Posted on 05/03/2006 2:03:34 PM PDT by pravknight
No, it did not. The advocates of Ultramontanism never made such a claim.
Professor Franz Xaver Kraus, who says ("Spektatorbrief", II, quoted in the article Ultramontanismus in "Realencycl. für prot. Theol. u. Kirche", ed. 1908): "1. An Ultramontane is one who sets the idea of the Church above that of religion; 2. ...who substitutes the pope for the Church; 3. ...who believes that the kingdom of God is of this world and that, as medieval curialism asserted, the power of the keys, given to Peter, included temporal jurisdiction also; 4. ...who believes that religious conviction can be imposed or broken with material force; 5. ...who is ever ready to sacrifice to an extraneous authority the plain teaching of his own conscience." According to the definition given in Leichtenberger, "Encycl. des sciences religieuses" (ed. 1882)
(1) FX Kraus was a political opponent of the Ultramontanists - his false description of their principles is in perfect consonance with his own frightening politics. Choosing him as a source opens a can of worms for you.
(2) FX Kraus was a German history professor - he was not an authority on theology and he certainly did not provide the Catholic Church with its official definition of Ultramontanism.
(3) The FX Kraus quote you have selected is culled directly from a fiercely anti-Catholic Protestant encyclopaedia.
You got part of it right, but other's very wrong.
My definition is correct. Yours, now based on the writings of FX Kraus, is as false now as when he was writing.
Pope Benedict XVI condemned ultramontanism while he was in the CDF. I already posted the citation.
Ultramontanism was condemned long before Pope Benedict XVI became prefect of the CDF. It was not condemned as a heresy because it is not a heresy.
It was condemned as a political attitude which undermined the Church's ability to pursue its pastoral mission in various countries.
Tell me, how is it I am a schismatic? What is your evidence that I am such?
I may be sympathetic to the SSPX's grievances, but I do not attend their chapels, nor would I unless in a case of grave necessity.
As a matter of course, I worship according to the apostolic Byzantine rite and am subject and obedient to my Eastern Catholic pastor and bishop.
Byzantines don't share your exalted view of the papacy. The pope is the moderator of ecclesiastical communion. He is to be venerated when he is obedient to Tradition, but to be resisted when his actions are detrimental to the faith.
At least Gregory II had the courage to stand up to Pius IX after Vatican I and defend the rights of the Eastern Churches.
Being critical of the pope's actions is no sin, nor is it an act of schism.
Blind obedience, however, can be a sin.
Of course not. It was invented by anti-Catholic bigots in the 1900s for rhetorical [purposes. I never intended to imply that you were that creative - I'm just pointing out that you are using a made-up word, not that you actually made it up yourself.
Secondly, the term fits because people like yourself seem to think the pope is above reapproach for his actions when they stand contrary to previous dogmatic definitions or lead to spiritual scandal.
Again, you assume that you have authority to decide whether the Pope's words or actions are heretical or scandalous. Tell us, please, who gave you this authority.
Pope worship, I mean in the same context as hero worship.
What a pathetic attempt to fudge your words. You might be able to twist it this way if you had used the term "worship" in English - since in English it can mean simply a high degree of respect as in "Your Worship" etc.
But latria means to pay divine honor to. So you can't weasel out of it now. Papolatry means to accord divine honors to the Pope by its very etymology.
But the Lutheran Confessions admit the saints in heaven pray for those of us who are still on earth.
Correct. But they also assert that there is no communication between members of the Church in Heaven, in Purgatory and on Earth - which means they do not believe in actual communion.
I would say you are setting up a false analogy here because criticism of papal actions is not the same as denial of a single Catholic dogma.
The analogy between the rhetoric is a true analogy. But I grant you that there is no such analogy between the theological underpinnings of the rhetoric.
A schismatic attitude is not necessarily an heretical attitude.
Christians are known by their fruit.
Galatians 5:22
* I am a faithful Catholic and I hold to all the Living Magisterium Teaches.
Now, the simple fact is you misunderstand what the Catholic Church Teaches. It does NOT Teach the Muslims worship the Triune God. That is the fact. And you are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to misrepresent what we Catholics believe.
I am sure this will clear-up your wrong idea about what the Catholic Church Teaches
So, according to your idea, the Jews do not worship God either, right?
The approving posting of an article by Tuttle, a schismatic.
