@Nasogold,

In Igboland there is a saying that goes:

A tuoro omara, o mara, a tuoro ofeke, o fenye isi n'ohia.  If you tell a wise one, he understands; tell a dunce, he runs into the bush.

TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE, THE CATHOLICS ARE WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS THEY ARE: A GREAT LovePeddler AND MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND THE ABORMINATION OF THE EARTH,  DRUNK WITH THE BLOOD OF THE SAINTS (KILLED 68M SAINTS IN THE DARK AGES) AND THEY WILL END UP IN PERDITION - IN HELL.
REVELATION 17.
AND IN CHAPTER 18 THE BIBLE SAYS,  COME OUT FROM AMONG THEM.

As for the above, come back with the facts and scripture to back up your claim, then maybe. . . .just maybe, we can talk.  Until then 'rie nsi'. . . .

''Let me ask you again, even as I have stated this somewhere in another thread. Why do you hang Jesus Christ pictures in your house? Don’t you know that pictures are still images?''

to who ever asked, 'why put the picture of your grand father in your house?'

@omenuko

What you posted are deeds of some of the people within the Church.  Their deeds cannot be misconstrued with the teachings of the Church.

You still miss the point. I don't question the fact that your articles of faith or what-have-you may be against the atrocities committed in the name of your church. My problem is: why can't there be a formal apology? Why aren't perpetrators punished? 1 in 10 priests in Boston alone has abused children. and NO SINGLE AMERICAN PRIEST has been punished by the Catholic church. It doesn't have to be written in a book for me to take it as your doctrine. Your top echelon condoning despicable behaviour is enough for me.

The Pope himself (Benedict) apologized to the victims when he visited the US this past summer (2008).  What are you talking about?  Do you want him to get on his knees and give every single victim an personal apology.  Ok, since you are much much holier than us, how should the Pope deliver his apology (which he has already done)? 

The Pope was VERY careful NOT to apologise. Go and read the transcript of his message you are talking about. He said he "regrets" the actions of the priests. That's what we all do. We regret their disgusting actions.
When he said that thing about muslims, he said it was his personal opinion and not church views.  his "regrets" about priest pedophilia isn't an official RCC apology, my friend, just his personal opinion as a person. He was careful not to give an official apology. same goes for the holocaust and all that. Pope John Paul "regretted" RCC's involvement too. but no official apology. Go and read up.  In politics you NEVER apologise outrightly for sensitive issues. Why do you think there is no formal apology from the West about the transatlantic slavetrade? They may "regret" and "compensate" but never apologise. That's politics.



Also, it is obvious you do not know how punctuation works. Go back to my posts and observe my punctuation and with any luck, you'll realise how utterly out of place your replies to my posts were. And by the way, IN GOD'S NAME is a book. It all comes down to your difficulty with punctuation.

I don't know why these hypocrites (mostly pentecostals) keep attacking the catholic church even though i am not a catholic i am have a great deal of respect for them since they are the first church and most of the other churches branched away from their off shoots. Even though the catholic church might have one or two short comings the pentecostals critisizing them are ten times worse and they are the ones destroying christianity today through mostly false doctrine and commercialization of the church. May God forgive us all. If i have my way this useless thread would be locked. Can you imagine this same hypocrites that critisize the catholic church use the same bible originally compiled by the catholics. Anybody that claims to be christian and does not acknowledge the contribution of the catholic church to christianity should stop using the bible (which they compiled) and go and write or compile his own bible.

@kunleoshob

And where was it written that they were the first Church. This Catholic Church is filled with Satans mogs. The Church murdered so many in its History. The Church is a dead Church.

Kunleoshob Again there is no modicum of truth that the Catholic Church compiled the bible.

Anybody that claims to be christian and does not acknowledge the contribution of the catholic church to christianity should stop using the bible (which they compiled) and go and write or compile his own bible

Then we should be worshiping the Catholic Church and not God even if there is any truth in what you say. However if you know of the 70 scholars and know about Tyndale then you will not say anything about Catholics compiling.

