Universal Jursidiction

[bzkoss236]

What keys were given? I’ve often wondered why two keys. I find the Key of David in Isaiah 22, but what is the other key? Or are they two different keys altogether?

Keys vs. Key is irrelevant, since it is just a symbol of authority and not physical keys. Nor is it that one Key represents one authority, and another represents another authority. Key or Keys, it represents the authority by the king they were given from, in this case, the authority of Christ.

 

[Jozefo]

Keys vs. Key is irrelevant, since it is just a symbol of authority and not physical keys. Nor is it that one Key represents one authority, and another represents another authority. Key or Keys, it represents the authority by the king they were given from, in this case, the authority of Christ.

I appreciate the answer, but it’s hardly irrelevant. Not to me anyway. I want to know why two keys are claimed, yet only one is offered in Scripture.

 

[fallow_spirit]

oh boy, subscribing, but oh boy

 

[Bballer32]

I appreciate the answer, but it’s hardly irrelevant. Not to me anyway. I want to know why two keys are claimed, yet only one is offered in Scripture.

one key represents binding and the other key represents loosing.

Binding and loosing are two different things and therefore two keys. The symbol of the keys represent authority. Just imagine a door to open or lock. Binding is to bring into communion and loosing is to excommunicate.

"I will give you the keys (this is plural so more than one) of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind (first key) on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose (second key) on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:19

 

[rinnie]

Even if Peter is = to the papacy, none of what Randy has presented provides for universal jurisdiction. Instead, you sited the important factors that determine the role of the Bishop of Rome (other than his main role as a bishop), that being the early councils. The early Church clearly saw him as having a primacy of honor, 1st among bishops who are all each of them equal.

Jon

Okay lets say that what you are saying all of the Apsotles felt they were equal to Peter. Then why did not one object to Peter when he said this.

Brothers you KNOW that some time ago God made his CHOICE among you that gospel might be heard from MY lips…

Now if they are all made equal what kind of Choice was made here. Why would God choose me to teach and strenghten my brothers is we are all equal?

Equal means we all have the same authority. Do sheep lead themself? Why was Peter chosen to lead the sheep? Is there more then one leader of the sheep?

If all the sheep would lead themself where would there by a union?

What happens when there are 2 equal bosses?

Is not the Power given to my local Priest not equal to the power from the Holy Spirit the same Power given to the Pope to forgive my sins? Of course it is.

But does the local Priest claim the same authority to lead the Church as the Pope?

Just because all of the Apostles were given the same power of the Holy Spirit to work in the name of Christ does not mean Christ gave them all the same authority.

Authority was given to Peter as he stated. He was chosen among the other Apostles by God, from his Lips.

Power and authority are 2 very different things. Although they can be seen as the same they are not.

Was Abraham not given authority in this world to speak and lead us? God trusts certain people in this world and gives them certain authority.

Why did Jesus say YOU are Peter and to YOU I give the keys to bind and loose. Are all the Apostles named Peter? Or was Peter given a special authority in this world that God said he would honor in heaven? Is not this authority a final say.

Or did the Apostles get it wrong all this time?

 

[Jozefo]

one key represents binding and the other key represents loosing.

Binding and loosing are two different things and therefore two keys. The symbol of the keys represent authority. Just imagine a door to open or lock. Binding is to bring into communion and loosing is to excommunicate.

"I will give you the keys (this is plural so more than one) of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind (first key) on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose (second key) on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:19

That makes sense. I’ve always wondered why two keys. Thanks!

[Edit] – I’m laughing at myself right now. What a simple explanation. You wouldn’t believe how hard I searched the Bible for two keys!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Having stated my opening position in posts 3,4 5, & 6, I want to turn now to how the imagery of Peter as Vicar, Shepherd, Rock, Keeper of the Keys and Royal Steward apply to universal jurisdiction.

I’m not going to bury you with lots of stuff written by other folks. Neither will I be drawn into reading long articles posted by James Swan or contained in the Book of Concord. :nope:

No, this is just you, me and the scriptures as we try to discern what was in the mind of Christ as He prepared Peter for his role as head of the universal church. That said, I do think that at some point it will useful to evaluate how the ECF’s interpreted what they had been taught by those who were in the faith before them, but that will come later. For now, let’s just focus on the principles we find in the scriptures I have already referenced as well as a few others that provide support.

I’ll begin with the image of the shepherd. Jesus said,

14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. (John 10:14-16)

One flock. One shepherd. (Not 30,000 flocks with 30,000 shepherds.)