Byzantines don't share your exalted view of the papacy. The pope is the moderator of ecclesiastical communion.
The Pope is not a "moderator" (i.e. an arbiter between equals or an equal who happens to be selected to preside over an assembly) - he is the Vicar of Christ on earth and has plenary jurisidictional authority over the entire Universal Church.
At least Gregory II had the courage to stand up to Pius IX after Vatican I and defend the rights of the Eastern Churches.
He didn't exactly "stand up." He is mythologized just as Dollinger is mythologized.
Being critical of the pope's actions is no sin, nor is it an act of schism.
Detraction is a sin, and a grave one. And Tuttle, the Remnant, SSPX and friends haven't just spoken - they've openly broken obedience with the Holy See.
Blind obedience, however, can be a sin.
No Catholic obeys blindly, by definition. But thanks for the addition to the strawman collection.
Again, you assume that you have authority to decide whether the Pope's words or actions are heretical or scandalous. Tell us, please, who gave you this authority.
>>My own conscience, which God gave me. Who gives you the right to say that I don't have the right to dissent from non-magisterial actions.
Liturgy pertaining the Latin Church alone doesn't meet the criteria.
What a pathetic attempt to fudge your words.
>>>Silly. I wasn't fudging my words because you seem to treat the pope as if he is a demigod because you accuse anyone who critcizes Paul VI or John Paul VI of having a schismatic attitude.
Can the Pope err in matter of fact when it comes to his personal behavior or matters of faith that he is speaking as a mere theologian?
For example JP2's Ut Unum Sint contradicts Pius XI's Mortalium Animos. They are contradictory and cannot be reconciled. Either Pius XI was the heretic or JP2 had a new revelation.
Again, the saints and even previous popes have taught it is licit to resist the pope when his behavior causes a scandal to the soul. I have already posted my citations.
I hold to all the Living Magisterium Teaches.
>>Sort of like the Mormon prophets.
The Pope may not change Tradition. He is bound to adhere to Tradition. Thus, he cannot make heresy into Orthodoxy.
Everything that has transpired since Vatican II likely would have made all 261 prior popes cringe.
You know best. After all, if you stand in judgment over Popes, you certainly outrank me.
While I cannot judge the souls of JP2 or Paul VI, I can judge their actions and their fruits.
The fact taht you think you can do this makes your criticism of others for arrogance and self-righteousness richly hilarious.
Your reasoning is a bit like saying "Who are you to judge that homosexuality is wrong?"
Not even close.
You are criticizing a person you have no authority to criticize but who you do have a moral obligation to love and respect.
Anyone with sufficient knowledge of the natural law can identify a misuse of the body's natural faculties.
the two have literally nothing to do with one another.
His arguments are identical to those I have found on other accepted sites, such as the Catholic Information Network. That is they aren't tainted with heresy.
Every bishop is a Vicar of Christ on Earth. The pope has a primacy of jurisdiction "without prejudice to the rights privileges and prerogatives of the Eastern Patriarchs." to quote the Melkite reservation to Vatican I.
Actually, Pope Benedict has used similar language to expound a horizontal exercise of the papacy.
B.S., Patriarch Maximos IV made reference to him at Vatican II. There is no mythology here.
Detraction is no sin if the accusations of scandal have basis in fact. Slander only occurs if there is no basis in fact.
Besides, who are you to judge me?
No Catholic obeys blindly, by definition.
>>>You do. Your words prove it.
The popes are men and are capable of being judged when they misbehave.
Everything with you Latins is about law and legalism. Again here you go with your blind obedience. Making the popes above reapproach raises them to the level of gods. They are human beings who can and do err.
When they do, we should take St. Paul's example and rebuke them.
It seems here that you are a bit of an extremist.
You're not thinking very clearly. Your conscience gives you the ability to exercise discernment over your own actions - not to judge the actions of other people.
And there is no right to dissent from "non-magisterial actions."
We are discussing people like Tuttle who say it is OK to disobey the Pope when he exercises his rightful authority as universal pastor of the Church.
The Pope is not just a teacher and a sharer in the Church's teaching authority (Magisterium) he is also the Church's executive authority through his succession from Blessed Peter. He has the right and jurisdiction to ask Catholics to do anything but commit a sin.
Liturgy pertaining the Latin Church alone doesn't meet the criteria.