All of Scripture is given by God using Human being wether they be in councils or Churches. You cannot say The catholic are responsible for the compilation. God has moved from dealing with groups or nations but he deals more in individuals. That is why He your personal Lord and Savior. Though God has an eternal convenant with Isreal but there is a reason to that and what do we even see now how God suspended the convenant.

Kunle is confusing compilation with canonization. what the Caths contributed to (not did exclusively) was canonization (of THEIR own version with 73 books). And in any case,  canonization my foot.

Backslider:

God has moved from dealing with groups or nations but he deals more in individuals.

People do not realise this simple truth. God's always been that way. church this, church that. a million religions, a billion church denominations. A handful of God's people. pathetic.

I would not join or continue contributing to this meaningless thread, i believe all denominations have their own faults and nobody as a right to condem the other. The fact that catholic leaders in history made mistakes or instituitionalized some wrong doctrine does not make them a cult. Today most of the younger generation attend pentecostal churches that preach what is not well grounded in scripture. we see them preach so many false doctine every day and take advantage of innocent christians yet it is the catholic church you people are persecuting. As far as i am concerned this persecution of the catholic church is a propanganda started by the pentecostal churches who are only interested in poaching their members and increasing the congregation of members in their own church for mostly material benefit. Cos i don't believe any geniune christian preacher would devote so much energy attacking another christian denomination that existed centuries b4 his own. As christians we are all members of the body of christ and we should seek out what draws us together and not what divides us. If i have my way as a christian, i would ban church denominations and ensure all churches come together under one umbrella (christ) but then that is impossible becos what drives most of these churches is not the love of christ but personal benefit. I implore all true christians that have the fear of God in them to stop this craze demonizing the catholic church. No denomination is perfect.

TOPIC-Roman Catholic Is Not A Church, But A Modernised Way Of Idolatry? If this topic is joke, make una stop am O!

@KunleOshob
Why u dey pass un-necessary judgement for Pentecoastal. Na u just talk say no denomination is perfect.

@carmelily

Kunle is confusing compilation with canonization. what the Caths contributed to (not did exclusively) was canonization (of THEIR own version with 73 books). And in any case,  canonization my foot.

And who canonized your version of the Bible (Martin Luther)?

@kunleoshob

And where was it written that they were the first Church. This Catholic Church is filled with Satans mogs. The Church murdered so many in its History. The Church is a dead Church.

Kunleoshob Again there is no modicum of truth that the Catholic Church compiled the bible.

Again, go and search your history. . . .the Catholic Church is the one that compiled the bible.  You can convince and brainwash yourself to kingdom come, but history is history and cannot be erased by you.

The Pope was VERY careful NOT to apologise. Go and read the transcript of his message you are talking about. He said he "regrets" the actions of the priests. That's what we all do. We regret their disgusting actions.
When he said that thing about muslims, he said it was his personal opinion and not church views.  his "regrets" about priest pedophilia isn't an official RCC apology, my friend, just his personal opinion as a person. He was careful not to give an official apology. same goes for the holocaust and all that. Pope John Paul "regretted" RCC's involvement too. but no official apology. Go and read up.  In politics you NEVER apologise outrightly for sensitive issues. Why do you think there is no formal apology from the West about the transatlantic slavetrade? They may "regret" and "compensate" but never apologise. That's politics.

Ok, so just because he did not use the phrase, "I apologize", according to you, he did no make an apology?  What does an apology mean to you?  See below:  

a·pol·o·gy        /əˈpɒlədʒi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-pol-uh-jee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -gies.
1. a written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another.
2.    An acknowledgment expressing regret or asking pardon for a fault or offense.

Excerpts from what the Pope said about the scandal (from www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,547996,00.html):

The pope told reporters he was "deeply ashamed" of the child sex abuse scandal that had rocked the US Catholic church. "It is a great suffering for the church in the United States and for the church in general and for me personally that this could happen," Benedict said. "It is difficult for me to understand how it was possible that priests betray in this way their mission ,  to these children.". . . ."He showed himself to be deeply ashamed and spoke of the 'large suffering' inflicted by representatives of the church. He did not resort to some line of defense, as some bishops in the US (and sadly also in Germany) did and still do. He made it clear that paedophiles could not become priests (and thankfully distinguished pedophilia from homosexuality). He confessed guilt and promised atonement."

