WILL THE REAL CHURCH...PLEASE STAND UP!

Below is a compilation of various posts concerning the popes latest declaration.
Taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2125395,00.html

This week's declaration by the Pope that the Church of England and other denominations are "not proper churches" was strictly for dogmatics. Anthropologists may explain that when a priest dresses up at the altar, gestures, chants and pretends to chew the body of Christ, he is doing what was done at Chichen Itza or the Borneo jungle for centuries past. Such antics are embedded in our cultural genes. This joker in Rome claiming supremacy via the greatest con in Europe's intellectual history, the 1870 Vatican council's invention of papal infallibility.

Seems to me the biggest problem with this latest pronouncement is that nobody was asking about it, so why say it at all. As iff this was a burning issue, like abortion or divorce or women priests, then again he must speak out, after all it is his job.

The Pope drew a distinction between the Orthodox churches, which he calls sisters (surely brothers?), and Protestants who lack a "sacramental priesthood ... and a Eucharistic Mystery", and whom he clearly regards as little short of pagan. First of all, this is an abuse of the word church, which is from the Teutonic circe (Scottish kirk) out of the Greek kuriakon doma, or house of the lord. The operative root is kurios, a chief or headman. This is as wide a definition of a priest, and thus of a church, as is imaginable.

If the Pope wants to try Latin, we are into ecclesia, from the Greek for assembly. This is invariably translated as a gathering or congregation of Christians, not just of those obedient to St Peter's. Augustine himself defined the word to signify both a body of believers and the place where they met, significamus locum qui continet. In other words, there is no textual justification for Benedict's exclusivity. It recalls the megalomania of Boniface VIII, who made such outrageous claims of supremacy that monarchs and even cardinals stopped listening, culminating in the schism of 1378 and eventually the Reformation. In saying that only Roman Catholicism is a "church", the Pope is merely redefining the word to suit his position. He is climbing to the top of Michelangelo's dome and beating his chest like King Kong.

Last week the prime minister of England announced he would no longer appoint bishops but leave it to the church authorities. Why stop there? Brown should have taken the opportunity to bring forward the formal disestablishment of the Church of England. This need not affect the Queen as patron of the church, but a son of the manse and head of what should be a secular 21st-century government could surely sweep away the remaining statist nonsense.

By "Proper Church" the Hypocrite Prince of the Organization means:

1. Where the misled, gullible are atoned with the perpetual systematic every Saturday forgiveness of all the sins to start again with seven days till the next time.

2. Where the celibate SOB's take advantage of young boy pages to molest them in the name of Christ.

3. Where second class citizen, the nuns are betrothed to the savior Jesus H Christ in secret ceremonies, with perhaps only a couple of Jewish rabbis setting in the back pews, as being the relatives of the groom.

4. Where many times a week the poor ignorant vast majority from the poorest countries of the world give up their hard earned wages for the hierarachy under the Prince to live high off the hog and dish out dogmas like no birth control, no marriages for the priests, nuns not allowed to conduct services but servitude in the name of the savior, hypocrite bondage and silence.

Yes indeed it sure is a proper chruch of the corrupt to the hilt secrecy and dogma invented to keep poor poorer, rich richer. Yes of course forgiveness is the order of the day as was for the crusades with murder of the millions, all in the name of the proper church.

Do you expect the CEO of Coca Cola to say that Pepsi is also a real cola?

Then why would one expect the chief of the Catholic church to admit that the other churches are also "proper churches"?

The success of the Roman clique and their rites rests upon their ownership of the idea of Sin, and the provision of a clergy which it is claimed can purge communicants of their guilt and shame. It is very powerful. Luther hacked away at the edifice of sacraments, and we need to be grateful to the Protestant reformers, more for their success in offering an alternative to clerical hegemony over the minds of the laity than for amending doctrine.

The papal inheritance of personal power within a rigid hierarchy is deeply objectionable; atheists are quite entitled to their opinion, because within the Catholic church, the faithful cannot speak freely and live in fear, a fear enjoined by Catholic doctrine.
It diminishes personal responsibility for one's actions and infects the social body, damaging educational and moral development.

Actually, all these cults, splinter groups and offshoots are the superstitionists' equivalent to cellphone plans: in the same way that the latter are designed to bamboozle consumers by making direct price comparisons impossible, the plethora of churches and splinter groups is intended to beat the atheists with sheer overload. As soon as one religion has been exposed as a fraud, three more pop up like mushrooms (nourished on similar stuff).

All religions are crutches, and if they help people who need a crutch, then they are a good thing. If they create viciousness, intolerance and spite, as appears to be the case even in this so-called enlightened age, then they are a bad thing.
Christians, Muslims, Jews, Latter Day Saintists, Scientologists, Mormons and Morons in general are convinced that they are entirely right at all times. But why should anybody care what I think, anymore than I should care what anybody else thinks of me?

One thing we all have in common, is our complete lack of significance in the long run.