The Priesthood of All Believers?

It is Anglicans not Angelicans.

-aint that the truth. . . :)

“That does not make sense to me, perhaps you can flesh it out a little bit. How could Israel be ‘full of error’ yet preserve the Word of God? Same goes with the Catholic Church.”

I guess I could flesh it out for you, but I can’t state the case any better than the Old Testament already has, so just go peruse it a bit. Flip to any one of the prophets and you’re sure to hit an indictment of Israel within a few paragraphs.

“If you are saying what I think you are saying I answered that already, the Church is Holy because Jesus Christ is Holy, not because of the sinful men of Israel or sinful Catholics.”

Then we should be in agreement. The idea that the Catholic church’s preservation of the Word can be used as evidence that the Catholic church didn’t err is nonsense. God preserved the Word, whether it was through the Catholic church, or through Israel, and that is a testament to His perfection, not to the perfection of some institution or group of men.

You may have heard of the vision of Pope Leo XIII. It is said that in the 1880’s Pope Leo had a vision of a conversation between Christ and Satan. Satan bragged that if he was given 100 years he would destroy the Catholic church. Our Lord reportedly assented.

Our Lady, appearing in Quito, Ecuador in 1610 said this: I make it known to you that from the end of the 19th century and shortly after the middle of the 20th century…. the passions will erupt and there will be a total corruption of customs (morals)….

“They will focus principally on the children in order to sustain this general corruption. Woe to the children of these times! It will be difficult to receive the Sacrament of Baptism, and also that of Confirmation…

“As for the Sacrament of Matrimony… it will be attacked and deeply profaned… The Catholic spirit will rapidly decay; the precious light of the Faith will gradually be extinguished… Added to this will be the effects of secular education, which will be one reason for the dearth of priestly and religious vocations.

“The Sacrament of Holy Orders will be ridiculed, oppressed, and despised… The Devil will try to persecute the ministers of the Lord in every possible way; he will labor with cruel and subtle astuteness to deviate them from the spirit of their vocation and will corrupt many of them. These depraved priests, who will scandalize the Christian people, will make the hatred of bad Catholics and the enemies of the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church fall upon all priests…

“Further, in these unhappy times, there will be unbridled luxury, which will ensnare the rest into sin and conquer innumerable frivolous souls, who will be lost. Innocence will almost no longer be found in children, nor modesty in women. In this supreme moment of need of the Church, the one who should speak will fall silent.”

Our Lady appeared at Akita, Japan in 1973 and said this:

“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate Me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres (other priests). Churches and altars will be sacked. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.”

Catholics are not obligated to believe these apparitions but I for one do. The point is, the Church has been infiltrated. Infiltrated by Satanic forces, communists, Masons and homosexuals who seek her destruction. The smoke of Satan, as Pope Leo III described it, has entered the church and that is why so much confusion and loss of faith is being seen today. The Church is undergoing the Passion of Our Lord.

Unfortunately things are going to get rough.

A mistress, while he was a cardinal. And those families attacked him (the Orsini are even rumored to have killed his brother!). The Sforzas (specifically, Caterina) tried to poison him! He just tried to unite the Papal States and return them to their proper function, much like Pope Julius II did.

You seem very ignorant.

...on that issue. Have you read much about him?

Except I believe that God also preserves the Catholic Church from teaching error. I believe the Catholic Church is the Church instituted and protected by Christ. It has always been made up of sinful men and some remarkably holy men.

My question is still the same, who is right? There can only be one truth or no truth.

I believe that the truth, the fullness of the faith, is deposited in the Catholic Church. Everything else is a watered down version of the truth.

I stand corrected, and I agree, celibacy or chastity.

Candidates for the semibary are asked if they have strong homosexual tendencies. If they answer yes they are not accepted into the seminary. Sadly some lie. They are the ones that eventually get into trouble when they can’t keep their hands off young boys. A homosexual priest is no different than a homosexual policeman or school teacher. Most can’t control their sexual urges. That is a fact.

“The point is, the Church has been infiltrated. Infiltrated by Satanic forces, communists, Masons and homosexuals who seek her destruction”

The Catholic Church has been infiltrated by protestantism.
That is the core problem.