What else should he do?  Again, what these priest did is nowhere part of Catholic teaching, but he (Pope) apologized on behalf of the Church.

@carmelily
On bahave of the entire catholic church We are sorry for you, that you slept with our priest at your tender Age. Did you enjoy it? He did not force you did he? I hope you were still virgin then? Did he invited you or you went to the house of a man without a wife to tempt him.
He failed and enjoy the bush meat. Why are you now asking for apology?

Once a priest confesses his sin is forgiven.
They are clean.
You need to confess your own sin of temptation.

Omenuko:

@carmelily

And who canonized your version of the Bible (Martin Luther)?

I do not have a "version" of the Bible and i do not plan to.

he (Pope) apologized on behalf of the Church. Ok, so just because he did not use the phrase, "I apologize", according to you, he did no make an apology?  What does an apology mean to you?

I think i should ask you that? what is an apology? if i arrive at the scene of a fatal accident where 100 people died and i say " this is such an unfortunate and regrettable accident" have i taken responsibility for it and apologised? You need to understand what an apology entails and maybe then you would better appreciate why he stopped short of giving it.
You also need to understand the difference between an official and a personal opinion. He never said anything about the "regrets" on behalf of the church, i wonder where you got that from. You need to read[b] THE ART OF SEDUCTION[/b] by Robert Greene. seriously. He never apologised, but simple minds like you assumed he did. The victims know better.

What else should he do? 

Offer an unreserved apology ON BEHALF OF RCC and punish the perpetrators. Simple._{or not so simple lol}

@Hnd-holder

You are such a joker. It took you 24 hours to be able to respond to that my quip? hahaha. Your English sef na die.  Like I told you o, they said i was overaged. Na small, small boys them want

Personally sha I think the church even tried to give regretting statements all those wey dey siphon money from people everyday never even start to feel bad not to talk of apologise.
This thread funny sha, what I know is that a lot of resources, blood and lives have been lost all in the name of this story that increasingly looks like a fairy tale.

@Chrisbenogor
Catholics are far better than you. Atheism and paganism will not get you anywhere.

To ALL those who said the Catholic Church did not compile the Bible, please tell us who did.

If we are not Christians then by all means tell us how is it that Christianity was able to be preserved till today, maybe you don't know history but your so called Christianity didn't start until the 15th centrury or so, what happened in the other centuries, the devil was reigning in Christianity and he preserved Christianity?

Does that even make sense to you?

Like I have stated before when you are able to truly define and defend your faith from the Bible and with reason (yup that's right God gave us a brain for a reason, so use it) then you will be worthy of speaking.

Until then if you've got nothing positive to say, SHUT YOUR TRAP!!

SO ONCE AGAIN IF YOU FEEL YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN WHO KNOWS THE FAITH AND YOU CAN DEFEND THE FAITH THEN PLEASE PERMIT ME TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS.

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE CHOICE TO SKIP ANYONE.

You all have scrutinized us, and you still are blind now it's time to scrutinize you to open your eyes.


ANYONE WILLING?

@Chrisbenogor
Catholics are far better than you. Atheism and paganism will not get you anywhere

Please don't speak for Catholics. We are not better than anyone. Thank you.
God created us equally and gave everyone human dignity by calling us his children, so please don't make such comments. No one is better, thank you.

Chris I apologise on his behalf.

The Pope was VERY careful NOT to apologise. Go and read the transcript of his message you are talking about. He said he "regrets" the actions of the priests. That's what we all do. We regret their disgusting actions.
When he said that thing about muslims, he said it was his personal opinion and not church views. his "regrets" about priest pedophilia isn't an official RCC apology, my friend, just his personal opinion as a person. He was careful not to give an official apology. same goes for the holocaust and all that. Pope John Paul "regretted" RCC's involvement too. but no official apology. Go and read up. In politics you NEVER apologise outrightly for sensitive issues. Why do you think there is no formal apology from the West about the transatlantic slavetrade? They may "regret" and "compensate" but never apologise. That's politics

The Pope Has been very careful to apologise. But your opinion doesn't matter, those who were wouned got healing and they are still with the Church.