Liturgy pertaining to the entire Church is under the Pope's jurisdiction.
Silly. I wasn't fudging my words because you seem to treat the pope as if he is a demigod because you accuse anyone who critcizes Paul VI or John Paul VI of having a schismatic attitude.
Your statement is illogical. How is disapproving of schism equivalent to calling either Pope Paul VI or John Paul II a demigod?
The Popes are mortal men placed over us as our pastors and carping at them, criticizing them and insulting them is unChristian.
Disobeying them is schismatic.
It's strange that you equate doing your Christian duty toward your pastor with idolatry.
Can the Pope err in matter of fact when it comes to his personal behavior or matters of faith that he is speaking as a mere theologian?
Of course he can. That's obvious.
That doesn't mean you have a right to disobey him. the only time you have a right to disobey him is when he commands you to commit a sin.
For example JP2's Ut Unum Sint contradicts Pius XI's Mortalium Animos. They are contradictory and cannot be reconciled. Either Pius XI was the heretic or JP2 had a new revelation.
You are simply wrong. You have made a grave theological error here.
Again, the saints and even previous popes have taught it is licit to resist the pope when his behavior causes a scandal to the soul
Of course it is. However, you seem to not have much of a clue as to what actuallyconstitutes a scandal.
Hint: just because something displeases you doesn't mean it is scandalous.
I have already posted my citations.
Including one dishonestly doctored one.
I assume you're discussing FX Kraus.
Do you ever go to the primary sources? Do you even know when the Holy See first identified, defined and condemned Ultramontanism?
That is they aren't tainted with heresy.
FX Kraus made a mistatement of fact. It isn't necessarily heretical to tell a lie.
Every bishop is a Vicar of Christ on Earth.
Insofar as he derives his authority from the Holy See, yes.
there are many bishops who are not vicars of Christ in any way. Like "Bishop" Williamson of the SSPX, for example.
The pope has a primacy of jurisdiction "without prejudice to the rights privileges and prerogatives of the Eastern Patriarchs." to quote the Melkite reservation to Vatican I.
The Melkite clergy do not get to make doctrinal decisions for the Universal Church. Their opinion is just that - their opinion.
Actually, Pope Benedict has used similar language to expound a horizontal exercise of the papacy.
Pope Benedict XVI takes a very high view of collegiality and mutual respect among brother bishops, as he should. He has not renounced his inherent primacy of jurisdiction, of course.
B.S., Patriarch Maximos IV made reference to him at Vatican II. There is no mythology here.
Maximos IV told the same fictionalized account of Gregory II that is popular in certain circles. Just because Maximos IV repeated the same stories about Pius IX that Gregory II told doesn't make them any more true.
Detraction is no sin if the accusations of scandal have basis in fact.
Incorrect.
Slander only occurs if there is no basis in fact.
We're talking about detraction, not slander.
Besides, who are you to judge me?
I'm not - there may be a perfectly good reason why you are detracting certain Popes. You may not be capable of telling the difference between right and wrong, you may have an impaired conscience, etc. I won't assume that you are automatically culpable.
You do. Your words prove it.
And now you are telling a deliberate falsehood about me. Charming.
Of course. However, there is no mention of you as being the judging authority in either Scripture or Tradition.
Everything with you Latins is about law and legalism.
Thanks, bigot boy.
You seem to have difficulty defining terms.
Making the popes above reapproach raises them to the level of gods.
There is the straw man again. No one said that a Pope is inherently above reproach. What I am saying is that you do not have the authority to reproach a Pope just because you imagine that he has done something to offend your peculiar sensibilities.
If Paul VI or John Paul II had raped someone or stole someone's life savings or sacrificed a goat to the Devil or something, then you might have a point.
But we are discussing instead their refusal to bow to your or Tuttle's liturgical tastes and your inability to do theological research - not some egregious moral fault.
They are human beings who can and do err.
Of course. That doesn't mean that you are free to commit the sin of detraction against them.
When they do, we should take St. Paul's example and rebuke them
LOL! You are an apostle now, eh?
If the Pope errs in some matter, let one of his episcopal colleagues take him aside in private and chastise him.
It seems here that you are a bit of an extremist.
LOL! I am what is called a "Catholic." Read the Catechism and find out more about us.