“A mistress, while he was a cardinal.”

No, many mistresses, he just had one who was his favorite. Pope Pius II had to admonish him when he was a cardinal to stop engaging in public orgies! Of course he never actually stopped, he continued those excesses even as Pope.

“And those families attacked him (the Orsini are even rumored to have killed his brother!). The Sforzas (specifically, Caterina) tried to poison him!”

You find nothing the least bit unseemly that the so-called “Vicar of Christ” was throwing the military power of your church against his family’s enemies? Even if there was provocation, there was provocation in both directions in those feuds going back generations. I wasn’t aware the Pope was supposed to use his temporal power for revenge and personal squabbles, but I guess you learn something new everyday.

“He just tried to unite the Papal States and return them to their proper function, much like Pope Julius II did.”

Sure, it had nothing to do with securing power and privilege for his family, right?

Sorry, but it’s well established that he was a corrupt nepotist, more concerned with his family’s and his own personal power than the church. He bought his way into the papacy, and appointed his illegitimate children and other relatives into all sorts of positions of power, so your defense of him is nothing short of ludicrous.

I think one of his contemporary’s eulogy of him after his death sums him up quite well:

“Hardness and falseness, madness and hate, rage, lustful desire,
Thirsty for blood and for gold, a sponge that can never be filled,
Alexander the sixth, here I lie; Roma rejoice thee
Free now at last; for my death was to mean new life for you.
Alexander the sixth has smothered the world in carnage,
Pius revives it again, worthy in name and indeed,
Alexander has sold the altars and crosses and Christum:
What he had gotten before, now he distributes again.”

I agree.

Have you read the second half of what Pope Pius II said? It's usually not reported. Have you read about Alexander's response?

Yes, Alexander cared for his family. In a country filled with anti-Spanish sentiment, he could depend on few people. His uncle, Pope Calixtus III, acted similarly there.

Also, you have no definitive evidence of him "[buying] his way into the papacy". Stop with the libel.

I'll try to remember to send you a copy of the book, when it comes out later this year.

“Have you read the second half of what Pope Pius II said?”

Well, here’s the text of the letter, what exactly do you see in it that is exonerating?

“Dear Son: We have learned that your Worthiness, forgetful of the high office with which you are invested, was present from the seventeenth to the twenty-second hour, four days ago, in the gardens of John de Bichis, where there were several women of Siena, women wholly given over to worldly vanities. Your companion was one of your colleagues whom his years, if not the dignity of his office, ought to have reminded of his duty. We have heard the dance was indulged in all wantonness; none of the allurements of love were lacking, and you conducted yourself in a wholly worldly manner. Shame forbids mention of all that took place, for not only the things themselves but their very names are unworthy of your rank. In order that your lust might be all the more unrestrained, the husbands, fathers, brothers and kinsmen of the young women and girls were not invited to be present. You and a few servants were the leaders and inspirers of the orgy. It is said that nothing is now talked of in Siena but your vanity, which is the subject of universal ridicule. Certain it is that here at the baths, where Churchmen and the laity are very numerous, your name is on every one’s tongue. Our displeasure is beyond words, for your conduct has brought the holy state and office into disgrace; the people will say that they make us rich and great, not that we may live a blameless life, but that we may have means to gratify our passions. This is the reason the princes and the powers dispose us and the chancellor of the Church, and what renders your conduct all the more reprehensible is the fact that you have a seat among the cardinals, with the Pope, as advisers of the Holy See. We leave it to you whether it is becoming to your dignity to court young women, and to send the laity to mock us; this is why our own mode of living is thrown in our face when we reprove others. Contempt is the lot of Christ’s vicar because he seems to tolerate these actions. You, dear son, have charge of the bishopric of Valencia, the most important in Spain; you are one of those whom love fruits and wine, and during the whole day to give no thought to anything but sensual pleasures. People blame us on your account, and the memory of your blessed uncle, Calixtus, likewise suffers, and many say he did wrong in heaping honors upon you. If you try to excuse yourself on the ground of your youth, I say to you; you are no longer so young as not to see what duties your offices impose upon you. A Cardinal should be above reproach and an example of right living before the eyes of all men, and then we should have just grounds for anger when temporal princes bestow uncomplimentary epithets upon us; when they dispute with us the possession of our property and force us to submit ourselves to their will. Of a truth we inflict these wounds upon ourselves, and we ourselves are the cause of these troubles, since we by our conduct are daily diminishing the authority of the Church. Our punishment for it in this world is dishonor, and in the world to come well deserved torment. May, therefore, your good sense place a restraint on these frivolities, and may you never lose sight of your dignity; then people will not call you a vain gallant among men. If this occurs again we shall be compelled to show that it was contrary to our exhortation, and that it caused us great pain; and our censure will not pass over you without causing you a blush. We have always loved you and thought you worthy of our protection as a man of an earnest and modest character. Therefore, conduct yourself henceforth so that we may retain this our opinion of you, and may behold in you only the example of a well ordered life. Your years, which are not such as to preclude improvement, permit us to admonish you paternally.”