If Jesus is the Good Shepherd, what is the point of naming another? It is because while we live on this earth, we sheep need a shepherd of flesh and blood and we can see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears. I’ll mention in passing that the Church is NOT an invisible composite of all believers regardless of denomination or creed but rather it is a visible organization with a visible head. “A city built on a hill cannot be hidden.”

So, Jesus understood our need for an earthly shepherd, and that need has not changed with the passage of time. That is one reason why Catholics accept the doctrine of Apostolic Succession; our ongoing need for guidance explains why the office of the shepherd of the flock is handed down from one bishop to the next through the laying on of hands.

OBJECTION: But this principle applies equally to all bishops. This proves nothing regarding universal jurisdiction.

Not directly. However, the Word of God tells us more regarding Peter’s unique role as shepherd of the whole Church. Turn with me to Luke’s gospel.

Luke 22:24-32
24 A dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 26 the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules (hegeomai) like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you (plural) as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you (singular), Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen (sterizo) your brothers.”

This passage is often quoted by non-Catholics who believe it proves that Jesus never intended for Peter to be the head of the Church. Instead, it actually proves that He did.

First, notice that in verse 31, Jesus says that Satan has asked to sift or test ALL of the apostles - the word “you” there is plural. But in verse 32, the “you” is singular meaning that Jesus has not prayed for ALL the apostles but for Peter alone who was tasked with strengthening his brother apostles.

So, what about those Greek words in the passage above - *hegeomai *and sterizo? What do they mean?

*Hegeomai *(Jesus is referring to Simon)

1. to lead
   a) to go before
   b) to be a leader
2. to rule, command
3. to have authority over
4. a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
5. used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
6. the leader in speech, chief, spokesman
7. to consider, deem, account, think

Sterizo

1. to make stable, place firmly, set fast, fix
2. to strengthen, make firm
3. to render constant, confirm, one’s mind

In addressing the question of who would be the greatest, Jesus DID NOT deny that one would be greater than the others. Instead, he focused on teaching about the proper character of the one who would lead.

Did Jesus say one of them would NOT be considered greatest? No.
Did He say one would NOT be the one to lead/have authority over/ rule? No.

In fact, his language actually confirms that one would lead because He explicitly stated the character traits needed for the job. Peter is to lead, rule, command, have authority over the others, govern, and control in counsels…make his brothers stable, strengthen them, and confirm them…and be the chief spokesman. After all, isn’t it the purpose of a rock to provide a sure foundation that stabilizes the entire Church?

Has the need for this changed with the passage of time? No.

That, my friends, is why Jesus established universal jurisdiction in the Petrine office.

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon! Long time no see

I’d like to point out the bold part.

Nicaea was called in 325 AD to discuss what the faithful believe in. In Canon 6 the reference that Alexandria has the same authority as Rome over certain churches actually doesn’t contradict that Rome had Authority. Since communication was limited the whole “alexandria is the same as rome” is saying that each of these bigger Churches will be the heads of smaller ones, but if we look at the council of Sardica (343 AD) we see that Rome clearly still has the authority over all churches.

I have provided both the Greek notes and the Latin notes on the council.

Sardica Canon 3

**Greek
**
Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add—that no bishop pass from his own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless indeed he be called by his brethren, that we seem not to close the gates of charity.

And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province.

But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before.

Latin

Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add—that bishops shall not pass from their own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless perchance upon invitation from their brethren, that we seem not to close the door of charity.

But if in any province a bishop have a matter in dispute against his brother bishop, one of the two shall not call in as judge a bishop from another province.

But if judgment have gone against a bishop in any cause, and he think that he has a good case, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it be your pleasure, honour the memory of St. Peter the Apostle, and let those who tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he shall judge that the case should be retried, let that be done, and let him appoint judges; but if he shall find that the case is of such a sort that the former decision need not be disturbed, what he has decreed shall be confirmed. Is this the pleasure of all? The synod answered, It is our pleasure

Sardica Canon 4

Greek

Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which you have pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defence, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.

Latin

Bishop Gaudentius said: It ought to be added, if it be your pleasure, to this sentence full of sanctity which you have pronounced, that— when any bishop has been deposed by the judgment of those bishops who have sees in neighbouring places, and he [the bishop deposed] shall announce that his case is to be examined in the city of Rome— that no other bishop shall in any wise be ordained to his see, after the appeal of him who is apparently deposed, unless the case shall have been determined in the judgment of the Roman bishop.

It is good to you again, as well.
I’m not sure how these qualify as universal jurisdiction. A see of last resort, so to speak, in these matters, but not universal jurisdiction.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=rinnie;11121504]Okay lets say that what you are saying all of the Apsotles felt they were equal to Peter. Then why did not one object to Peter when he said this.

