On Being an 'Ultra-Catholic'

A friend wrote me about a school principal, a religious sister, speaking to a parent and requesting school funds. The gentleman was described as an "ultra-Catholic." My friend asked me: "What is that, do you know?" Evidently, the "non-ultra" principal thought it all right to siphon needed cash from the "ultra" parent. No strings were attached. Once the funds were donated, the non-ultra establishment would go its non-ultra way. The ultra was good for his cash, if he still had any. His ideas were, well, ultra.

Clearly, I cannot resist taking a stab at defining what a modern ultra-Catholic is. Some temptations are difficult to resist. Briefly, in today's multi-descriptor world, an ultra-Catholic is one who is a believing Catholic, a fairly rare bird. The country is full of ex-, disagreeing, non-practicing, right-to-choose, leave-me-alone Catholics. They tell us that they are better than their hapless co-religionists who naively think Catholicism is credibly the most intelligent thing on the public or private scene. In the public area, the most often cited "authority" on what Catholics believe is the dissenter. Catholics are the one group about which no one has to speak accurately.

A be-knighted ultra-Catholic holds the Nicene Creed as true. He thinks divine authority exists in the Church. He knows that he, a sinner, needs forgiveness. But he does not make his sins into some social-justice crusade. He does odd things like go to Mass on Sundays, even in Latin. He thinks it is fine to have children. He prefers to work for a living. He also knows that the Church is under siege in the culture. He belongs to the real minority.

The word "ultra" is Latin, meaning "beyond." We have things like ultra viruses, ultrasounds, and ultraviolet rays. In the Middle Ages, a pope was called "ultramontane" if he came not from Italy but from over the mountains. In France in the modern era, the ultramontanists were those Catholics who kept alliance with Rome. Jesuits, perish the thought, were said to belong to this alien group in the Gallican regime. Ultramontanists did not think the French government was divine. This latter view was considered to be rather extreme. I know this negative view of French glory is difficult for the average contemporary to grasp. We find divine authority neither in Rome nor in Paris but only in ourselves.

An ultra-Catholic today, however, is one who strives to do what Aquinas did: He distinguished between those who willingly practice virtue, because they understand that it is the noble thing to do, and those who practice it just to observe the minimum of the law.

In what is hopefully a pioneer endeavor, we even have a bishop explaining to a Kennedy what it means to be a Catholic. Bishop Thomas Tobin in Providence read what Congressman Kennedy said in the Congressional Record about his being a Catholic but still not "agreeing" with everything the Church held -- a highly unoriginal position, to be sure. The bishop wondered just what it was that the congressman did not hold, and whether these "un-held" things were central positions in the Church -- which, of course, they were. From the beginning, when this selective view of Catholicism first appeared, local bishops did not similarly inquire of politicians who invoked this fuzzy doctrine of themselves deciding what is Catholic, as if the politician were actually himself the pope.

Now about this ultra-Catholic character: We have all laughed at people said to be "holier than the Church." This latter remark is not a compliment. Unlike the congressman from Rhode Island, some Catholics add things instead of subtracting them, as is the current fashion. Usually, the additions are not really wrong or bad. Most devotions, like the scapulars, are additions in this sense. Aquinas said that adding to the law was not the problem; taking things away from it was.

In the contemporary world, the real enemy of the liberal culture is the "fanatic." He holds something. We have now reached the point where the fanatic is pretty much identified with the ultra-Catholic. What is dangerous is not some heretical notion of Christianity; it is Christianity itself, especially in its Catholic form. When many Catholics themselves do not know what they are and hold, we distinguish the Christian who defines his own beliefs from the one who holds the self-evident and revealed truths of the Faith.

When the non-ultra-Catholics identify themselves with a disordered culture, the ultra-Catholic is left standing by himself. The popes address their documents to "men of good will." We read in the Gospel of John: "I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them." Evidently, not all men have good will.

I’m sorry. Now you seem to have added gratuitous rudeness to self-contradiction and unjustified allegations.

You see, in my point of view these things are hard to talk about. There is no need to make conversation harder. So I try to be clear and I try to take others at their word. There was no question. There was just an emphatic set of charges without any justification for the charges, much less the emphasis with which they were hurled. They seemed, in fact, ignorant charges.

I have seen this kind of thing too many times. You have already said you are not here for a discussion, but to warn others way from us. Now, because I believed your own account of your behavior, I am a member of an unsophisticated crowd.

And after this introduction, after mocking us for taking you at your own word, you change that word and say you want to engage in conversation, you want your questions addressed.

