Indeed, that was my point, as an entity claiming perpetual magisterial infallibility is novel.
Nor are the examples you sited from scripture working for you're premise. You're first example taken from the Old Testament is the authority of the priests and judges of the Old Testament. That "hierarchy" can not be found in the New Testament "church".
In principal it is, for believers are enjoined to conditionally obey them who have the rule over us, whether civil or ecclesiastical. (Rm. 13:1-7; Heb. 13:7) But not as if they are ever assuredly infallible.
To inject the concept of "binding and loosing" into the edicts of judges and priests is a stretch.
Not at all. For instance, in Dt. 17, if there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within their gates, then it was brought before the Levitical magisterial authority, whose judgment was binding to one, and loosing to the other.
According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. (Deuteronomy 17:11)
The Lord also enjoined conditional obedience to the Scribes and Pharisees, (Mt. 23:2) and who claimed the power of dissolving vows, etc. But not as being the supreme infallible standard, thus the Lord reproved their unScriptural judgments by Scripture. (Mk. 7:2-16)
But Dt. 17:8-13 corresponds to the context of binding and loosing in Mt. 18, in which an unresolved personal matter is brought to the church, whose judgment binds and looses, (Matthew 18:17) with one being in sin and the other vindicated.
In Acts 15 , there arise a doctrinal matter that warranted ecumenical judgment, and which Scriptural (Gn. 35:2; Ex. 34:15-16; Ezek. 30:30,31; Gn. 34:1,2,31; Dt. 22:28,29; 2Chron. 21:11; Gn. 9:4; Lv. 7:27; 17:13,14) judgment loosed the Gentiles and bound the Judaizers to obedience.
But which was not that of making a "remembered" extraScriptural event approx 1800 years after its alleged occurrence a binding doctrine, and teaching its unScriptural theology. Nor other traditions, and the basis for their veracity, that of perpetual assured magisterial infallibility.
In the New Testament examples you used the "authorities" were secular authorities. If you can find that "authority" described within the ekklesia of the New Testament I would like to see it.
Rather, if you can find New Testament leadership having no magisterial authority. That would be both unScriptural and contrary to basic Reformation teaching.
Note that there is spiritual and magisterial authority (of office). One may have the former but not be in the office of the later, yet in the church the latter is ultimately dependent upon manifesting the former if it will be considered authentic. Rome substitutes sppsd "unbroken" (which can mean rival popes, absences of years, men more morally like Judas than Peter, etc.) formal descent of office for valid ordination and authenticity of judgment.
The means of disciplining disobedient souls who were called members was never by the church using the sword of men, including using the state to enforce assent to ecclesiastical theological judgments, torturing and killing theological dissidents.
Instead discipline was by the passive means of disfellowship, as in
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (1 Corinthians 5:11-13)
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Romans 16:17)
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (Matthew 18:17)
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; (Titus 3:10)
And supernatural means such as seen in the death of Ananias with Sapphira his wife under Peter in Acts 5:5-10.
And that of Paul in 1Cor. 5 "To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1 Corinthians 5:5)
And due to heresy: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1 Timothy 1:20)
Thus Paul was not resting in historical descent nor bluffing when he stated,
For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? (1 Corinthians 4:20-21)
I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present, the second time; and being absent now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other, that, if I come again, I will not spare: (2 Corinthians 13:2)
For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed: (2Co 10:8)
It was under such men who But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses..By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4,6-7), that the NT church saw its limited degree of unity.
Such purity, power and passion is much lacking today (myself included), but only insofar as the church manifest such can it claim to be the church of the living God, versus its institutionalized counterpart.
And it is obvious that the NT church was under leadership besides the foundational apostles, such as overseers such as Timothy and Titus were to "ordain elders in every city," and who among other things were to "rebuke them [unruly and vain talkers] sharply, that they may be sound in the faith. (Titus 1:5.13)
These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee. (Titus 2:15)
But note that such were to "be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers," (v. 9) which is not that of declaring one is infallible, and thus whatever it will infallibly decree is infallible and binding.
Likewise Timothy is told,
Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. (1 Timothy 5:19-20)
Thus elders are singled out for discipline by an elder.
Moreover, Heb. 13:17 mentioned before enjoins believers to submit to those who sit in judgment ("hēgeomai," cf.Mat_2:6; Act_7:10;15:22; 2Th_3:15; Heb_11:11;13:7,24 who watch for their souls.
And which relates to Acts 15, in which the definitive judgment of James, confirmatory of what Peter and Paul believed, with all the apostles and elders an many brethren providing the corporate concurrence of the church overall, was enjoined to be observed by the churches,
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. (Acts 15:29; cf. 21:25)
This is the only example of a universal ecumenical decision, yet its veracity was based upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and it certainly does not warrant the premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility when speaking universally on faith and morals, which is nowhere seen nor promised or necessary.
If the magisterial office errs, and does not correct itself (or worse, holds that it cannot err), then as God has often done, He can be expected to raise up men in correction and reproof, which is how the church began and has been preserved.
Contrary to this is the elitist Romish idea that an infallible magisterium is essential to correctly discern what is of God. Yet the church b\had its beginnings, with both writings and men of God having been correctly discerned and established as being so, and thus authoritative, without a perpetual infallible magisterium.
In time, cream rises to the top, but he that "climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber," (John 10:1) of which is Rome, which has has presumed to infallibly declare 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. Upon which premise the RC has his vain assurance of Truth.
itself has authority to discipline, thus the one judged to be in error in the Mt. 18 scenario would be by being marked for disfellowship, and that of the supernatural means of judgment, such as seen in the death of the deceivers amndelivering one
I would suggest you re-read your example from Numbers 30. Pay particular attention to the phrase "she has bound herself". The fathers and husbands were doing no binding or loosing. It was the woman who was held to her vow.
But it was the prerogative of her father or husband to affirm or deny that vow, which decision in a non-doctrinal issue God recognized.
The context we were discussing was the binding and loosing as the Catholic Church defines and uses it. Getting into the minutia of judicial binding and loosing in earthly affairs is diversion and not germane so I will simply back out.