I seriosuly think a lot of people need a vocabulary lesson. You know, word and definition of word. Education was lost on some people.

You've solved the seeming mystery on this thread!The origin of the Catholic church. Bravo!
At least, it's settled that 100 AD means not from the Apostles

And you've shown just how much you lack english comprehension. I said the earliset record, maybe you don't know what a record is, but it is a way of keeping information, now the earliest record meaning the farthest that we have found to date, but does not mean that it is not the only ones.

But still your argument is weak Revelation was probably written between the dates of 81-96 A.D. meaning apostles were still alive at that time because Revelations was written by St. John the apostle.

SO WHETHER YOU ARE CHRISTIAN OR NOT, WHY DON'T YOU ACTUALLY KNOW INFORMATION FIRST BEFORE SPEAKING.

Ever been to Rome?

No, and I don't need to go there to know that Catholics don't practise Idolatry.
I don't need to go to china to know what they look like or what food they eat.

If you don't know what idolatry is, then just ask.

Do you even realise that the Vatican is a political entity? Do you know your own church?? Did you follow the election of Pope Benedict?

One the Vatican in not a political entity. It is not governed by the world, true, but it does not lead as the rest of the world does. It does not create allies or 'governmental' rules. Got it.
Last I check I didn't vote for the Pope and neither did other Catholics.
I didn't see campaign slogans or party punch lines or party conventions.
Could you kindly tell me what political party he is affiliated with?

To mention a few. and by the way,  there's still no official apology. The Pope just "regrets" that it happened. well, so do we all!

I didn't actually realise that actions of a few equals doctrine. So according to your reasoning, my guess is because humans commit murder then there is a doctrine of murder being allowed.

The Pope has officially apologised or were you sleeping? Please can you define apology?
Because I thought regretting and publicly stating so is an apology.
Thank God those who were hurt knew it was an apology

PUHLEEZ! Do not display your ignorance. You do not know the role of the Vatican in WWII and The Holocaust Don't play ignorant here. Go to google and type vatican role in WWII and the holocaust. Get some popcorn .

You know what why don't you educate me on it?
Did we call for the war, did we advocate the war, maybe you didn't know that a lot of priests died in the holocaust.
maybe you don't know the story on the persecution of catholics, maybe you don't know about the ku klux klan hunts for catholics. before civil rights who were the target for the kkk.

sweetheart when you actually know history instead of speculation, come back and have this convo, k.

Lo, Peter "The 1st Pope" according to RCC, was happily married. How do I know? He had a mother-in-law whom Christ healed of an ailment!

Stop picking and choosing what to talk about, who said he asn't married? Was Jesus wrong for saying that there are those who choose to stay unmarried?
Peter was married but he was still celibate, or did his wife and family run around the world with him when he was spreading the gospel?
Were they in jail with him?

As for the fist pope, did Jesus give him the keys to the kingdom of heaven or not? did he give it to any other personother than peter?
why did peter get the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and why is his name peter? do you know what peter means?

I mean Jesus said there are those who choose to stay unmarried for the kingdom of heaven or is that too much english language to comprehend. Read it really slowly, you may be able to pick it up.
And yes Paul spoke about his unmarital state, and he applauded it. He let them know there was nothing wrong with it, he even encourage those like him to stay like him.
Or is St. Paul wrong?

It amazes me those who say they are having fun are the ones that are getting their panties in a bunch replying to me. Why did you reply?

Jesus was certainly persecuted for doing the right thing as the Church is also persecuted for doing the right thing. Jesus himself said, if they persecute me how much more will they persecute you.
So when the persecutions stop then I will be worried, but I am satisfied with the persecutions, it only means we are doing exactly as Jesus did.

See they thought Jesus was doing wrong, just as you all think we are doing wrong. They didn't understand Jesus, just as you all don't understand us. Jesus never wavered his stance just as we will never waver our stance. They thought he was in cohorts with the devil, you all think we are in cohorts with the devil. They all thought Jesus was arrogant, especially when he forgave sins, you all think we're arrogant.

See a resemblance? it only goes to show the Body of Christ, the Church.
I mean the list is long babe, for 2000 years the Church stands, and it will stand for forever.

