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.
I will happily grant that there is no support for a pope in your own personal interpretation of Scripture.
So what?
Thank God you're not describing the Catholic Church.
Nope, doesn't describe the Catholic Church.
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.
Not the Catholic Church either.
However, if they would read the Book, they would see that their cult was debunked centuries ago.
Thank God you're not describing the Catholic Church.
Catholics are Biblical Christians. Not clear what "rejecting" the capital city of Italy would have to do with that, but, whatever...
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.
Yes Rome, capital municipality of Italy, repent, and come home to the Catholic Church founded by Christ!
Instead of your protracted piles of mush posted over the months and years, you would have cited book, chapter and verse proving that the Scriptures say sola Scriptura.
Someday, perhaps Rome will let its sheeple learn how to read. Perhaps not.
Waiting....
Is it really that difficult to at least not make it APPEAR personal?
"Is it really that difficult to at least not make it APPEAR personal?
But,earlier you wrote...
"Everything else you wrote is nothing more than another recitation of bigoted talking points...
There appears a grave difficulty with the RCC not allowing it constituency to own mirrors. But, that comports with their unwillingness to allow the words of the very Scriptures they claim to have delivered to repudiate their darkened theology.
What happens next is that your side adduces a bunch of verses which might be construed as supporting the idea or as almost saying it. And our side adduces "Tu es Petrus," and a bunch of other stuff. And nobody's mind is changed.
And a little while later the same charges are met with the same responses. I'm not clear what purpose is served by this exercise.
I’ve mentioned, have I not, my notion that the very traditional names of “hillbillies” suggest a catholic heritage? Clem(ent), Fud (= Ferdinand), etc? My neighbor, a pronounced redneck in the best sense of the phrase is “BL,” which stands for Bernard Louis. Tell me that ain’t Catholic.
Saying that a person is reciting bigoted talking points IS NOT saying that they are a bigot and therefore not personal.
Saying that Catholics cannot read IS personal.
I don’t know much about Rome and sheeple. I do note, though, that when I read what some Protestants say the Catholic Church teaches it’s tempting to that they don’t read.
Whether that is from a lack of will or of ability I wouldn’t know.
I do think it interesting to speculate about the Reverend Mr. Newman’s ability to read before he became a Catholic. Am I to suppose that Oxford dons don’t or can’t read?
Here's a speculation for both sides: Language like that which Vlad quotes may not semantically be a personal attack literally. But the extravagant and contemptuous rhetoric is not going to clarify the matter under discussion or assist rational thought. It is hard to believe that it is NOT intended as at least a vent for anger and possibly an attempt to cause pain to those who find not only reason but beauty and consolation in the things that are mocked.
That is not against, probably could not be against, any rules. But if I am to suppose that it is motivated by an attempt to conform oneself to the ideal of Christian charity, I'm going to decline.
The fallout is rough. For example, some time back I was trying to articulate the difference between the approach to reason exemplified by Aquinas and other Scholastic realists.
This was not considered as an opinion to be discussed but as a slur to be rebuffed. But I think it's a reasonable contention that not only do Prots and Papists have different ideas about the role of reason in the life of faith, but scholastic realists and scholastic nominalists differ.
In other words, the atmosphere of abuse and rhetorical hyperbole not only presents a totally lousy witness to the unconverted but makes thoughtful, reasonable discussion more difficult than it needs to be.
I cannot speak for your frame of mind. The purpose of speaking out about the rampant error of Rome is to inform the public that RCC theology is a man-made conglomeration of superstition and tradition. The very tenets of the the message delivered by Paul are continuously mangled by Rome until its followers believe a different "gospel". This, as Paul said, should be anathema. It matters little if you approve, agree, or change your mind. That is entirely up to you.
Waiting....
Unless you are a talking point, the adjective "bigoted" in this sentence does not refer to you.
There appears a grave difficulty with the RCC not allowing it constituency to own mirrors.
Radio-controlled Car Club?
Thank GOD you're not describing the Catholic Church.
Hey what’s up homies? Bdeaner is back after a long and needed break from last summer’s intense conversation. I hope everyone is doing well. Good to see the Catholic threads still going strong! God bless.
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.