Hi rinnie,
It isn’t that they “thought” this, but that Christ tells them this in Luke 22.

Brothers you KNOW that some time ago God made his CHOICE among you that gospel might be heard from MY lips…

Now if they are all made equal what kind of Choice was made here. Why would God choose me to teach and strenghten my brothers is we are all equal?

Equal means we all have the same authority. Do sheep lead themself? Why was Peter chosen to lead the sheep? Is there more then one leader of the sheep?

If all the sheep would lead themself where would there by a union?

What happens when there are 2 equal bosses?

A confusion arises again between primacy, and universal jurisdiction (supremacy). I am not arguing against a primacy, but against the notion of supremacy.

Is not the Power given to my local Priest not equal to the power from the Holy Spirit the same Power given to the Pope to forgive my sins? Of course it is.

But does the local Priest claim the same authority to lead the Church as the Pope?

No one is arguing that the local priest is equal in authority, ecclesiastically, to that of a bishop.

Just because all of the Apostles were given the same power of the Holy Spirit to work in the name of Christ does not mean Christ gave them all the same authority.

Authority was given to Peter as he stated. He was chosen among the other Apostles by God, from his Lips.

Power and authority are 2 very different things. Although they can be seen as the same they are not.

How does this show universal jurisdiction? It is not an issue of primacy, which is what your thoughts here seem to defend.

Was Abraham not given authority in this world to speak and lead us? God trusts certain people in this world and gives them certain authority.

Why did Jesus say YOU are Peter and to YOU I give the keys to bind and loose. Are all the Apostles named Peter? Or was Peter given a special authority in this world that God said he would honor in heaven? Is not this authority a final say.

Or did the Apostles get it wrong all this time?

A final say regarding what, rinnie? What kind of special authority is St. Peter granted? Does he appear to have a leadership role among the 12? Yes. Even though he is not in charge at the council in acts, his word is clearly respected. How does this show universal jurisdiction?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Having stated my opening position in posts 3,4 5, & 6, I want to turn now to how the imagery of Peter as Vicar, Shepherd, Rock, Keeper of the Keys and Royal Steward apply to universal jurisdiction.

I’m not going to bury you with lots of stuff written by other folks. Neither will I be drawn into reading long articles posted by James Swan or contained in the Book of Concord. :nope:

No, this is just you, me and the scriptures as we try to discern what was in the mind of Christ as He prepared Peter for his role as head of the universal church. That said, I do think that at some point it will useful to evaluate how the ECF’s interpreted what they had been taught by those who were in the faith before them, but that will come later. For now, let’s just focus on the principles we find in the scriptures I have already referenced as well as a few others that provide support.

I’ll begin with the image of the shepherd. Jesus said,

14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. (John 10:14-16)

One flock. One shepherd. (Not 30,000 flocks with 30,000 shepherds.)

If Jesus is the Good Shepherd, what is the point of naming another? It is because while we live on this earth, we sheep need a shepherd of flesh and blood and we can see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears. I’ll mention in passing that the Church is NOT an invisible composite of all believers regardless of denomination or creed but rather it is a visible organization with a visible head. “A city built on a hill cannot be hidden.”

So, Jesus understood our need for an earthly shepherd, and that need has not changed with the passage of time. That is one reason why Catholics accept the doctrine of Apostolic Succession; our ongoing need for guidance explains why the office of the shepherd of the flock is handed down from one bishop to the next through the laying on of hands.

OBJECTION: But this principle applies equally to all bishops. This proves nothing regarding universal jurisdiction.

Not directly. However, the Word of God tells us more regarding Peter’s unique role as shepherd of the whole Church. Turn with me to Luke’s gospel.

This passage is often quoted by non-Catholics who believe it proves that Jesus never intended for Peter to be the head of the Church. Instead, it actually proves that He did.

First, notice that in verse 31, Jesus says that Satan has asked to sift or test ALL of the apostles - the word “you” there is plural. But in verse 32, the “you” is singular meaning that Jesus has not prayed for ALL the apostles but for Peter alone who was tasked with strengthening his brother apostles.

So, what about those Greek words in the passage above - *hegeomai *and sterizo? What do they mean?

*Hegeomai *(Jesus is referring to Simon)

1. to lead
   a) to go before
   b) to be a leader
2. to rule, command
3. to have authority over
4. a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
5. used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
6. the leader in speech, chief, spokesman
7. to consider, deem, account, think

Sterizo

1. to make stable, place firmly, set fast, fix
2. to strengthen, make firm
3. to render constant, confirm, one’s mind

In addressing the question of who would be the greatest, Jesus DID NOT deny that one would be greater than the others. Instead, he focused on teaching about the proper character of the one who would lead.