So cry, bang your head on the wall, name us whatever you want, we will still be here.

As Jesus himself said when he entrusted the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter after giving him that name, "the gates of hell shall never prevail against it.
Infact let me display it for you.

Matthew 16:17-19
17 Blessed ae you Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And I say to you, you are Peter (meaning rock), and upon this rock, i will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHatever you bind on eart, shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven."

If you don't know, now you know.

~Lady~:

And you've shown just how much you lack english comprehension. I said the earliset record, maybe you don't know what a record is, but it is a way of keeping information, now the earliest record meaning the farthest that we have found to date, but does not mean that it is not the only ones.

But still your argument is weak Revelation was probably written between the dates of 81-96 A.D. meaning apostles were still alive at that time because Revelations was written by St. John the apostle.

SO WHETHER YOU ARE CHRISTIAN OR NOT, WHY DON'T YOU ACTUALLY KNOW INFORMATION FIRST BEFORE SPEAKING.

No, and I don't need to go there to know that Catholics don't practise Idolatry.
I don't need to go to china to know what they look like or what food they eat.

If you don't know what idolatry is, then just ask.

That is a controversial area. Contextual analysis of the gospel of John and the book of revelations suggests both were not authored by the same person.

~Lady~:

One the Vatican in not a political entity. It is not governed by the world, true, but it does not lead as the rest of the world does. It does not create allies or 'governmental' rules. Got it.
Last I check I didn't vote for the Pope and neither did other Catholics.
I didn't see campaign slogans or party punch lines or party conventions.
Could you kindly tell me what political party he is affiliated with?

1. The pope is voted in by cardinals . . . quite similar to how heads of government are chosen in several nations of the world including Pakistan, Israel (Livni is widely expected to replace Olmert even though she was only elected by party officials and not by a popular vote). In Greece, the president is elected every five yrs by parliament and not by popular vote. Greeks can also claim not to vote for their president, it doesnt make the position any less political.

2. There are no party slogans or party punchlines or party conventions . . . neither will you find any in Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia. Are these countries not political entities? Do you know which political party the leader of Saudi Arabia is affiliated with?

3. I hope you also know that there are papal embassies in several countries around the world and that you require a visa to travel to the Vatican city.

~Lady~:

Peter was married but he was still celibate, or did his wife and family run around the world with him when he was spreading the gospel?
Were they in jail with him?

That is factually untrue.

@ david

i can't copy and paste for some apparent reason.

i didn't know much about the other nations, but i do know that saudi arabia has a king and that's through bloodline, so i don't see their impotance in this.

but can you factually show me that what i stated above on peter is untrue.

~Lady~:

@ david

i can't copy and paste for some apparent reason.

i didn't know much about the other nations, but i do know that saudi arabia has a king and that's through bloodline, so i don't see their impotance in this.

but can you factually show me that what i stated above on peter is untrue.

Neither can you factually tell us that Peter was celibate simply because the bible does not record who he travelled with.
I am merely posting statements of fact . . . i'm no longer interested in emotional but largely vacuous arguments. You either take it or leave it.

@~Lady~
Peter celibate? his wife na decoration abi?Peter means "owner of the keys to the kingdom"?? So when Jesus said "on this ROCK" you guys jumped to the conclusion that Peter meant Rock/gatekeeper? Gee! Catholics and their dogma and fairy tales lol. Really can't stop laughing.
And don't tell me you are so simple as to take politics to mean political parties and voting and campaigning. when we talk about the history of Nigerian politics, for instance, do we include military dictatorships? Do they have campaigns and slogans and voting? Thank God David pointed out the embassies and visa thing, that's probably the most obvious proof. Please read up. No one argues that fact. Not even the Vatican.

And John the Apostle wrote the Book of Revelation?? Don't tell me that you do not know it was a different John. In fact Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not even write the Gospels. Hence the "according to" preceding the titles of the books and the absence of the 1st person narrative. John the Apostle didn't write any book of the Bible.
You don't see a book written by the author with "according to" preceding his name: *OLIVER TWIST according to Charles Dickens.

