The catholic church is the most grotesque and obnoxious institution on this planet. It is an entirely man made worldly power seeking institution that has nothing whatsoever to do with Real God.

There are other grotesque institutions, but what makes the catholic church most obnoxious, is its claim to represent God, Truth, and Reality --- the STENCH of "holiness".

It is doubly obnoxious because it also falsely claims to be the only source of "truth" in this world, implying that all other faith traditions (including protestants) and their resultant cultural expressions, are deluded and full of "relativistic" errors---and hence need to be converted to the "one true way". It thus pretends to have a claim on the totality of Humankind. A claim which is totally obnoxious.

Never mind that the Asian traditions have been around much, much longer than christianity which is really just a relatively new and aggressive bully on the block---wanting to muscle everybody else out of business, which it has done via it having been, and still IS an integral part of the Western imperial project and its drive to total power and control.

This reference provides some insight into why protestants have run out of steam.

1. http://www.aboutadidam.org/lesser_alternatives/new_age_spirituality.html

This reference, especially the first essay, explains how and why the church came to be a worldly power---which had nothing whatsoever to do with Truth---in fact Truth with a capital T became unacceptable, damnable even. Witness the persecution of Illuminated saints such as Theresa of Avila and St John of The Cross by the ecclesiastical "authorities".

1. http://www.dabase.org/proofch6.htm

This essay/talk asks the question "Who Owns the Holy Brightness" and points out that ALL religions are man made cults.

1. http://www.adidam.org/flash/truthandreligion/index.html

Plus a discussion of Real God 1. http://www.realgod.org

To the layman, any argument as to which branch of Christianity should be dominant is undermined by the question, why does it matter?

Sells' answer is that all these different approaches represent "a falling away from Jesus’ promise 'that you may be one'".

If you interpret this to mean that there is only one "true" path through Christianity, this is going to be a tough row to hoe, I suspect.

There is, after all, a vast range of approaches to the subject, ranging from the Pentecostals (are they actually Protestants as well as being Pentecostal?) through the Baptists and Methodists (and many, many others) to the incense-and-robes crowd. This last category possibly includes Anglicans as well... or is that just "High Anglicans"?

Best of luck trying to sort out that little lot, Sells.

The problem of course is that while people are often happy to be told the "what" (Jesus is God etc.), they frequently resist also being told the "how" (bend the knee, genuflect, kiss the robes etc.) It isn't like a recipe for Aiguillettes de Canard au Cerises, where the quality of the end product is tightly bound with the process. It's more like a house, where there are myriad ways to progress from raw materials to a comfortable dwelling, each appealing to different people in different ways.

I think this is a case of "be careful what you wish for", Sells. Outside the narrow caste of "professional theologians both Protestant and Catholic" who concern themselves with "the centre of the faith", there is a bunch of people who have rejected Catholicism for a reason. Or many reasons, what do I know.

But I do understand human nature, and - especially where religion is concerned - people dislike being torn from their comfort zone.

If the heads of the various factions do get together and agree hey, we are all Roman Catholics really, you are going to see a major increase in the number of people who are disillusioned with the concept of religion as a whole.

And I'm sure that's not what Jesus had in mind either.

If you dig a bit, you will find that the 'sacrement of indulgence' is alive and well..... "the selling of forgiveness" in street language.

Luther railed against it.. and I know that He who said "I came not to be served but to serve and give my life as a ransom for many" would also rebuke such a practice.

Paul who wrote

Romans 1:17 for in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

So...any Church (so called) which seeks to 'sell' forgiveness... is clearly way off the Biblical track.

The RC church may (and does) respond that 'true' faith is when it is 'through' the RC Church, but I find the call of the Lord is not to 'a church' but to the Almighty..... when they respond to that call, they 'become' the Church/Ekklesia/congregation.