No I'm not
Do you ever go to the primary sources? Do you even know when the Holy See first identified, defined and condemned Ultramontanism?
I don't believe the Holy See defined Ultramontanism per se, but Ratzinger placed it in the same breath with conciliarism and Febronianism as distortions of Catholic truth. Roughly the mid-1990s.
That is they aren't tainted with heresy.
FX Kraus made a mistatement of fact. It isn't necessarily heretical to tell a lie.
Every bishop is a Vicar of Christ on Earth.
Insofar as he derives his authority from the Holy See, yes.
>>Nope, inasfar as they derive their authority from Christ. Such is an innovation that was unknown in the early centuries.
The bishops are NOT vicars of the Roman Pontiff. This is precisely what St. Gregory the Great condemned during the ecumenical patriarch controversy.
there are many bishops who are not vicars of Christ in any way. Like "Bishop" Williamson of the SSPX, for example.
Every bishop is a vicar of Christ by virtue of his consecration. The Vatican seems to regard the Orthodox bishops as valid successors of the apostles. Bishop Williamson is valid, but illicit.
The pope is not the sum of the Church my friend.
The pope has a primacy of jurisdiction "without prejudice to the rights privileges and prerogatives of the Eastern Patriarchs." to quote the Melkite reservation to Vatican I.
The Melkite clergy do not get to make doctrinal decisions for the Universal Church. Their opinion is just that - their opinion.
The patriarchs have their authority by divine right too. No council can be ecumenical without their assent, not just the pope of Rome's. As far as the Melkite Church is concerned, the reservation to Vatican I stands.
Actually, Pope Benedict has used similar language to expound a horizontal exercise of the papacy.
Pope Benedict XVI takes a very high view of collegiality and mutual respect among brother bishops, as he should. He has not renounced his inherent primacy of jurisdiction, of course.
Here, you are establishing a strawman. I believe the pope has jurisdiction, but I don't believe it is or should be as exalted as you might think. With regards to the Eastern Churches, let the pope mind his own business unless we happen to screw things up so badly we can't put things back together without him.
The pyramidal Medieval structure of the papacy is an innovation that had no place during the 1st millenium, and it should have no place now.
B.S., Patriarch Maximos IV made reference to him at Vatican II. There is no mythology here.
Maximos IV told the same fictionalized account of Gregory II that is popular in certain circles. Just because Maximos IV repeated the same stories about Pius IX that Gregory II told doesn't make them any more true.
How can you prove that this is mythical? What source do you have except an almost worshipful exaltation of the papacy?
Detraction is no sin if the accusations of scandal have basis in fact.
Incorrect.
Says who, you?
Slander only occurs if there is no basis in fact.
We're talking about detraction, not slander.
Besides, who are you to judge me?
I'm not - there may be a perfectly good reason why you are detracting certain Popes. You may not be capable of telling the difference between right and wrong, you may have an impaired conscience, etc. I won't assume that you are automatically culpable.
Sounds a bit like you in this case. There is a perfectly good reason why rebuking Paul VI and John Paul II is necessary, they have been destroying the Catholic Church for 40 years between the two of them.
Perhaps you had a course or two in scholasticism, but it doesn't make your judgment infallible or even right. Scholasticism should be relegated to the junkyard of Catholic history.
Byzantine Catholics are not Scholastics. Latinism and Catholicism are not synonymous.
You do. Your words prove it.
And now you are telling a deliberate falsehood about me. Charming.
You are blind.
On a related note, do you believe in the infallible teachings of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption?
I've read the Catechism and it says nothing about your exaggerated view of the papacy. It says nothing about
Everything with you Latins is about law and legalism.
Thanks, bigot boy.
So what makes the fact you seem obsessed with the letter of the law a matter of bigotry? In the Byzantine mind prayerfulness and liturgical orthodoxy is first and the law is secondary. That's the error of the West.
You seem so overcome by your own personal pride to see this in yourself. The fruits of the Vatican II era have been rotten to the core, and if you can't see that you're blind.
If anything is lacking in you is a spirit of charity. Threatened aren't you. Filled by hate, aren't you.
My prayer is that Pope Benedict XVI will remove the barriers to the licit celebration of the Old Rites and that he will disband the office for interreligious dialogue.
Stop playing your "The King can Do No Wrong" game.
Would you have given that advice to St. Catherine of Siena?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.