The Pope: Vicar of Christ

[Ayodhya Nath Bhat]

The Pope: Vicar of Christ

Is the pope the vicar (substitute) of Christ on the earth, wielding universal power over the whole church? If you believe the catechism, he is:

"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." Pg. 234, #882
"The Roman Pontiff... as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful..." Pg. 235, #891
 

While the Catholic church elevates the pope to the position of "supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful," God's Word reveals that someone else already fills that position:

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26
"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth..." John 16:13
 

Jesus promised that this infallible teacher would abide with us forever:

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;" John 14:16  

The pope has clearly assumed a position reserved for the Holy Spirit of God. It is a position no man can fill:

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." 1 Corinthians 2:11  

The Apostle Paul reiterates that the Holy Spirit of God, not a man, is the infallible teacher of all true Christians:

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man' s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth..." 1 Corinthians 2:12-13  

Similarities?

If the pope is Christ' s substitute on earth, there should be many similarities in their lives. Let' s see:

While on earth, Jesus never controlled great wealth. The pope controls one of the wealthiest corporations in the world.
Jesus dressed like a common man. The pope, on the other hand, is never seen in anything but regal apparel.
Jesus lived in simple surroundings, but the pope views opulence at every turn.
Jesus tirelessly served the multitudes, while the pope travels the world on his private jet, meeting with world leaders from every nation.
Most people eventually rejected and hated Jesus because He told the truth. The pope is worshipped and adored by millions worldwide.
The pope gladly welcomes the praise of men, but Jesus directed all worship to the Father, and said of Himself:
"Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." Mark 10:18  

Should popes accept the worship of multitudes? Look how "Pope" Peter reacted when Cornelius tried to worship him:

"And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man." Acts 10:25-26  

Pope: head of the church?

The Catechism claims that:

"The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls" Pg. 246, #937  

According to God's Word, the pope is not the head of the true church of Jesus Christ. That position is reserved exclusively for the Lord Jesus:

"For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church..." Ephesians 5:23  

Concerning the pope' s title of "Holy Father," Jesus Himself instructed us to:

"...call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9  

Yet, the pope not only accepts the title "Father," but "Holy Father" as well, a title reserved for God alone:

"Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy..." Revelation 15:4  

It is not wise to assume a name reserved for God, for He will not share His glory with anyone:

"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another..." Isaiah 42:8  

More Nagging Questions

Once again, Catholic doctrine and Scriptures could not disagree more. As a result, you must choose sides on each of the following questions:

Why didn' t God tell us in the Bible that He was sending the pope as the Vicar of Christ?
Why does the Bible insist that Jesus is still the head of the church, if He isn't?
Why does the Catholic church want the pope to be the final authority instead of Jesus?
Why does the Catholic church want the pope to be your teacher instead of the Holy Spirit of God?

Conclusion

Only you can answer these questions for yourself. And only you can decide which side you will believe - Catholic traditions of men... or God's Word?

"And ye are complete in him (Jesus), which is the head of all principality and power:" Colossians 2:10
"And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church..." Colossians 1:18
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Seeker]

Why didn' t God tell us in the Bible that He was sending the pope as the Vicar of Christ?
Why does the Bible insist that Jesus is still the head of the church, if He isn't?
Why does the Catholic church want the pope to be the final authority instead of Jesus?
Why does the Catholic church want the pope to be your teacher instead of the Holy Spirit of God?

You ask some questions that deserve replies, however what they imply is totally wrong.  For instance, you imply that Catholics don't believe that Jesus is the head of the Church. You imply that Catholics believe the pope replaces the Holy Spirit and the authority of Christ.  You imply that the concept of even having a pope is anti-scriptural.  You make these claims with bits and pieces of the Catechism and some Bible verses without posting the full explanation of the pope's role in the Church that is also in the Catechism.  That misrepresents what Catholicism teaches and what Catholics believe that Scripture shows us.

Thought I'd point you to the older thread Attacks on the Pope for some background info.  If I get some time, I'll try to reply if someone else doesn't beat me to it.

[DavidFilmer]

If Ayodhya plans to cut-and-paste the works of others, the least he could do is attribute it. Ayodhya plagerized this content from the book "Understanding Roman Catholicism," copyright 1995 by Rick Jones, which is posted (with permission and attrition) on Jack Chick's website (Jack Chick is a professional anti-Catholic):

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160_06.asp

[Ayodhya Nath Bhat]

I wish to invite views from Bro Jesusandu and Bro Mathais on this thread.

LOVE

Ayodhya

[Matthias]

Hallo. I had not really planning to be saying anything about this, but you ask so I will.

I am no supporter of popery. But I read the message by Rick Jones and I know that we cannot trust anything this man say. By example, he say:

Jesus tirelessly served the multitudes, while the pope travels the world on his private jet, meeting with world leaders from every nation.

