Interested in learning - always. Interested in swallowing what you've been indoctrinated to believe - not on your life.
The office of "Vicar of Christ" aka Pope didn't exist in the first century, 2nd, 3rd, 4th.. Do you in fact even know who the first "Vicar of Christ" was, historically and factually speaking? I'm sure you do but will not admit it. It wasn't Peter, Linus, etc. The first one was "_________" (You fill in the blank). Hint, the title was retroactively applied to prior "Bishops" of Rome once the office gained official status through fraud (donation of Constantine, Pseudo-isidorian decretals, Decretals of Gratian - all frauds). Bishops of Rome had tried for a number of years to assert that they had some "primacy" over the entire Church. That met with guffaws and rebukes until the church and secular world were defrauded with documentary forgeries that were used to bolster that claim. Once the "primacy" was established via fraudulent means, the office of "Vicar of Christ" aka "Pope" aka "Supreme Pontif" came into official existance. The title was then backwardly applied as though it had always existed and the Roman Catholic Church has continued in perpetrating that fraud as though it were true.
Peter, Historically, Biblically, and technically, never was a "Pope". He wasn't even a "Bishop". He was an "Apostle", an office seperate from that of a Bishop and distinctive in it's role of preaching what the foundation of the Church is along with the other "Apostles." What's more, it cannot be
shown that he ever went to Rome to even so much as say "hi" to anyone, much less to preach or live there as Bishop. No historical footprint whatsoever, and no biblical footprint either. Digressing to the Apostles..
They were all co-equals. But being Co-equals got Rome's panties in a bunch - Rome had it's pride and dreams of power and would not be disuaded from using the most base means of accomplishing it's goals.
That is history. You will now give us your dogmatic fluff.
Before you do, your first citation in scripture should be the exact one that notes the existance of an office called "Vicar of Christ" - not Bishop, you've abused that into something it isn't. You are dealing with a covenant that you have no editorial rights over. So, if you're going to prove it exists in Christianity, you'll have to prove it in the founding documents of the institution. If it isn't there, you've added it. And as you have no editorial prerogative to do so, you've exceeded your authority and are into extra biblical = extra-covenental religiosity. You've made yourself another religion cause you couldn't abide the mandate of the Christian God. Plain and simple.