the other hand, political submission -- like popes dictating to kings, -- is of course a good thing, but is not universally required. The point is that the Protestant communities of faith do good inasmuch as they speak in agreement with the Church, but not otherwise.
to place one in the kingdom of Christ or exclude on is their response to the gospel of grace, which all the church also preached
No one is arguing with that. However, at the same time:
I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Matthew 16:19)
Observe: second person singular, "thou" -- that is to Peter personally. You have to read the scripture and see its authority even in matters you "dissent" about.
this works against Rome's papacy and doctrine, for this also testifies to the keys to the kingdom being the gospel, (Col. 1:13) besides that of a “pope” living as a guest in the house of a tanner [...]
The popes are there to protect the Gospel from charlatans and nothing says that popes should act like royalty; Christianity generally teaches and admires humility, even in the popes.
Peter was one who was to be publicly rebuked
But not for a doctrinal error; it was Peter who initiated baptizing the Gentiles. Paul rebuked Peter for not living up to his own doctrine. This is not in contradiction to infallibility. That there was a little mutual disagreement between Sts Paul and Peter we know. See also 2 Peter 3:16.
"The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal" ...
Good quote. So you understand now that this is spiritual authority above all else, and political authority and imperial attitude, when it accompanies the Pope at all, -- all men are different, and all are sinners, -- is secondary to the spiritual authority?
it means for Rome that the office of Peter uniquely posses assured infallibility
Not true, the Church is infallible as a whole as well.
.Mt. 18:15-20 simply is not referring to binding and loosing in doctrinal legislative action
Really? Where is that in the Bible?
loosing can refer to being “loosed from thine infirmity”
Or loosing a dog, or a belt. Words are funny that way: they can apply to many different things.