Posted on 12/07/2009 7:25:56 AM PST by NYer
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.
“Of course, the rest of us know this is another self-aggrandizing pipe dream that the men in bathrobes and Prada shoes foist on the public.”
You are describing a schvitz, not the Catholic Church. Is there any problem with that? I should know. There have been problems with people who view schvitzing as an ethnic “liability.”
Ordinarily I understand all capital letters to mean you are yelling these words. Hmmm.
With regard to the claim, actually any normal reader would interpret the clear meaning of the text exactly as the believers in Christ do, rejecting Rome and embracing biblcal Christianity. That is, assuming God allowed. That is why Rome is stuck in the darkness...God has closed her ears and darkened her eyes, lest she turn from her sin and repent.
For example, there is no support for a "pope". Nonewhatsoever. The gang from Rome cooked this preposterous charade up to grasp power over the sheeple. No one has ever found a single passage of Scripture that supports even the remotest possibility of the monstrosity that the RCC has become. There were separate churches everywhere in the first century, all with their own teachers-elders. The independence of these congregations allowed for safeguards not available to the central government of the gigantus that Rome has forced upon the world.
Two thousand years of Scriptural teaching would have helped Rome recognize its own self-serving, self-aggrandizing, ego-maniacal superstition had it bothered to listen to the text it purported to provide. But, tradition supplants text. Repent Rome, if you can.
You wrote:
“For example, there is no support for a “pope”.”
Sure there is. Even some Protestants believe there is - some Anglicans and Lutherans, for instance.
“Nonewhatsoever. The gang from Rome cooked this preposterous charade up to grasp power over the sheeple.”
That’s logically impossible. If it was “cooked” up by a group from Rome then there would be no reason to expect to find belief in the papacy outside of Rome or believed by even Rome’s enemies - and yet that’s the case.
“No one has ever found a single passage of Scripture that supports even the remotest possibility of the monstrosity that the RCC has become.”
Actually there’s evidence for the papacy, but there’s no evidence that the Catholic Church is a monstosity except in the twisted rantings of bigots.
“There were separate churches everywhere in the first century, all with their own teachers-elders.”
No. They formed ONE Church. That’s why an Apostle like Paul could enjoy communion with one after the other and they taught and believed the same doctrine and were expected to do so. They certainly had their own leaders - just as diocese have their own bishops to this day. But it was ONE Church.
” The independence of these congregations allowed for safeguards not available to the central government of the gigantus that Rome has forced upon the world.”
The Church forced nothing. Christ sent the Church.
No, it's for emphasis, sometimes that's easier than bold or italics.
With regard to the claim, actually any normal reader would interpret the clear meaning of the text exactly as the believers in Christ do, rejecting Rome and embracing biblcal Christianity.
You obviously define "normal reader" as being anyone who agrees with you. Everything else you wrote is nothing more than another recitation of bigoted talking points that you agree with and most Christians reject.
No, there isn't or instead of a protracted pile of mush, you would have cited book, chapter and verse proving that the Scriptures say, "You should have a pope based in Rome."
Well, (tap, tap, tap)...
Tertullian, is that you?
“...book, chapter and verse proving that the Scriptures say...”
Are you a non-Trinitarian?
Try not to project your own issues onto the apostles and early Church fathers and be sensible.
Those who wrote the Scriptures and those who assembled them never dreamed that they would need to convince a gaggle of dissenters who would arise a millennium or two later that the Pope is the successor of St. Peter and that he should be based in the center of the then Roman Empire. In their letters to the early Christian communities, Paul and the other evangelists concentrate on issues facing the early communities and they expound principally on sound doctrine. Expecting them to address post-Reformation issues and heresies is just silly.
This may come as a surprise but there was no controversy over the primacy of Peter nor where his successors should be based. Issues with Jewish and pagan customs were much more pressing issues for the new communities.
Who says there should be detailed instructions in Scripture saying where a Pope should be based? That's simply a personal demand which you have arbitrarily placed on it. Think about the logic of that for a second. "I say that if such and such is true, then it should be mentioned in Scripture. It isn't, therefore it can't be true."
Um........just maybe, your original premise is flawed.
Is there anything in Scripture about Geneva, Wittenburg and Henry VIII? No, and I wouldn't expect there to be. What does any of that have to do with new converts in Corinth?
I will stick to the Conservative Catholic label.
“An ULTRA Catholic is a BELIEVING, PRACTICING CATHOLIC....period.....a follower of Jesus and the rules of the Church.
“The opposite is a Cafeteria Catholic......or a Jesuit.”
You realize that the author of this essay is a... Jesuit.
;-)
sitetest
You wrote:
“No, there isn’t or instead of a protracted pile of mush, you would have cited book, chapter and verse proving that the Scriptures say, “You should have a pope based in Rome.””
Why would I cited any verse for a caricature you create? No Catholic claims that the scripture claims the pope must be based in Rome. The papacy is carried with the pope himself. You’ve done this a number of times. You seem unable to debate actual issues so you invent caricatures that no one actually believes or teaches.
“Well, (tap, tap, tap)...”
Keep tapping. You have seen the verses before. You simply dismissed them in the past in other threads. Will you suddenly believe them now? I doubt it. Most probably you will create yet another caricature rather than focus on the real issue.
yes.
