It claims exactly what I said, it's officially on the books.
Actually it is as I say: it is officially not on the books.
Just because I don't have the time or I'm not good at locating the source of my information* doesn't mean I'm wrong about it.
Nullius in verba.
You could consider I'm right because I have no reason to make it up but of course you won't.
You have every reason to make it up. You hate Catholicism and you want others to hate it too. You spread that Tares and Wheat nonsense which was full of obvious lies - so I think my experience is persuasive that you seem highly motivated to make stuff up, and are quite adept at misremembering or exaggerating based on your own prejudices and half remembered things you read somewhere once.
Even what you admit they say pretty much says the same thing, and it ought to be recognized to be anything but Christian even to have a "representative of God on earth"
I don't see why it isn't Christian. The religion has examples within itself of people being the conduit for the word of God. Like Moses. God spoke to Moses, Moses spoke to Abram and Abram spoke to the people. Vicariousness was all over the religion from the outset!
or a "boss" of Christ's people who is not Christ himself.
He is 'boss' of Catholic bishops in the sense that he is the top of a hierarchical structure. If this is not Christian then I'd like to point you back at your old pal James I.
Here is an approximation of his Christian church, and the Church of England today:
God -> Crown -> Monarch -> Archbishop of Canterbury -> Other Archbishops -> Bishops / Suffragens -> Dean / subdean -> Rector / Vicar -> Deacons / Curates
A hierarchy with an absolute boss. I expect that although the American churches typically don't recognize a monarch they would still, assuming there is more than one church, have somebody assuming a leadership role. Someone to make final decisions on disciplinary matters, disputes, budget expenditure, broad direction of the churches policies and articles of faith. A boss. I'd be surprised if your church was immune to such a thing.
So I can't see how it could be construed by you as being in some way unChristian. It's obviously not something unique to churches. All organisations have a tendency towards certain types of hierarchy. It's kind a universal human way of organising and cooperating.
*It may be in John Dowling's History of Romanism which is among a dozen books on Romanism I have stacked on my kitchen table so I'll check later. Or actually I think Dowling may be online.
Yes, I believe it is. However, it is not official Catholic Dogma. It is instead a 19th Century attack on Catholicism by a baptist minister. If that's where you read it - it does not constitute sufficient evidence for your case. Anybody can write anything they like, after all the book you are referencing was published about a decade before On the Origin of Species. We both think one of these books has dubious merit, so just because someone got it published doesn't mean anything right?
What you need to do is look at Catholic texts and pronouncements, especially papal ones. If the beliefs you believe are part of the dogma exist 'officially on the books' you should look to the official books of the religion. Not relatively obscure Victorian texts written by a leader of a rival religious sect.