[ebb tide]

For example, in Church government, Reformed Christians take the Bible for what is says, that Christ is the head of the Church, which is called the Bride of Christ. No man can place himself at the head of Christ’s Church; such a man is guilty of attempting to take the very place of Christ as “husband” to the Church. Such a Church, one with a man as its earthly head, thereby suggests the Biblical references to adultery or whoredom, as it as a body professes allegiance to two: the man as well as Christ.

Do you know what the word "vicar" means? As in Vicar of Christ?

[PieterCasparzen]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (emphasis mine):

href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

"882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "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."403 "

This is all rooted in a particular misinterpretation of a single verse, Matthew 16:19. The concept is contradicted throughout the rest of Scripture and supported by nothing else in Scripture.

Nowhere else in Scripture is there anything close to something even vaguely resembling any notion of any single human being having "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church". It's really an outrageous claim when you think about it, it's a direct assertion of assuming the authority of Christ himself.

Again, if an interpretation of a single passage contradicts a straightforward and accepted interpretation of numerous other passages, it can't stand as a correct interpretation.

Again, I only write of these things out of concern, not out of malice; we ought to always learn Scripture and let it be our guide, over our own ideas.