If you want to teach something additional, like the Assumption of Mary, that is your business - but don’t claim it is binding doctrine. And Purgatory, Priests, Indulgences, Penance?
Well, they are not needed for every good work.
From where I am Priests are kind of critical for the life of the Church, for the members of the Church. But leave that aside.
Are you proposing that only "what is needed for every good work" be the standard of what is de fide?
One problem is that that's a mighty vague standard, at once demanding (EVERY?) and vague (who gets to say what 'good' is?)
Just FYI, that wiki says that the term vicar of Christ was not used for a pope until such and such a time means nothing to me. Again, the notion of a church gradually declining from purity until it is reformed is not the only paradigm, and it is one which, with qualifications, we reject.
The argumebnt that Peter did not preside at the Jerusalem COuncil also cuts no definitive ice. I've been in a number of situations where the "president" is not the supreme officer.
In any event, the unparalleled accounts of interactions between Jesus and Peter and his primacy in every list is dispositive for me. And, title or not, an apostle is a vicar (where vicar is related to the word "vice" as in "vice-president").
I don't mean this to be an argument but a setting out of differences.
“I’ve been in a number of situations where the “president” is not the supreme officer.”
Dude, I’m ex-military. Trust me, I always knew who the SRO of a meeting was...and General Officers don’t give ‘advice’ or opinions.
We can agree on having differences, and letting others know WHY we hold those differences. I wouldn’t want someone to go against their conscience because ‘I said so’...not that anyone has OFFERED to!
Unfortunate, isn't it, that "vice" has taken on another meaning in modern English?
I prefer to refer to vicar as derivative of vicarious and directly related to the French "lieutenant" (literally: "place holder").
YMMV
Do you know that there is no role of priest outlined in the positions in the new church? The Jewish Priesthood was a type of Christ, once Christ came and offered the final sacrifice there was no longer a role for the priesthood.. God put a large exclamation point on that fact when He destroyed the temple in 70 AD and all the records of the line of the priesthood were destroyed
Just FYI, that wiki says that the term vicar of Christ was not used for a pope until such and such a time means nothing to me
It does not matter what it means to you, as a catholic you must accept him as the Vicar (stand in) for Christ..that is why your chruch says he is infallible on matters of doctrine..that is Christ speaking
The argumebnt that Peter did not preside at the Jerusalem COuncil also cuts no definitive ice. I've been in a number of situations where the "president" is not the supreme officer.
Actually he was a part of the reason it was called, he was moving into judaizing... thus Pauls letter to the Galatians
Gal2:11 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. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?