I know that the Pope has NOT a private jet. My relative is a sales person for Airbus, and sells aircraft to the TACA Group which is a travel company in South America. The pope hire this travel company to provide transportation when he need it (with one of TACAs Airbus A-320 – it is not even a big fancy wide-body plane like the A-340. It is more like a Boeing 757 for you Americans). So my relative joke that he sold the popes plane, but of course it is not really the popes plane – it belong to TACA and the pope just hire a travel company when he need transportation (I do this also). Do not take my word as to this - here is the PROOF that Rick Jones lie about this:  http://news.taca.com/eng02-ba-c01-an-01.htm But What is the matter that the pope travel? Jesus also travel much in his day, but they had not cars or airplanes.

Why Rick Jones lie about this “private jet”? Does he just invent this? I think he know better but do not care about the fact!

He also say

Jesus lived in simple surroundings, but the pope views opulence at every turn.

When Jesus visit the Temple he also view MUCH opulence at every turn, and I think also at the Synagogue. The pope work at his “temple” so of course he see this also when he is at work. But the popes own living space is quite very simple. I remember one time seeing photographs and I was quite surprised. You can likely find these photographs on the WWW.

Rick Jones say

The pope gladly welcomes the praise of men, but Jesus directed all worship to the Father, and said of Himself: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." Mark 10:18

Oh no, does Rick Jones say that Jesus is not God?  Actual, Jesus accept praise and worship many times.

Concerning the pope' s title of "Holy Father," Jesus Himself instructed us to: ...call no man your father upon the earth…

Oh no, let us not be going down that road! I go in apologetic places and hear my brothers using this same thing. And I tell them, “brother, do not use those reasons to criticize the Catholics because it make no sense – the Catholics will win this point and you will loose it will make your position weak because the Bible does not mean what you say.” But my brothers do this because they know not any better. But I do think that Rick Jones know better – he just do not care. He put forth ANY argument against the pope without matter to how silly it is. He is an educated man with much experience – SURELY he know that this reasons is false.

Almost everything that Rick Jones say is foolish. And I am now in the strange position of defending the pope, so I do not want to go forward any more with this! But there is nothing matter with the Catholic church having a leader. They can call him pope or whatever – it matter not to me. Every church need a leader.

[jesusandyou]

Isn't the policy of this forum that you should not talk bad about others?

[DavidFilmer]

Do you mean Rick Jones talking bad about the Pope, or Matthias talking bad about Rick Jones?

I would not have used the word "foolish." I would have said "disingenuous" but this is a word that'm not sure Matthias would know, since English is not his first language, and that's a pretty fancy word (even for a nativeEnglish speaker).

It means "Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating,"Not noble; unbecoming true honor or dignity; mean; unworthy." (dictionary.com) I think that describes the message by Rick Jones.

Matthias does not like to see protestant apologists use faulty arguments. As a Catholic, I also cringe when I see Catholic apologists making faulty arguments. There is one mistake that I see Catholics make often: the Bible that says "No scripture is a private intrepretation" (2Pet 1:20). Sometimes Catholics use this passage to defend the teaching authority of the Church. They say, "see, you are not supposed to rely on private intrepretation of the Bible." After all, that's what it sounds like Peter is saying, right? But that is NOT what Peter means here (he means that the content of Scripture itself was divinely inspired and not the result of human invention. He is talking about the ORIGIN of Scripture, not the reading of it).

It is true that we should not rely on private intrepretation of Scripture as a basis for our faith, and that is an EASY position to defend. But you can't defend that position with 2Peter, and I see Catholics doing this all the time.

Most Catholics who use this reasoning simply don't know any better. But there are some "disingenuous" Catholic apologists out there who DO know better but use this argument anyway because they think they might "score points" with a non-Catholic who doesn't know what the passage really means.

Rick Jones is the same way. He knows his arguments are bogus, but he will say anything that he thinks will "score points" with people who don't know better, or who are not inclined to dig deeper into what he says. This is what "disingenuous" means.

An honest apologist (Catholic or protestant) does not advance arguments that he KNOWS are faulty just because he thinks he might prusuade the ignorant or the uninformed.

[Matthias]

Yes, "disingenuous" it is a very good word. It would maybe be my favorite new word to learn but two problem: I cannot pronounce it and I cannot spell it. ha ha. So I cannot use it so good, but it is good to know this word.

jesusandyou, I do not try to be talking bad about Mr. Jones personal - but what he say. What he say, it is disingenuous, yes? (ha ha). Sorry if my English it is not so good if you misunderstand to think I say bad about him personal. He make many mistake in what he say.

Yes, davidfilmer, it is good to be honest. It is not good make points that you know they are not really OK - even if you think you get away with it and not be found out. But in years ago I also was doing this sometime - I try not make this mistake now.

[Ayodhya Nath Bhat]

Thanks David, Jesusandu and Mathias for your views.

Love


Ayodhya