I am about to leave, so I don't have the time right away to respond to the whole comment. It was very enlightening, by the way. I have just seen a large number of quotes from various popes over the years that have appeared to contradict what you've said with regard to viceregency, but you are here making the distinction between what qualifies something to enter magisterium versus what any pope 'just says' as a man.
Obviously on the level of your interpretation of Matthew 16 and Luke 22, etc., that associates Peter with a metaphor or type of the Church itself, this kind of statement is true. But on the level where Christ, in giving the keys to Peter, established some temporal authority whereby that authority was to bind and loose, to feed His sheep, then this clearly cannot be said of all of us.
We can't forget Matthew 18 where Christ says to the apostles in the plural, not the singular form found in chapter 16, that they will all have this power of binding and loosing. The keys are a different matter, though, and we've already discussed our reasons for believing Peter has supremacy. I will consider what you've said today. If it is true that this is the way the Church views the Pope, then I am mistaken and I might be able to come around.
(post is archived)