See they thought Jesus was doing wrong, just as you all think we are doing wrong. They didn't understand Jesus, just as you all don't understand us. Jesus never wavered his stance just as we will never waver our stance. They thought he was in cohorts with the devil, you all think we are in cohorts with the devil. They all thought Jesus was arrogant, especially when he forgave sins, you all think we're arrogant.

That's exactly what the Mccain camp thinks of Obama. Conclusion: he must be the body of Christ! LMFAO!

By the way, what denomination was the Early Church again? The one you say you guys "preserved". so funny.

And you say i reply you? you were the one who replied me from nowhere! lol. You are the defensive one, sister. my fun is on!


The only remotely sensible post came from Omenuko. Your responses are full of chaff programmed into you guys by the RCC, no independent reasoning. Just baseless, rote replies from every catholic you talk to. The Vatican not political? Gee, you guys USE YOUR BRAINS!!!!!!!!!

I think David summed it up nicely:

davidylan*:

i'm no longer interested in emotional but largely vacuous arguments. You either take it or leave it.

@~Lady~
I apologize to you as well.
Please don't quote me again. I no dey like am.

@Chrisbenogor

@carmelily

Peter celibate?  his wife na decoration abi?

Yes, Peter was married.  Does that mean celibacy is bad?  Look, as far as marriage and the Priesthood, the church recognizes both institutions as very holy; the Catholic Church has elevated them both to the level of sacrements (of which there are seven in total).  Most Catholics marry, and all Catholics are taught to venerate marriage as a holy institution and sacrement -an action of God upon our souls; one of the holiest things we encounter in this life.  The requirement of celibacy for the priesthood has not always been the case in the Catholic Church.  The decision can be reversed by the church authority in the future.  A celibate priesthood is not a dogma of the Catholic Church.  Furthermore, the Latin rite Church (one of many rites within the Catholic Church) is the only rite within the Catholic Church that has a celibate priesthood.  There are other churches and rites within the Catholic Church that have a married priesthood (e.g., Byzantine, Alexandrian, Ge'ez rite based in Ethiopia , Syriac, the Chaldean rite in Iraq, the Malabar rite is based in India, etc.).  It is only the Latin rite Church (the largest of the rites within the Catholic Church) that everyone sees and lambasts for having a celibate priesthood.  Even within the Latin rite, there are some married priests (converts from other denominations who were married before entering the Catholic Church).   

I think the point ~Lady~ is trying to make is that celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God is not a bad thing.  The Church does not make it mandatory for people to be celibate to serve God.  What is required is celibacy for the priesthood and no one is forced to become a priest.  St. Paul teaches us that celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is good.

1 Corinthians Chapter 7 
32: I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33: but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 34: and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. 35: I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
37: But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. 38: So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

Peter means "owner of the keys to the kingdom"??   So when Jesus said "on this ROCK" you guys jumped to the conclusion that Peter meant Rock/gatekeeper? Gee! Catholics and their dogma and fairy tales lol. Really can't stop laughing.

Peter was given the authority to bind and loose and given the keys to the kingdom of heaven.  Simon's name was changed to rock and the act of God changing someone's name always signifies something important within the Bible.  When Jesus said 'on this rock' (i.e., Peter himself, his confession, and his faith) he will build his church we Catholics take it literaly.  While Peter and the apostles are the foundation of the Church and the former being the leader, Jesus Christ is the designer, archetect, and builder.  It is Christ that is the head of the Church.  It is the Holy Spirit that is guiding the Church.  I don't think anyone is talking about Peter being the 'gatekeeper' or anything.  Simply put, Jesus Christ gave Peter the authority to lead his the Church here on earth (aka the Church Militant).

Matthew Chapter 16 
15: He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16: Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17: And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

And to be fair:

And don't tell me you are so simple as to take politics to mean political parties and voting and campaigning. when we talk about the history of Nigerian politics, for instance, do we include military dictatorships? Do they have campaigns and slogans and voting? Thank God David pointed out the embassies and visa thing, that's probably the most obvious proof. Please read up. No one argues that fact. Not even the Vatican.