“...not hindered by doubt in its aggression, not slowed by thought or reason in its lambasts, and as undeveloped as Protestant assumptions themselves. The perfect kind of conscience to be slaved to bigotry.”
Wow! Pithy! And sure to leave a mark.
Can we please stop the generalizations on both sides already??? Protestants do this, think this way, yada, yada, yada. Some Catholic posters on FR are just as guilty of Protestant bashing/bigotry/hating as they claim non-Catholics are to them. Don’t let this be your first reaction nearly every time, k?
You wrote:
“Can we please stop the generalizations on both sides already???”
The “generalizations” I make about anti-Catholics are accurate. I see no reason to not make them.
“Protestants do this, think this way, yada, yada, yada. Some Catholic posters on FR are just as guilty of Protestant bashing/bigotry/hating as they claim non-Catholics are to them.”
That’s completely false. No Catholic here attacks with the vitriol that anti-Catholics routinely use - often right out of the gate too.
Take a look at what Dutchboy ENTERED the thread with, for instance (well, at least in the posts not DELETED!):
“They are as unbiblical as Rome’s errant sacerdotalism and superstitious mechanisms for salvation...just in a different arena. Both these are stuck in the darkness.”
And then this:
“The grave trouble with Rome is that their theology of “traditions” has supplanted the very Scripture that they claimed to have delivered to the world. Of course, the rest of us know this is another self-aggrandizing pipe dream that the men in bathrobes and Prada shoes foist on the public. However, if they would read the Book, they would see that their cult was debunked centuries ago.”
Men in bathrobes? Cult?
Then this:
“That is why Rome is stuck in the darkness...God has closed her ears and darkened her eyes, lest she turn from her sin and repent.”
And this:
“For example, there is no support for a “pope”. Nonewhatsoever. The gang from Rome cooked this preposterous charade up to grasp power over the sheeple. No one has ever found a single passage of Scripture that supports even the remotest possibility of the monstrosity that the RCC has become. There were separate churches everywhere in the first century, all with their own teachers-elders. The independence of these congregations allowed for safeguards not available to the central government of the gigantus that Rome has forced upon the world.”
Quite frankly these are the ravings of a paranoid man.
And then this:
“Two thousand years of Scriptural teaching would have helped Rome recognize its own self-serving, self-aggrandizing, ego-maniacal superstition had it bothered to listen to the text it purported to provide. But, tradition supplants text. Repent Rome, if you can.”
Seriously, what Catholic posts like this in post after post? Answer: NONE.
Then his next post:
“No, there isn’t or instead of a protracted pile of mush, you would have cited book, chapter and verse proving that the Scriptures say, “You should have a pope based in Rome.””
Protracted pile of mush?
When you come across any Catholic here with the same habitual posting of vitriol and bile, you let me know. Only Anti-Catholics post this way here in these threads.
And just in case this is deleted, I’ll send this to you by mail too.
I prefer UberCatholic.
And, I could give you LOTS of examples of vitriolic and hateful posts from Catholics, you just don't see them all. I choose to ignore them most times - admittedly, I get ticked off and can't help myself sometimes - and I proceed with my point without making it a personal attack.
This is a Religion Forum and no one religion should be off limits for disagreement. The RM does a pretty good job of halting the personal stuff, most times. :o)
And it is reprehensible to use well-off and generous devout people as ATM cards. I've seen any number of not so ultra orders of sisters do exactly that.
You wrote:
“Like I said in my Private Message back to you...don’t take what people post that is against the Catholic religion as personal attacks against you. They are not.”
I think they are. I think anti-Catholic bigots here use the “no personal attacks” rule as a cover. As I just noted to you, I think the anti-Catholic bigots are smart enough to realize that no faith that they spew such hatred for could possibly be as foul, filthy and evil as they say without the faithful of that religion being the same way. That’s one of the reasons why I believe anti-Catholics are often mentally unbalanced. Their writings are so filled with paranoid delusions that there is no way they could be normal, healthy, rational men.
“And, I could give you LOTS of examples of vitriolic and hateful posts from Catholics, you just don’t see them all.”
Sorry, I don’t think you can. I’m not saying they don’t exist at all. I just don’t think they exist in nearly the same quantity of frequency. They also would not nearly be as tinged with paranoia, wacky conspiracy theories, claims about Satan and Bible denying, etc.
“I choose to ignore them most times - admittedly, I get ticked off and can’t help myself sometimes - and I proceed with my point without making it a personal attack.”
And notice, I have lanuched no personal attack in this thread either.
“This is a Religion Forum and no one religion should be off limits for disagreement. The RM does a pretty good job of halting the personal stuff, most times.”
I have no reason to praise the RM because of what I have seen in the past.
With all due respect, that is false.
Would you go up to a personal friend who happened to be a Catholic and tell them, "you are a member of a cult and if you don't repent you are going to Hell"? Could you say to that same person, "you secretly favor abortion and homosexual marriage"/
Do you honestly believe that you could utter those words to a person and maintain a friendship?
And, I could give you LOTS of examples of vitriolic and hateful posts from Catholics, you just don't see them all.
You are probably right; however, they are almost always in reaction to other attacks.
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.