All right, I’ll say this: It is not at all difficult to find the Scriptural justification for the Papacy, not for those to whom Truth is more important than cruelty, lies, and the thrill of controlling others. You will certainly be able to find the arguments without the help of any unsophisticated people.

"All right, I’ll say this: It is not at all difficult to find the Scriptural justification for the Papacy,

As I said before, if there were justification for the power hungry pope you would have posted it. But, instead we get the, you-are-so-mean-to-say-we-are-wrong song. Well, the alarm is for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear and, "...whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified these He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?"

There is the path that God sets for His beloved and I don't see a stopover in Rome. Repent, Rome, if you can.

As I said before, if there were justification for the power hungry pope you would have posted it,But, instead we get the, you-are-so-mean-to-say-we-are-wrong song.

No, what you actually got was "You are so foolish to be so needlessly sophistical, rude, and provocative." I have no problem with expressing disagreement. I have a great problem with rudeness.

I see you are quoting Paul. What it has to do with the matter at hand is not clear, and, if I were to use your pattern of reasoning I would say that that was because you are unable to make it clear.

Here's some Paul for you:

Ἢ ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκριτοσ. ἀποτυγοῦντες τό πονηρόν, κολλώμενοι τῶ αγαθῶ, τη φιλαδελφία εἰς αλλήλους φιλόστοργοι, τη τιμη αλληλους προηγούμενοι, ...

(I haven't figured out this new keyboard yet.) You may find that the Bible has uses other than beating Catholics over the head. It often has good advice about, oh, I don't know, manners.

Of course, we Catholics aren't allowed to read it, so I wouldn't know.

Hate to say it again...and again.

Well repeating a falsehood is hateful, so that's quite understandable.

The compulsion to engage in self-demeaning and hated behavior is pastorally and psychiatrically interesting. And, then, FWIW, there's the old line about repeating a behavior and hoping for a different result.

Ah. You see, even when they slander me and are persistently rude, those baptized into Christ' death are brothers to me. I see that, once again, the Protestant view is more legalistic and exclusive, and, wonder of wonders, more readily adapted to providing a license for falsehood, rudeness, and abuse of those with whom you disagree.

I did not so learn Christ.

Well, your posts are those which contain "hate" and "hateful"; I am reporting to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, the truth. If that bothers Rome, or its constituency, then so be it. The truth has always been a burr under the saddle of Rome.

Should you be interested in finding, "...falsehood, rudeness, and abuse of those with whom you disagree.", you may review some of the posts from fellow RCs. The venom spewed, when told the Mother Ship is a fraud, hardly rises to the level of "philadelphia". But, that is expected.

Nevertheless, we will continue to say, Christ and Him alone, no baggage of Rome, is the Gospel delivered to us once for all. Until Rome acknowledges that the sacerdotal trappings, the seven sacraments, the mariolatry, the indulgences, the holy water, the icons, the pope, the separate country, the army, the currency, the incense, and other excesses that have been added to the Gospel are just that, excesses, we will continue to speak the truth. And we will call Rome to repentence.

I did so learn Christ.

# 45 you would have cited book, chapter and verse proving that the Scriptures say, "You should have a pope based in Rome."
Rome is not so important, though the successor of Peter is. To ask for proof that the successor of Peter should be in Rome is to ask for proof of something we don't teach. Why should we prove that?

#66 Someday, perhaps Rome will let its sheeple learn how to read.
The Catholic Church founded universities. Monasteries often had teaching ministries in their communities. St. John Bosco founded school for indigent and abandoned children. School were a major emphasis of Catholic growth in the US. With our long history of not only supporting but providing education around the world, we can only look on remarks like this one as the fruits of a thought process utterly out of touch with reality.

# 103 You were asked to provide a book, chapter and verse to support the "pope in Rome is the big kahuna." No verse, no further...
This was already shown to be a falsehood. You made statements alleging an inability. At this time of this post you had made no request.

Once again, it is hard to decide how to respond to a post which has so little discernible relationship to what actually happened.

#119 "Where in the Scripture (that your gang purports to have provided) does it say there will be a pope in Rome?"
I don't know of any place in Scripture that says the successor of Peter should reside in Rome. So, I have answered your question, as you phrased it.

#127 As I said before, if there were justification for the power hungry pope you would have posted it.
(a) I see no justification for a power hungry pope in Scripture.

(b) To be able to find a question in your assertions that there is no justification for a pope in Rome would be to engage in the kind of mind-reading that is discouraged on this forum.

Further, since you rarely assert something we actually believe (because you add "in Rome" or "power hungry") there is nothing in your assertions that provokes anything like an answer.

