edit

Quote from: Ambrose

If you disagree with what he says then state where he is wrong and prove him wrong.  Ad hominems are useless.

Ad hominem's are not useless at all, especially when you are dealing with someone of publicly questionable character like Pete Vere. People should know he is of questionable character when they interact with him.

Interesting.  From what I've seen PV seems to be fair in his posts/judgments despite the fact that he's NO.

I have two things against Pete Vere. One is that he co-wrote a book attacking all of us traditional Catholics. I have not read it, but here is the link: enemy[/b] here and I just wanted to point that out.

I specifically dislike Pete Vere because I have read the book "More Catholic than the Pope". Ironically, it was dedicated to a prison chapel library by a Buddhist monk. I was involved in organizing the reception of a SSPX priest to offer Mass in the prison traveling from the seminary. Needless to say, the book he co-wrote with Patrick Madrid is full of lies and deceptions. Both should be burned.

Caiphas was the unquestioned head of the Church at the time, the Hebrew Temple was the Church outside of which there was no salvation -- not even for the Gentiles!  

.

Yes, but for Pete to comprehend this we have to go through the whole discussion about the Old Covenant having been revoked, which given his liberal position and acceptance of non-Catholic doctrines like religious liberty, he may or may not accept as Catholic dogma.

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Caiphas was the unquestioned head of the Church at the time;  the Hebrew Temple was the Church outside of which there was no salvation -- not even for the Gentiles!  

.

Yes, but for Pete to comprehend this we'd have to go through the whole discussion about the Old Covenant having been revoked, which given his liberal position and acceptance of non-Catholic doctrines like religious liberty, he may or may not accept as Catholic dogma.

Thanks, but I can't be concerned with all the nuances of a Newchurch ignoramus' erroneous intuition.  The field is too huge.  There is no end to the errors you get into when you depart from the truth.  

It's not going to help such a one to believe that the Old Covenant was "never revoked" like the Newpopes are so fond of spouting -- a half-truth at best.  Why can't we just have St. Paul drop in for a week or two and clear this up?  I'm sure he's got his "head back" again.  

But I do agree, we'd have to go through the whole discussion, and he would fight every inch of the way.  It might never end.  Hey, it's been 2,000 years and it's still going on.  


.

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Ferdinand

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Was Caiphas a legitimate Pope?

No.

You're confusing high priests under the Old Covenant with Roman Pontiffs under the New Covenant.

My dear pete-sqeak, YOU are the confused one.

Quote

Neil, no Catholic ever/anywhere confused Caiphas as a Pope!

Don't believe everything you see or hear on YouTube.

Pax,
Ferdinand

Caiphas was the unquestioned head of the Church at the time, the Hebrew Temple was the Church outside of which there was no salvation -- not even for the Gentiles!  Why do you think they were so exclusive, with circuмcision and all that?  This was their Tradition!  There was as yet no Catholic Church, but the High Priest of the Jerusalem Temple was in that time for them what we in the New Testament call "the Pope."  If you don't believe me, then go ask your priest.  Maybe you'll believe him.  Even Petey-poo can ask HIS priest, that is, if he has one.

The High Priest had the power to prophesy, and he alone was the one who could enter the Holy of Holies -- anyone else would be taking their life in their hands, literally.  They would tie a rope around his waist that led outside, so that if he were to collapse or faint or be struck down by God, his assistants could then pull him out without having to go in there themselves because it was TOO DANGEROUS.  

There is a lot to this.  They didn't say "pope" but this is where we get the sacred Tradition of the head of the Church and the power of the Church to pass on down this office from one generation to the next.  

.

The office of the papacy is quite different from that of the High Priest.  

The papacy was established by Christ
With an apostle (or his successor) as its occupant
With the promise of infallibility
Both when exercising his supreme authority
As well as when exercising his ordinary teaching office
And in issuing general laws
With the purpose and mission of preaching the NEW Testament


These are seven (there are more) qualities of the papacy that are entirely and completely unique to it.  You might as well compare the papacy to the presidency.  It's a false analogy which doesn't prove what I think you are attempting to prove (can't be sure what that is, but I'm guessing something along the lines of the papacy can have an occupant who is not a Catholic).

All I'm saying is that the Jєωιѕн Temple in Jerusalem was the TRUE CHURCH at the time of the ministry of Our Lord.  He regarded Himself, all the laws and traditions of the Church valid and effective.  He practiced all their traditions, even to the Last Supper which was the FULFILLMENT of said traditions, in every way.  It was corruptions of those true traditions (the oral tradition that would later be written down as the "тαℓмυd") that He lambasted as "traditions of men."  

The Old Testament was brought to perfection in the New.  

While the High Priest did not, as you correctly say, have those many perfected attributes (as well as others) that the Popes have had, nonetheless, the office of High Priest was the immediate precursor to the office of the papacy, inasmuch as it was the office of head of the One True Church of God.  



Are you denying that the old Temple was the true Church?  

Are you implying that the prophets of the Old Testament were not of God?

Do you think that the High Priest was incapable of pronouncing infallible truth?

Why did Our Lord drive the money changers out of the Temple, referring to it as "MY HOUSE?" (Mt. xxi. 13)



Don't ask me.  Go ask a priest.  Ask Fr. Pfeiffer.  Ask Bishop Williamson.  Ask Fr. Chazal or Fr. Patrick Girouard.  Ask Fr. Hewko or Fr. Trincado or Fr. Altamira or Fr. Rioult or Fr. Faure or Fr. Gruner or Fr. Cardozo or Fr. (Paul) Kramer.

Or if you don't trust them, go ask Bishop Pivarunas or any of his CMRI priests.  

Go ahead.  Don't just tell me I'm wrong.  Do your own homework.  

Don't be so lazy.

.

Surely Paul VI invoked the infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium for Vatican II.

From his General Audience of Jan 12, 1966:

"There are those who wonder what the authority, the theological qualification, the Council wanted to give to his teachings, knowing that it has avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions, engaging the infallibility of the Magisterium. And the answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated November 16, 1964: given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility; but it nevertheless has his teaching authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium which the ordinary magisterium and so obviously true to be accepted docilely and sincerely to all the faithful according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and purpose of each docuмent." (my emphasis)


So, while Vatican II contained no particular dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility. the Council as a whole comes under the infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.  Isn't this what Paul VI is saying?

Isn't Paul VI declaring Vatican II to be infallible here?  The fact that no dogmas are infallibly defined at a Council doesn't mean that the Council itself is not guaranteed by infallibility.