“Have you read about Alexander’s response?”

I have not.

“Yes, Alexander cared for his family. In a country filled with anti-Spanish sentiment, he could depend on few people. His uncle, Pope Calixtus III, acted similarly there.”

Ah, the “everybody else did it” defense. Not impressed.

“Also, you have no definitive evidence of him “[buying] his way into the papacy”. Stop with the libel.”

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits it is probable, and though of course not provable at this point, it was the general opinion of the time. Speaking of which, when the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that “Even after his ordination to the priesthood, in 1468, he continued his evil ways.” and “Alexander continued as Pope the manner of life that had disgraced his cardinalate”, your apologetics for the man seem especially futile.

“I’ll try to remember to send you a copy of the book, when it comes out later this year.”

Save it. When you try to deny that the man had more than one mistress, when he had several children by other mistresses, I have no expectation that your research skills or veracity would make for fruitful reading.

The reason Angelicans (Episcopalians), Lutherans and Presbyterians wear vestments is because they they made their services to be almost identical to the Catholic Church, especially Lutherans and Episcopalians who like to call themselves Catholic-lite.

I can't speak to Lutheran or Episcopalian practice, but most Presbyterian ministers I have known have not been interested in vestments of any kind. According to this fellow cited below, the current practice of some Presbyterians has arisen fairly recently in consequence of the ecumenical movement, which the conservative Reformed such as myself regard as being driven by heresy and theological liberalism (redundant, I know). This is probably why my experience with Presbyterian ministers is that they do not do vestments. When I do visit Reformed assemblies, I hang out exclusively with the conservatives. I have seen what the author below refers to as Geneva gowns, but rarely even that. Anyway, interesting to find someone who actually researched the evolution of vestments:

http://www.firstpresbyterianowensboro.com/view/what-we-wear

Disclaimer: Citing this article in no way suggests I agree with everything the author says. Only that I found his research enlightening.

Peace,

SR

We have always loved you and thought you worthy of our protection as a man of an earnest and modest character.

"The words 'from the seventeenth to the twenty-second hour' suggests lurid deeds in the falling darkness of a July night. In fact the hours at that time were numbered from half-an-hour after sunset. The time given was between one o'clock and six o'clock of the afternoon an innocent enough hour. We also know from another contemporary letter that the occasion for the party was a baptism at which Cardinal Borgia was a godfather. After the ceremony the clergy were invited to see the women dancing in the garden. The Cardinal's gallantry may well have been overdone, and the dancing under the eyes of two very broad-minded cardinals may well have been of the sensual type common enough at the time. Not a very edifying spectacle, no doubt, but one, we venture to suggest, that has had its parallels, allowing for the fashions and manners of different periods, often enough since. It is at any rate clear that the story which had come to the ears of the Pope was very much exaggerated, and Cardinal Rodrigo at once wrote to the Pope to explain what had really happened and to ask his forgiveness for any ill-behaviour on his part." - Michael de la Bedoyere (The Meddlesome Friar and the Wayward Pope, p. 61)

