Where in the Bible does it say that a Pope is the vicar of Christ?

The idea is not a Bible teaching. Jesus still exist and needs no "vicar".

>>>>>>>>>>>

Is the Pope “Saint Peter’s Successor”?

IN 2002, Pope John Paul II wrote a letter to the bishop of Limburg, Germany, overruling a decision by the bishop in connection with abortion. The pope introduced his directive by stating that he was responsible for “the well-being and unity of all individual churches according to the will of Jesus Christ.” He claimed authority to overrule the bishop’s decision because as pope, he is said to be “Saint Peter’s successor.”

According to a Roman Catholic definition, “Christ constituted St. Peter chief of all the apostles.” The Catholic Church further asserts that “Christ established that Peter should have perpetual successors in this primacy; and that the Roman bishops are these successors.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (2003), Volume 11, pages 495-496.

Those are important claims. Have you examined their validity for yourself? Consider the answers to three questions: (1) Does the Bible support the claim that Peter was the first pope? (2) What does history teach about the origin of the succession of popes? (3) Do the conduct and teachings of the popes support their claim to be Peter’s successor?

Are you in the bible? I don't see you in the bible anywhere. There is no linedancer anywhere. So what authority does linedancer have? Maybe you don't even exist. I mean you could be a figment of my imagination. Can you prove to me that you exist from the bible alone?

Hmmm. I think I will stick with the Pope. At least he has some credibility. At least he has some biblical underpinnings like Mt 16:18-19 and has a rich history dating back to the early church. I don't see linedancer mentioned anywhere in the bible or by the early church fathers.

Besides, if we couldn't believe in anything that wasn't specifically named in the bible we couldn't believe in the Trinity either. In fact we couldn't even believe in the bible. Have fun with your circular reasoning.

LOL

As a Catholic... here is where it says that he is the Vicar of Christ.

FIRST.. what does "vicar" mean? -- It means ambassador, representative, etc.

So where is that in the bible?

Easy........

When Christ changes Simon's name to Peter or "rock" and gives him the keys to heaven and then says "What you bound on Earth is bound in heaven" -- THIS is where the idea of "vicar" comes in.

You have to understand a bit about ancient culture.

1) When a King promoted a person to a new and very high position within his court, it was not uncommon for the person to receive a new name. This name was to signify that this person was no longer who he used to be, but had a totally new role (and a new name to go with it)

This is why to this very day, the Pope's take on a new name when they enter office. Because they are not longer who they used to be.

So Christ changing Simon's name to Peter is not for fun or for show, or just because... but instead is VERY significant and is meant to show EVERYONE, including the other Apostles, that Simon is taking on a totally new life.

2) KEYS always represent access. When a King appointed a Vice Roy, an Ambassador or a Vicar..they would GIVE that person a symbol of the King's authority. Keys, a ring, a seal, a scepter, etc. SOMETHING to show that this person indeed HAD the authority and ability to make decisions on behalf of the King. To conduct business in their name. And really, this ONE phrase by Christ is the key (no pun intended) of the entire thing. IF Christ had only changed Simon's name to Peter, but had NOT given him the 'keys to heaven' then you are correct.. Catholics would have little ground to stand upon. But taken together..these 2 pieces of evidence follow ancient tradition of naming a representative.

3) Lastly, we have Christ telling Peter that whatever he binds on Earth is also bound in Heaven. We know that lies and falsehoods are of the devil and therefore can not exist in heaven. So this seems to indicate that Peter will not make some poor decisions and promulgate falsehoods on Earth. Couple this with the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church, and you can see where the idea that Peter was the Vicar of Christ and to some degree, infallible for if he was not.. then he could potentially make a lie TRUE in Heaven, which we all know is an impossibility.

So that is the 3 key pieces of evidence where Catholics get this title or idea that the position or office of the Pope is the Vicar or representative of Christ.

It is actually, VERY biblical.

And this idea or interpretation, by far, existed WAY before the Protestant idea that Christ was somehow referring to himself when he said "and upon this rock I will build my church" -- That interpretation only makes sense if you are 'proof texting' -- interpreting things to back up your own preconceived notions or opinion.

The word "pope" was never officially chosen by the Church. It comes from "papa", an affectionate term that people were using for the representative of Jesus Christ.

Where is anyone ever calling Peter "father" or "Pope" in the Bible if he truly is an intercessor?

Why do Popes, Bishops, and priests have costumes and Peter and the rest didn't?

I like "carl" 's answer best, but then "XAndrewX" has a great one too, as does "Caroline=)", "John S", and "Adam Swimsuit Edition". You have a LOT to learn, most importantly that "sola scriptura" is a sick joke, and that the Bible itself says that there's no way everything could be in the Bible (John 21:25). Wake up!!!!! God Bless you.

catholics claim that the popes are descendants of peter whom they say was the first "pope" or leader of the church.

problem with that is that the bible does not name peter as "the" leader of the church. he was one of those in leadership, but the bible infers in acts chapter 15 that james was more the head of the leaders than peter ever was.

anyway, peter is never recorded to have been in rome, so the whole idea of rome being the seat of the organized church is a fallacy. popes are actually contrary to the bible teachings of Jesus since he said to call no man on earth "father" because we have one "Father" in heaven so calling the pope, "holy father" is anti-biblical.

The Catholic church misrepresented and misinterpreted what Jesus said to Peter, "upon this rock I will build my church". If they truly think the church of Jesus Christ was built upon Peter, and not Jesus Himself, they've got quite a shaky foundation, given that Peter denied Jesus three times.

The idea of Pope is man made. It is not found in the bible at all. The church has one foundation; Jesus alone. He is the only mediator between God and man.

It does not, Jesus is the head of the congregation not some little old bloke:

See "Is the Pope “Saint Peter’s Successor”?

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011571?q=pope&...

Pope, or papa, is a Latin word for "father", one that a child would use, like "daddy", and you are correct, it is not used in the Bible (Latin Vulgate). In the New Testament stories where Jesus says "Abba, Father" in the Latin that appears as "Abba, pater".

Catholic Historians like to say that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome (Pope), but there is absolutely no real historical evidence of this outside of the catholic propaganda machine.