What you wrote above is true.  The Catholic Church, from the essence of its mandate (preach the gospel of Jesus Christ), is political in a sense.  It is political only in regards to issues of faith and morals affecting Christians and those that are oppressed or being persecuted.  In this same context. . . .every church (denomination) or religious institution is political.  As Christians, we are meant to preach the gospel and bring about the kingdom of God.  There is no way one can preach Jesus and not be political.     

By the way, what denomination was the Early Church again? The one you say you guys "preserved".

The early church was not a denomination. . . .it was the denomination and it was holy, catholic, and apostolic.  The Catholic Church derives its holiness, catholicity, and apostolic succession from Jesus Christ via the early church.

Omenuko:

I think the point ~Lady~ is trying to make is that celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God is not a bad thing. The Church does not make it mandatory for people to be celibate to serve God. What is required is celibacy for the priesthood and no one is forced to become a priest. St. Paul teaches us that celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is good.

If i judge correctly, carmelilly's question (and I) is where is that requirement stated in your bible? We have clearly defined requirements for the office of bishops, priests, pastors in the bible . . . where did you find the requirement for celibacy?

Omenuko:

Peter was given the authority to bind and loose and given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. When Jesus said 'on this rock' (i.e., Peter himself, his confession, and his faith) he will build his church we Catholics take it literaly.

the "rock" here refered to Peter's revelation of Jesus Christ not on Peter the individual (the same man Christ said Satan had sought to sieve like chaff).

Omenuko:

What you wrote above is true. The Catholic Church, from the essence of its mandate (preach the gospel of Jesus Christ), is political in a sense. It is political only in regards to issues of faith and morals affecting Christians and those that are oppressed or being persecuted. In this same context. . . .every church (denomination) or religious institution is political. As Christians, we are meant to preach the gospel and bring about the kingdom of God. There is no way one can preach Jesus and not be political.

That is a poor excuse for the politicisation of the catholic church. Christ preached without being political for 3.5 yrs, the apostles in the bible were not political in any way . . . how then can you preach Jesus and be political? Do you require embassies, visas, elections to preach Jesus? Did Christ have embassies in Greece, Syria and Jerusalem?

Omenuko:

The early church was not a denomination. . . .it was the denomination and it was holy, catholic, and apostolic. The Catholic Church derives its holiness, catholicity, and apostolic succession from Jesus Christ via the early church.

This is another oft propagated falsehood. The early church wasnt catholic at all. Men like Peter, Timothy and co were married. Paul advocated that those who felt like it shld get married. When the bible talks of Bishops, it describes then as HUSBANDS OF ONE WIFE!

carmelily:

The only remotely sensible post came from Omenuko. Your responses are full of chaff programmed into you guys by the RCC, no independent reasoning. Just baseless, rote replies from every catholic you talk to. The Vatican not political? Gee, you guys USE YOUR BRAINS!!!!!!!!!

I'm just tired, i could have pulled up several people who virtually came to the same conclusion about lady before eventually giving up arguing with her. If you notice, most people prefer to respond to Omenuko alone.

Yes, Peter was married.  Does that mean celibacy is bad?  Look, as far as marriage and the Priesthood, the church recognizes both institutions as very holy; the Catholic Church has elevated them both to the level of sacrements (of which there are seven in total).  Most Catholics marry, and all Catholics are taught to venerate marriage as a holy institution and sacrement -an action of God upon our souls; one of the holiest things we encounter in this life.  The requirement of celibacy for the priesthood has not always been the case in the Catholic Church.  The decision can be reversed by the church authority in the future.  A celibate priesthood is not a dogma of the Catholic Church.  Furthermore, the Latin rite Church (one of many rites within the Catholic Church) is the only rite within the Catholic Church that has a celibate priesthood.  There are other churches and rites within the Catholic Church that have a married priesthood (e.g., Byzantine, Alexandrian, Ge'ez rite based in Ethiopia , Syriac, the Chaldean rite in Iraq, the Malabar rite is based in India, etc.).  It is only the Latin rite Church (the largest of the rites within the Catholic Church) that everyone sees and lambasts for having a celibate priesthood.  Even within the Latin rite, there are some married priests (converts from other denominations who were married before entering the Catholic Church).

Your take here on celibacy appears balanced; but I'D doubt this is the "mainstream" opinion within the Catholic Church; several others appear to understand differently.

