And subject to the vicar of christ?
Peter and His valid successors are the vicar of christ, that sats something about Jesus not peter
Jesus Christ continues HIS ministry in His new covenant church thru Peter, the apostles, and their successors with the same mission, power, and authority!
Mt 16:18 Mt 28:19 Acts 1:17 acts 8:31 & 35 acts 9:4 Lk 10:16 Jn 8:32 Jn 13:20 Jn 15:5 Jn 16:13 Jn 20:21-22 eph 2:20 acts 2:42 1 Tim 3:15
We are not subject to the Pope as he calls himself the vicar of Christ claiming he is the "Holy Father". I don't care how many scriptures you use out of context as the fact is the New Testament Church was founded on Christ and the "confession of faith" that was revealed to Peter by the Holy Spirit. Roman Catholics say Peter was the first Pope and even this is a lie as who do you think it was that crucified Peter upside down on a cross per Peter's request to be upside down as he did not want to take away from the crucifixion of Christ.
Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
It wasn't Peter that the Church was built on, but Christ is the rock as being the foundation or cornerstone that the Church (the body of Christ) is built on and no where in scripture does it name the Roman Catholic Church as the one true Church or Protestant Church as the one true Church, but says in Acts 11:26 that the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch as Christ is the foundation of the true Church not made by hands. Acts 1:1-8; 2:1-4 the apostles were instructed to stay in Jerusalem until they received power from God and then they were filled with the Holy Spirit before they could start their journey of being witnesses of Christ to teach others about the kingdom of God through Christ.
There was no apostle greater than another as they all had the same anointing and taught others from their own individual witness of Christ and His teachings as being faithful servants, even as Christ was while here on Earth.
24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.
Matthew 8:14 shows that Peter was married and according to the Catholic belief a Pope can not be married so Peter could have never been the first Pope or ever had a procession of Popes after him. Peter never went to Rome to establish the Roman Catholic Church, but wrote his letters to those who were scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 1Peter 1:1.
Peter wrote his letters from Babylon (Babylon as being referenced in Rev 17 as the Great Harlot) as Peter spent the last years of his life in Rome as Rome at that time was described as a center of adultery. Peter wrote his letters to the Church (body of Christ and not a building made by hands) possibly around 64AD right before the full outbreak of Christian persecution by the hand of Rome's Nero. Paul's letters were also addressed to all who are beloved of God in Rome. Not the Roman Catholic Church, but those who were beloved of God established by that rock which is Christ Jesus and not Peter. The last chapter of the book of Romans Paul sends greetings to 27 members of the church (the body of Christ), but never mentions Peter. According to the tradition of the Catholic Church of Rome, Peter was there from 42 to 67 AD. Paul wrote the book of Romans around 58 AD. Now if Peter was in Rome from 42 to 67 AD that means by 58 AD that Peter should have been there for about 16 years. Not only that but the Catholic Church tradition tells us that he was the first Pope. Why didn't Paul acknowledge Peter in His writings as being the head of the Catholic Church (Pope) since he was addressing those who were beloved of God that lived there. The reason Paul didn’t mention Peter is because Peter wasn’t there. Peter was crucified by Nero prior to Nero's death in 68 AD. Why would Catholic Rome crucify their own Pope.
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me (Paul), as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.