Did Jesus say one of them would NOT be considered greatest? No.
Did He say one would NOT be the one to lead/have authority over/ rule? No.

In fact, his language actually confirms that one would lead because He explicitly stated the character traits needed for the job. Peter is to lead, rule, command, have authority over the others, govern, and control in counsels…make his brothers stable, strengthen them, and confirm them…and be the chief spokesman. After all, isn’t it the purpose of a rock to provide a sure foundation that stabilizes the entire Church?

Has the need for this changed with the passage of time? No.

That, my friends, is why Jesus established universal jurisdiction in the Petrine office.

(Truncated to fit the max)
Randy,
Again, the difference between primacy and supremacy. Nothing in the language of Luke indicates universal jurisdiction. Just like nothing in the early councils does. It is not an argument against, as you say, “the Word of God tells us more regarding Peter’s unique role as shepherd of the whole Church”. One can see his unique role. Incidentally, Paul had a unique role, as well.
As for the comment about 30,000 flocks, this disputes looooong predates the Reformation.
And the other see involved in this dispute absolutely reject universal jurisdiction, and use scripture and Sacred Tradition to defend their position. And they know the Greek and Latin, too.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

(Truncated to fit the max)
Randy,
Again, the difference between primacy and supremacy. Nothing in the language of Luke indicates universal jurisdiction. Just like nothing in the early councils does. It is not an argument against, as you say, “the Word of God tells us more regarding Peter’s unique role as shepherd of the whole Church”. One can see his unique role. Incidentally, Paul had a unique role, as well.
As for the comment about 30,000 flocks, this disputes looooong predates the Reformation.
And the other see involved in this dispute absolutely reject universal jurisdiction, and use scripture and Sacred Tradition to defend their position. And they know the Greek and Latin, too.

Jon

Jon-

Just to make sure we’re not talking past one another, could you define universal jurisdiction as you understand it?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nothing in the language of Luke indicates universal jurisdiction.

Well, obviously, I disagree. EVERYTHING in the passage from Luke tells us that Peter has been prayed for specifically by Jesus so that Peter could support the others. Why didn’t Jesus just pray for all of them equally?

Let’s say you have two or three kids and some another couple with their kids come over to your house. The grown ups are going out to dinner, while the kids have pizza and a movie. So you give ALL of the kids strict instructions to “be good”, etc. etc. And then you tell them that Peter, their oldest son, is in charge because he’s the oldest or most mature of the group. You give Peter $20 for the pizza dude. You tell Peter what time the little have to be in bed. Now, you gave all of them the same instructions about how to behave, etc., but Peter has more than a primacy…he is in charge of making sure that the others behave.

Similarly, the Apostle Peter was charged with making sure that all the others stood firm in the faith, and I daresay (as we see in Acts 15) correcting his “peers” when they were in error.

Remember, I building a case, and when I have presented everything, I believe that the preponderance of evidence will be sufficient for anyone who is objective to see that Peter received universal jurisdiction from Jesus.

In what I have already presented, it is clear that Peter - not James or John or Matthias - but Peter was charged by Jesus for keeping the other Apostles encouraged and supported

Just like nothing in the early councils does. It is not an argument against, as you say, “the Word of God tells us more regarding Peter’s unique role as shepherd of the whole Church”. One can see his unique role. Incidentally, Paul had a unique role, as well.

Sure he did, Jon, but Paul’s role in the church was very different from the role that Peter had, don’t you think?

 

[Bballer32]

It is good to you again, as well.
I’m not sure how these qualify as universal jurisdiction. A see of last resort, so to speak, in these matters, but not universal jurisdiction.

Jon

“that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defence, a new bishop be not settled in his see,** unless** the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.”

Notice the term Unless. This does seem like a last resort term, but it actually says that this “such and such move will be made” unless Rome says otherwise. So the move hasn’t actually happened yet. They are waiting for Rome’s approval.

 

[concretecamper]

JonNC:

Quote:

Originally Posted by steido01

Right. This is not the first time a Roman Catholic has cited this bit of Luther. Interestingly, they tend to neglect the context and what comes next. Keep reading. What does Luther go on to say?

Ah! So Lutherans do not (nay, cannot!) deny that the Keys were given to Peter; Scripture is clear. But Peter =/= the papacy, in the Lutheran view. The Keys were given to Peter and passed to the church.

