Jesus does not tell Peter to care for the sheep. What He does say is to FEED His sheep, FFED my lambs. What do you suppose Peter was supposed to feed Jesus’ sheep? They are still Jesus’ sheep by the way not Peter’s
There are many answers as to what Peter was supposed to “feed” to Jesus’ sheep. The first thing that comes to mind, is for him to ‘feed’ them the real truth of the Gospel that Jesus had taught them over the three years that they had traveled along with Him, being instructed by Him as to exactly what and how to preach. I’m sure there were many other things that He had also taught them about His mission, and theirs. The second, and the most obvious in my mind, would be a reference to the “Bread of Life” that He had told them was absolutely necessary to all those that would follow Him, to ensure their eternal life. “
[John 6:54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” This is a direct reference to the Holy Eucharist that feeds our souls. It creates a much tighter bond in us with Jesus, while we’re still living here on earth, and prepares us for our eternal life with God, in Heaven.
After Jesus said those words, many of His disciples left, because they didn’t understand what He meant. But, it was Peter, again, that responded:
“[68] Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? [69] And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. [70] And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.” Who else could be the choice that Jesus would make to be His administrator, after He had returned to Heaven? Who else had the faith of an innocent child, that would follow wherever Jesus lead him, whether he understood everything Jesus said, or not?
I already stated that Peter does not have ownership of the sheep. They belong to Jesus, alone. Peter was instructed to care for them while Jesus was
physically absent from the earth. Without a diligent caretaker and shepherd, to lead them in the right direction, they could more easily wander off and become lost.
Here is small part of Catholic teaching about the office and primacy of the Pope, that you can read in its entirety,
here.
The passage receives an admirable comment from St. Chrysostom:
**He saith to him, “Feed my sheep”. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say “Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?”, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world.
[St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John, 1. Cf. Origen, “In Ep. ad Rom.”, 5:10; Ephraem Syrus “Hymn. in B. Petr.” in “Bibl. Orient. Assemani”, 1:95; Leo I, “Serm. iv de natal.”, 2].**Even certain Protestant commentators frankly own that Christ undoubtedly intended here to confer the supreme pastorate on Peter. But other scholars, relying on a passage of St. Cyril of Alexandria (“In Joan.” 12:1), maintain that the purpose of the threefold charge was simply to reinstate St. Peter in the Apostolic commission which his threefold denial might be supposed to have lost to him. This interpretation is devoid of all probability. There is not a word in Scripture or in patristic tradition to suggest that St. Peter had forfeited his Apostolic commission; and the supposition is absolutely excluded by the fact that on the evening of the Resurrection he received the same Apostolic powers as the others of the eleven. The solitary phrase of St. Cyril is of no weight against the overwhelming patristic authority for the other view. That such an interpretation should be seriously advocated proves how great is the difficulty experienced by Protestants regarding this text.
Here’s a definition of vicar
Definition of VICAR
1: one serving as a substitute or agent; specifically : **an administrative deputy **
Apparently the CC does think that the pope is Christ’s substitute.
That is correct, but he is only in charge of the sheep until Jesus returns to the earth. He does not replace Jesus, he merely administrates for Him, during His absence. An example of what this means in modern terms, would be that a huge corporation often has a CEO. Most of the time, they are not the owner of the company, but they administrate over it in place of the owner. They carry out the instructions given to them by the owner, and are recognized by the entire company as being in full charge of the operations of the enterprise, as his representative. While they do not take the place of the actual owner, they do carry his full authority, given to them by the owner, to do whatever is necessary to keep it running smoothly. Why wouldn’t Jesus leave someone He trusted in charge in His absence?
… So your analagy is therefore false…
**
So how do you even know your sins are forgiven without Christs ordained to tell you? In fact the Torah explains this well also in Deuteronomy chp 4-5, so its nothing new. Whats “new” is this fleeting idea your forgiven by prayer.