#132 Should you be interested in finding, "...falsehood, rudeness, and abuse of those with whom you disagree.", you may review some of the posts from fellow RCs. The venom spewed, when told the Mother Ship is a fraud, hardly rises to the level of "philadelphia".

You have found something you agree with Catholics about: Some Catholics are uncharitable so it is licit for you to post as you do. "Gee, Mom, all the other kids do it."

The believers in Christ, members of the true universal church of Jesus, the church without walls, without a country, without a human “vicar of Christ” a “Christ on earth”, will ask in any plain English manner that finally penetrates the clouded darkness of Rome, where does the Scripture teach that there is a pope? Rome won’t answer because Rome cannot. It is created from the traditions of men lost in the darkness, stuck in their trespasses and sin. If you cannot spot a dodge...we can.

Using Matt. 16 to support this claim is beyond fanciful, it is all the way to ludicrous. But, this kind of manufactured theology is precisely where mariolatry came from, indulgences, pergatory, rosaries, sacerdotalism, and other bizarre extensions into heresy. People who cling to such error may be believers or may not, but the teaching of this is demonic and is to be called what it is...false.

Paul called Peter out on his hypocrisy and false elevation of Judaism. This after Peter had been the first to explain the Gospel to Gentiles. After the public spanking, Peter recognized just how stupid and wrong the Law-keeping error was and defended Paul’s perspective before a group of men in Jerusalem (Acts 15). Peter routinely deferred to Paul as one who taught the Gospel correctly, even when it was difficult for him to fully understand (II Pet. 3:14 - 18). And he recognized that folks, like Rome, would come along and twist words into false doctrines. That is why we call upon Rome to repent.

If you consider these statements to be “rude”, that is your misunderstanding. They are meant to be stark messages that Rome is beyond “mistaken”; they have moved all the way to a self-aggrandizing cult. They do not preach the message of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone, granted by grace alone, according to Paul or Peter. Rather, there is the added tons of absolution, sacraments, hail marys, and other trappings that are nothing but reminders of their “power”.

RCs routinely rant about “private interpretations” made by Protestants. But, private interpretations does not mean that the person takes the ordinary meaning of the words for what it is saying, it means taking the understanding and twisting it to support a doctrine that is not taught there. Look closely at Rome...this is their hallmark. The great majority of the behaviors, chantings, ceremonies, activities, sacraments and so forth...are not taught in Scripture. They manufactured this from twisting the Scripture. If you read the letter to the Romans through completely, front to back, the average person could not find a papal, sacerdotal, sacramental construct taught. Quite the opposite. But, this doesn’t stop Rome.

When you continuously turn the conversation from, “Where is the support for a pope?” to “You haven’t actually asked a question”, you reveal the kind of twisting to which I am referring. This kind of legal wrangling doesn’t attend to the support, but diverts (or attempts to divert) the issue to another unrelated matter.

There is no Scriptural support for a pope. Whether that is in Rome or in Cucamonga, CA. It just is not there. Rome has manufactured it along with all of the other diversions that it calls “revering Christ”. We call this stuff “error”. And, since the average Catholic that I meet (and I meet them almost daily), reports an aberrant view of what salvation is about, I lay this at the feet of the self-acclaimed pope & Rome. The typical Catholic reports that “If I keep the seven sacraments, and am a good person, God will save me.” This is doctrine from the devil. And it certainly didn’t come from them listening to “Protestants”.

This is incoherent.

First you spend much of this post making assertions which you use to support the morality of conducting yourself in a way which stifles the kind of give and take which conversation requires.

Then, wheeling deftly, you accuse me of some kind of deviousness because I take what you say seriously.

I think (MY opinion) you have to make up your mind. If you want to declaim, to orate, to score devastating rhetorical points against us perverse Catholics, go right ahead.

But don't expect that this declamation and speechifying will be treated like an invitation to conversation. Don't expect that your making high falutin’ rhetorical attacks on us will necessarily lead us to want to respond in kind or in some other kind.

And if you make statements like “Pope in Rome” and then insist that your statements be treated like questions, And THEN not only complain but charge us with deviousness because your imprecision of expression is noted, then you have given no it only no incentive but a positive disincentive for engaging with you.

You go right ahead and celebrate how righteous and forthright and obedient to the duty to smite the enemy you are. Enjoy yourself.

But excuse me if I'm not interested in playing the straight man to your routine.

Little by little, God is using Free Republic to teach me to rejoice when all manner of evil is spoken against me falsely on Jesus's account. So let yourself go. Have a ball.

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.