I’ve got a site bookmarked that has more information on the Lutheran view here (along with the remainder of what Luther wrote in volume 40: beggarsallreformation.blogspo…-to-peter.html

Even if Peter is = to the papacy, none of what Randy has presented provides for universal jurisdiction. Instead, you sited the important factors that determine the role of the Bishop of Rome (other than his main role as a bishop), that being the early councils. The early Church clearly saw him as having a primacy of honor, 1st among bishops who are all each of them equal.

Jon

Jon,

What you are saying is not historically correct. When I have the time I will start a new thread on Church Fathers and there statements on the primacy of Peter and the Pope. I will look forward to your comments.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jon,

What you are saying is not historically correct. When I have the time I will start a new thread on Church Fathers and there statements on the primacy of Peter and the Pope. I will look forward to your comments.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Just to be clear, I believe Jon agrees with the Primacy of Peter; he denies the universal jurisdiction of the Petrine office.

 

[concretecamper]

Just to be clear, I believe Jon agrees with the Primacy of Peter; he denies the universal jurisdiction of the Petrine office.

yep…understood.

 

[benjohnson]

Sadly, because of the extension of the petrine ministry from primacy into universal jurisdiction and then into the Vicar of Christ - the office no longer effectively has primacy - in that Orthodox and Lutherans (wishing the Roman Pontiff well) don’t defer to the office in it’s Primacy.

If the office were to loosen it’s claims, then I would hope it would regain it’s stature as the patriarch of the West and we Lutherans could grudgingly acknowledge the office’s universal Primacy.

That said, even if the Catholic interpretation of the Bible is true, we Lutherans would remain unconvinced as long as the office has the marks of an anti-Christ as per our confessions - though we understand that this pronouncement has nothing to do with a saving faith and our objections would be satisfied (as I understand it) if the Papal office were to shrink back to it’s original primacy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sadly, because of the extension of the petrine ministry from primacy into universal jurisdiction and then into the Vicar of Christ - the office no longer effectively has primacy - in that Orthodox and Lutherans (wishing the Roman Pontiff well) don’t defer to the office in it’s Primacy.

Concerning the primacy of the pope, I understand what you wrote to mean that because the Papacy has extended into the Vicar of Christ, it no longer has primacy - at least not a primacy you are willing to defer to.

Is that what you meant to say? If so, I’m now confused because it seems that some Lutherans have said that the Pope has primacy but not universal jurisdiction. Now, you seem to be saying, “The pope does not have primacy; well, okay, technically he does but it’s not something we’re willing to acknowledge. Much.”

Am I understanding you correctly?

Concerning the Pope as Vicar of Christ, are you saying that the Pope is NOT the Vicar of Christ?

 

[steido01]

Concerning the primacy of the pope, I understand what you wrote to mean that because the Papacy has extended into the Vicar of Christ, it no longer has primacy - at least not a primacy you are willing to defer to.

Is that what you meant to say? If so, I’m now confused because it seems that some Lutherans have said that the Pope has primacy but not universal jurisdiction. Now, you seem to be saying, “The pope does not have primacy; well, okay, technically he does but it’s not something we’re willing to acknowledge. Much.”

Am I understanding you correctly?

Concerning the Pope as Vicar of Christ, are you saying that the Pope is NOT the Vicar of Christ?

We don’t understand the Primacy of the Pope to be mutually dependent upon the claim of Vicar of Christ; in fact, our Confessions abhor the title as boastful and “pernicious to the Church.” In our view, claiming that title (and its innovations - i.e., speaking ex-cathedra, infallibility…) is abuse of that primacy. Insofar as these perceived abuses continue take place, Lutherans do not recognize the Bishop of Rome’s primacy.

 

[benjohnson]

Concerning the primacy of the pope, I understand what you wrote to mean that because the Papacy has extended into the Vicar of Christ, it no longer has primacy - at least not a primacy you are willing to defer to.

Is that what you meant to say? If so, I’m now confused because it seems that some Lutherans have said that the Pope has primacy but not universal jurisdiction. Now, you seem to be saying, “The pope does not have primacy; well, okay, technically he does but it’s not something we’re willing to acknowledge. Much.”

Am I understanding you correctly?

Concerning the Pope as Vicar of Christ, are you saying that the Pope is NOT the Vicar of Christ?

Checking into the history, I can see why my dismissal is concerning.

As I understand it, when Lutherans dismiss the title of Vicar of Christ, we’re objecting to the new promulgation of the dogma of Papal Infallibility and how the term was used by the Byzantine emperor. We view the Pope using the same term as perhaps harking back to the attempt to wield the two swords again.

I think wee Luterans could be coaxed back into acknowledge the Primacy of Peter, but I don’t think we’d do that when so many (as we view it) powers and obligations have been added to the office.