"We admit that, according to a very dubious, or spurious, letter of pope Pius II, cardinal de Borgia once took his recreation at no great distance from a company of Sienese ladies; but there is not a contemporary author to give a single instance, where he ever passed any of his time in female company." - Msgr. Peter de Roo (Material for a History of Pope Alexander VI, His Relatives, and His Time, Vol. 2, p. 269)

"..[T]he professionally celibate young Cardinal, whose good reputation we know, should have conducted himself in his private life in a manner consistent with his status. And there is good evidence that this was the case." - Michael de la Bedoyere (The Meddlesome Friar and the Wayward Pope, p. 63-64)

"The vicechancellor is a good-looking man, of joyful countenance and cheerful aspect, of refined and sweet language, delighting the distinguished women whom he meets, and attracting them in a wonderful manner to love him, more than a loadstone attracts fron; but it is admitted, to be sure, that he sends them off untouched." - Gaspar of Verona, an instructor of Alexander. (Msgr. Peter de Roo, Material for a History of Pope Alexander VI, His Relatives, and His Time, Vol. 2, p. 268)

Also, there are rumors of other mistresses and other children, but they are unsubstantiated, and Alexander only recognized four children (Cesare, Giovanni, Lucrezia, Gioffre) as his. And he stopped seeing Vannozza dei Cattanei, the love of his life, in *that* way well before his election.

And Pius' response:

"Your action, my son, cannot be held to be without blame, though it was evidently less blameworthy than we had been informed. We grant you the pardon you ask for, and but for the love we have for you as a son of predilection, we should not have lovingly reproached you. So long as you do good and live becomingly, you will find in me a father and a protector whose blessing will also fall on those who are dear to you. So long as Pius lives, you will have no reason to regret the loss of your uncle, our predecessor."

(Michael de la Bedoyere, The Meddlesome Friar and the Wayward Pope, p. 61-62)

“We have always loved you and thought you worthy of our protection as a man of an earnest and modest character.”

Yes, note the past tense there? That was the thought that Pius had held up to that point. He continues on to say:

“Therefore, conduct yourself henceforth so that we may retain this our opinion of you, and may behold in you only the example of a well ordered life.”

Not exactly any kind of exoneration, when you read it in context.

“...but there is not a contemporary author to give a single instance, where he ever passed any of his time in female company”

A blatantly false assertion, since the famous “Banquet of the Chestnuts” was described by a contemporary, and attests that Borgia continued to satisfy the same appetites during his papacy.

“..[T]he professionally celibate young Cardinal”

Again, demonstrably false, unless “professionally celibate” only means that he was keeping the appearance of celibacy for the sake of his profession, and not in actuality. We know he could not have been actually celibate, as he already had fathered several children. Or were those virgin births?

“Also, there are rumors of other mistresses and other children, but they are unsubstantiated, and Alexander only recognized four children (Cesare, Giovanni, Lucrezia, Gioffre) as his.”

According to the research of Durant in “The Renaissance” (http://books.google.com/books?id=sjzi56FhIeIC), Stefano Infessura called the Giulia Farnese, the mother of one child, “the Pope’s concubine”. He also records that Cardinal Farnese, her brother, admitted the child was Alexander’s. Far from this relationship being ended when he ascended, Alexander installed her in a palace with Lucrezia near his own quarters, so that he could more easily continue his dalliances. Then there is another child, by another mistress, spoken of in Burchard’s diary as well.

If all you have to offer is to turn a blind eye to the actual evidence while offering up lame quotes from apologists that most Catholic scholars even admit have failed to rehabilitate the man, please just save it.

I’ve read much of Burchard’s Diary (you can find a good amount of excerpts online). The “Banquet of the Chestnuts” is a forgery and was added later. Burchard was not at all into sordid gossip.

Also, recall that Stefano Infessura was in the employ of Alexander’s enemies, and he was also one of the humanists (which, at the time, were always attacking the pontiffs).

“I’ve read much of Burchard’s Diary (you can find a good amount of excerpts online). The “Banquet of the Chestnuts” is a forgery and was added later. Burchard was not at all into sordid gossip.”

Any evidence of this or just more whitewashing?