The Pope has been vicar of Christ for over 2,000 years....I don't think old Tom has quite reached that milestone
You've confused the OFFICE with the MAN.
Vicar of Christ - (Latin vicarius, from vice, "instead of") [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15401a.htm]
“instead of Christ”! Isn’t that interesting!
Scripture says that true believers have “Christ in them” but the Catholic Church says they have an “instead of Christ” in Rome. What blasphemy.
Those who have aligned themselves with the Catholic Church who truly wish an eternity with Christ need to denounce the pagan practices of the Catholic Church and become part of the true universal body of Christ with the indwelling of Christ with no need for an “instead of Christ” imposter.
Did you see that movie "the 2000 year old man?"
Your very old Pope (see your quote above) was the star!
The Pope has been vicar of Christ for over 2,000 years.
I did not think Ratzinger was that old:), but neither is the papacy of Rome, as the EOs also contend.
In any case, you keep relying on the same argument despite the invalid nature of this being shown. The point you are continually missing or avoiding is that even being the instrument and steward of Divine revelation and having historical descent of office does not require or equate to assured infallibility and perpetuation of supreme office by them, as if it did then the church was wrong for beginning in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses.
The reality is that an itinerant preacher showed up in Galilee (being preceded by another itinerant preacher), neither of whom had the sanction of those who sat in authority. Thus as Jesus was walking in the temple, "there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?" (Mark 11:27-28)
The Lord's answer was another question, "The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me." As John also did not have their sanction and they did not submit to it, this question demanded their reply be "of men." However, unlike the official magisterium, the people rightly discerned John as a prophet (even though he "did no miracle"). "And by a prophet the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved." (Hosea 12:13)
While God had ordained the Jewish magisterium (conditional obedience to whom the Lord even affirmed: (Mt. 23:2) and who were instrumental in passing on the faith, including affirming writings as Scripture, this did not require assured infallibility as per Rome. And God often raised up souls to reproved them and preserve the faith (even if it be among a remnant) who were part of that mysterious class of believers called "prophets," who, unlike the Levites, did not need formal descent of office for authenticity.
Likewise NT believers are "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. " (John 1:13)
But seeing the the Founder of the church operated in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses why should people follow Him? Upon what basis were His claims to authenticity established? The answer is that of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as He fulfilled the Scriptural prophecies and descriptions of the One He claimed to be. Thus He could challenge, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (Jn. 5:39 "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27) And thus opened He the understanding of the disciples (not just apostles) to the scriptures (not traditions).
In addition, the Lord was given abundant supernatural Divine attestation which Scripture shows God giving to truth claims, esp. new teaching, and thus the Lord could exhort, "Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. " (John 14:11)
The reality is that the greater the claims, the greater the attestation (cf. Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12), and the Lord is the only one who is manifestly worthy of implicit trust, and is not blind faith but has warrant and is confirmed.
As for Rome, she essentially makes herself into an alter Christos in requiring full implicit submission of faith to her "infallible" teachings, as she has infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Upon which premise RCs have assurance, while Rome rejects the means the very means and method by which the church as established in dissent, and by which souls obtained assurance that the death and resurrection of Jesus and the preaching of the apostles was validated. (Lk. 24:44; Acts 17:11) And assurance of present salvation is also provided based upon what is written. (1Jn. 5:13)
Rome may go thru the motions of validating her teaching with Scripture references, but according the only authoritative meaning (and providing real assurance) these have is that which she gives them, based upon Rome's premise of authority.
Establishing truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation is faulted because it can results in both true and false teaching claiming the same basis. But so does relying on the premise of the church being the supreme authority, as well as in regards to what it teaches, and problem become extended to a corporate level. Thus you have rejection of such things as the Immaculate Conception (which is not established by Scripture, leaving RCs trying to argue from silence, though such an exceptional absence is contrary to its nature of revelation) or papal infallibility by other sola ecclesia churches.
In the end, "the kingdom of God is not in word [self-declaration], but in power," (1 Corinthians 4:20) and thus the church began upon Scriptural substantiation of its message in word and in attestation, and thus it continues, even if too divided as tribes and as a relative remnant, but with the evangelical gospel effecting manifest supernatural regeneration, in contrast to its institutionalized counterpart as well as other aberrations.