Golly gee, Tangle, don't you know the Pope is the rightful ruler of this world
Isn't that Haile Selassie?
He's "God on earth," don't you know?
This concept contravenes mainstream Catholic dogma and would be regarded as blasphemous - you should have rejected the lie as soon as you read it.
He's the 'vicar of Christ' and bishop of Rome. Not Christ. He holds the keys to heaven, but is not its creator. He has the same capacity as the authors of scripture to be infallible in all the right ways when the appropriate context is met.
Therefore he has every right to pronounce on absolutely anything and everything pertaining to human life.
No - his status as a god or a vicar does not give him every right etc. It's the fact that he has freedom of speech that does that. You have it to, and you too pronounce on all manners of issues pertaining to human life. I dare say if you had an audience of the Pope's size, all eager for your pronouncements, we'd hear a lot more of your pronouncements.
You are obviously ignorant of the whole range of doctrines of the RCC
As are you. You made the claims, they have been challenged. How do you propose we resolve the stalemate? My suggestion is that the person making the specific and positive claim (ie., you) should provide evidence to support your position. After all, my only option is to present the whole range of doctrines of the RCC to you and say 'there you go, its not there' At which point you'll agree or say - what about the bit where it says '...'. And then we'd be in the same position as if you had provided the evidence for your claims in the first place.
They will call their own doctrines blasphemous if necessary at any given time, then weasel around to defending them later.
Yeah, that's common to all religions I think.
However, it's all apparent anyway if you know what it all really means.
Please reveal where I can learn this occult knowledge.
For instance, "vicar of Christ" literally means "substitute for Christ" which is as good as calling him the Antichrist by biblical standards.
First of all - 'for' and 'of' are not substitutable.
A literal translation in your words with be 'substitute of Christ'. Which doesn't make sense. Then again, literal translations can be pretty stupid - just ask Google. Substitute is a good word, but it's not quite right. For a start, substitute is also a Latin word. Vicarius and substitutus are similar words, but not perfect synonyms. You've taken the meaning of substitute 'to replace' and gone to a crazy place with it including substituting two words entirely without reason to bolster your point.
Vicarious is different. For instance, one might assign a slave to do everything another slave commands them. This would make a slave's slave. Not a replacement slave. There are still two slaves. This would not be servus substitutus (or whatever the right Latin would be) it would be servus vicarius.
Are you a governor with too many duties? Have you tried appointing a vicarius praetoris or 'deputy governor / vice-president'.
Maybe you are a deity who wants a way to communicate information to his Creation without going through the fuss of incarnating or appearing in clouds etc? Why not appoint a Vicarius Filii Dei or Representative for the Son of God. Don't know if that's the right phrase? Try Vicarius Christi! Or Representative of Christ.
Because that's how the word actually gets used by the Latin people that came up with this stuff, rather than how someone with a translation dictionary might do it.
It's a substitute only in the sense that 'instead of talking to the governor or the usual slave or god....you are talking to me acting on the behalf in their place'. Not in the sense of 'I am substituting rice for wheat in my diet and Madden for Tebow in my time travel fantasy league'.
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.