Christ's Vicar

Catholics teach the Pope is Christ's vicar on earth, but Tertullian believed the Holy Spirit was Christ's vicar.

His usage in his apologies seem to bear this out.

He did not see a pope as Vicar, but the Holy Spirit as Christ's vicar.

The passages he alludes to are speaking of the Holy Spirit.

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Since the Holy Spirit taught the Apostles before the Papacy was established, the Papacy could not be the teacher of the church as a vicar.

At what point did the Pope take the Spirit's place? The word vicar simply means deputy or vice, such as vice-chairman. One who officiates in another's absence.

So, when did the Holy Spirit depart the earth, that Christ should need another vicar?

Tertullian writes

Chap. XXVIII. - The One Tradition of the Faith, Which Is Substantially Alike in the Churches Everywhere, a Good Proof that the Transmission Has Been True and Honest in the Main.

Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, (Joh_14:26) and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth; (Joh_15:26) grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ,199 neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles, - is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless200 enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?