The Church does not make it mandatory for people to be celibate to serve God.  What is required is celibacy for the priesthood and no one is forced to become a priest.  St. Paul teaches us that celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is good.

Doesn't this also mean that people who want to be married and also want to be priests are blocked from being both, and by a statute of man and not of God?
.

Omenuko:

I think the point ~Lady~ is trying to make is that celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God is not a bad thing.  The Church does not make it mandatory for people to be celibate to serve God.  What is required is celibacy for the priesthood and no one is forced to become a priest.  St. Paul teaches us that celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is good.

Twice the bible defines the requirements for a Bishop -

1 Timothy 3:   1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.    2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
  3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
  4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
  5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
  6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
  7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Titus 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;    8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
  9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

We also know that old testament priests (levites) were married because they had sons who took over the priesthood i.e. Aaron and Abiathar.

We know that the old testament prophets were married . . . Eli, Samuel.

Where did this unbiblical requirement for celibacy come from?

If i judge correctly, carmelilly's question (and I) is where is that requirement stated in your bible? We have clearly defined requirements for the office of bishops, priests, pastors in the bible . . . where did you find the requirement for celibacy?

Did you not read my response.  It is only the Latin rite church (one rite within the Catholic Church) that has a celibate priesthood.  This is a tradition of that Church (Latin rite).  The requirement of celibacy for the priesthood is not found in the Bible.  The Pope can stand up tomorrow and proclaim no more celibacy requirement for the priesthood.  I don't understand your disagreement.  Besides, one does not have to be a priest to preach the word of God.    

the "rock" here refered to Peter's revelation of Jesus Christ not on Peter the individual (the same man Christ said Satan had sought to sieve like chaff)

Your opinion is noted.

That is a poor excuse for the politicisation of the catholic church. Christ preached without being political for 3.5 years, the apostles in the bible were not political in any way . . . how then can you preach Jesus and be political? Do you require embassies, visas, elections to preach Jesus? Did Christ have embassies in Greece, Syria and Jerusalem?

I'm not understanding you. . . .are you saying the Catholic Church should not have embassies, visas, and elections?  You people self. . . .your minds are hell bent of viewing everything the Church does as bad.  During Christ's time did he not disturb the political status quote?  Did not Pontius Pilot (Governor at the time) have Jesus scourged and crucified for his preaching of the kingdom of God.  Jesus' preaching by dafualt is political in a sense.  What he was preaching is totally contrary to the interest of earthly authorities.  Did not the leaders of the Jews feel threatened by Jesus and his followers.  Did not John the Baptiste call out Herod for his immorality.  Did not Herod imprison and execute John?  The Pope is the leader of almost a billion Catholics, anything he says can be seen as political.  By him preaching out against certain things his words will be seen as political regardless of how he delivers it.  

Just as multitudes begin accompanying Jesus he speaks a severe word of warning that 'If anyone does not hate father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.'  The point of this warning is not how literally we should take 'hate'.  No - the point is that in a society of very stable family ties, Jesus is calling into being a community of voluntary commitment, willing to take the hostility of the rest of society.  

Maybe I should ask you a question.  What do you mean by political?  In other words, what are some of the political things the Catholic Church is doing that is, according to you, wrong?

Omenuko:

Did you not read my response. It is only the Latin rite church (one rite within the Catholic Church) that has a celibate priesthood. This is a tradition of that Church (Latin rite). The requirement of celibacy for the priesthood is not found in the Bible. The Pope can stand up tomorrow and proclaim no more celibacy requirement for the priesthood. I don't understand your disagreement. Besides, one does not have to be a priest to preach the word of God.

I'm glad we can establish something here . . . much of the catholic doctrine is not founded on the bible but on traditions of men.

Omenuko:

Your opinion is noted.

Just as i noted yours . . . your treatise on politics and the church will be dealt with in another post.

1 Timothy 3: 1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Titus 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

So I take it, your church has bishops and they meet all of the above standards?

I'm glad we can establish something here . . . much of the catholic doctrine is not founded on the bible but on traditions of men.

Every Catholic doctrine is rooted in scripture.