ORGANIZATIONAL UNITY vs SPIRITUAL UNITY.
Sells fails to observe that being part of an 'organization' saves no one. You can be a Catholic sinner or a protestant sinner.. or a worldly/secular sinner. The true body of Christ exists in perfect unity among the various traditions, and it consists of those who name the name of Christ, as Lord and Savior and enjoy fellowship one with another irrespective of 'brand'.

Peter Sellick's argument is based upon the flawed premise that the Roman Catholic Church has changed.

The Roman Catholic Church has never changed, and never will.

Its tactics and manoeuvers change according to the circumstances in which it finds itself, but its strategy is the same yesterday, today and forever - to rule the world in phoney righteousness through the man ordained as Bishop of Rome.

Papal primacy is the sticking point, not only with Protestants but with Eastern Orthodoxy. The Bishop of Rome will never yield his primacy because he cannot. To do so would be to admit that he has no 'apostolic succession,' has no authority passed on by the Apostle Peter, and is not the "Vicar of Christ" on earth.

Of course it can be conclusively demonstrated that there is no validity to any of the claims of the Bishop of Rome, but that is another matter.

It would seem that some brains are hard wired for religion, while others wonder in amazement that seemingly sensible persons can get so excited about essential meaningless issues. Such as how many angels can live on a pin head.

David Biello writing in Scientific American Mind of Oct/Nov 2007 makes it all clear. Studies on Buddhist or Carmelite nuns using modern brain imaging techniques indicates that certain brain areas including the temporal lobe are activated during religious experiences.

It has also been suggested that some religious experiences are a manifestation of temporal lobe epilepsy. This work is consistent with the notion that the brain can be conditioned to respond in a religious way by physical acts such as prayer, fasting, self-flagellation or the ingestion of hallucinogenic chemicals.

Interestingly, the Carmelite nuns interpreted the findings differently. To their way of thinking brain activity was not the cause of religious experience. They saw the images as evidence of God interacting with their brains.

This is a good example of Thomas Kuhn’s approach to the history and philosophy of science. When new “facts and observations” become available and require a new paradigm. The defenders of the old paradigm invent a series of ad hoc explanations and modifications to preserve the established theories.

Surely, given time the old religious paradigms will be swept away and with it the absurd theological claims of protestants, Catholics and indeed of all believers in the heavenly menagerie

Anglican longing for Rome! Come from the Irish-Catholic tradition. Left 35 years ago but remained in touch. Been back since - Outback where the only viable community was Catholic.

Am female. Catholicism has nothing to offer me. There is the old saying, referencing Irish-Catholicism: there are only two types of women: whores or virgins. Little understanding of women in the halls of Roman power.

I have grave difficulties with the priesthood - Roman or Anglican. Prefer the priesthood of all believers. Had too much of priestly power and ambitious clericalism. Even with women priests, I sometimes see women following the same sterile path as male colleagues.

Am amused by Anglicans who think they are the same as Roman Catholics. No understanding of cultural nuances. It is like a family separated over time and distance, getting together rarely. They are not in touch with all that has happened and influenced each in between gatherings and each has developed separate cultures while apart.

I warn against any idea that Anglicans can be a separate order/bloc within Catholicism. A group of English Anglicans tried this when Hume was in charge. Anti-female ordination clerics discussed crossing to Rome. They were rebuffed because Rome doesn't accept you because you are against something. You have to join Rome on its terms: lock, stock and usually the barrel as well.

Vatican II has brought changes not present in Anglicanism. Many Catholic priests think that many Anglican priests are too into bells, smells, and pretty frocks.

The clerical collar does not go over big with your average Catholic Parish Priest. Vestments and clerical garb have been simplified. The only place I've seen a biretta in years is on the head of an Anglican priest. Nearly fell over when I saw a Roman soutane on a staffer at St Paul's Cathedral at the installation of Ab Philip Freire! Thought the clock had rolled back 50 years!

If Rome was on to-morrow's agenda I wouldn't sign up. Denominationalism is scandalous. Economic rationalism is distorted progression of Protestant attitudes to scripture. I think I would be off to the Quakers.