The Red Herring Known as "Ultramontanism"

TCRNews.com | 6/20/02 | Stephen Hand, editor TCRNews.com

[cathway]

One of the signs of a half or whole-baked Integrist, or an ultra conservative (very much less Catholic than the Pope), is that when a Catholic defends the Holy Father against scurrilous and disrespectful attacks, the defense is sometimes countered with bizarre charges that a papal loyalist is “Ultramontanist.” Of course it is almost always true that the one who throws such pejorative terms around is unlikely to even know what it means in its historical or etymological context. Somewhere s/he heard ---absurdly--- that it means attributing infallibility to every action or utterance of the Pope today, and so he keeps it in his or her pseudo-theological lexicon to be used as demolition against those who abide by papal teachings, the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Ultramontanism has always been a liberal slur thrown at those who are faithful to the Holy Father. It is, then, particularly amusing to see Integrists of whatever variation hurling it at faithful Catholics today. Its etymological meaning is “beyond the mountains, the Alps” or where the Pope resides in Rome. The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, says that “ when a non-Italian pope was elected he was said to be a papa ultramontane…[and] from the Roman, or Italian, point of view, the French, the Germans, and all the other peoples north of the Alps are ultramontane”.

But the term acquired a new and pernicious theological meaning in the 17th and 19th centuries in the Church’s opposition to Gallicanism and liberalism. In the 19th century, liberals who opposed the First Vatican Council’s definition of Papal Infallibility---later to be known as the Old Catholics sect----revived the term which had principally been employed by the Gallicans, especially before the French Revolution. The Gallicans sought to put restraints on papal authority in favor of that of the bishops by asserting the superiority of the authority of councils over that of the Pope.

Thus we can see from the start that, especially after the Second Vatican Council when the Church sought to redress any last vestiges of imbalance between papal authority and the legitimate collegial authority of bishops, it is ludicrous--and a sign of theological and historical ignorance---for ultra conservatives or Integrists to be playing with such an obsolete term at all! But, of course, that never stopped those who, according to St. Paul, have a zeal for God but without proper knowledge.

Let the Catholic Encyclopedia speak of how the term was used around the turn of the 20th century and we can see its analogies to our critics today:

"It is sufficient here to indicate what our adversaries mean by Ultramontanism. For Catholics it would be superfluous to ask whether Ultramontanism and Catholicism are the same thing: assuredly, those who combat Ultramontanis are in fact combating Catholicism, even when they disclaim the desire to oppose it. One of the recent adversaries of Ultramontanism among Catholics was a priest, Professor Franz Xaver Kraus, who says

• "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."("Spektatorbrief", II, quoted in the article Ultramontanismus in "Realencycl. für prot. Theol. u. Kirche", ed. 1908) According to the definition given in Leichtenberger, "Encycl. des sciences religieuses" (ed. 1882)…

For the rest, it is sufficient to follow attentively, one by one, the struggle kept up in their journals and books to be convinced that this warfare by the Rationalist-Protestant-Modernist coalition against "Clericalism" or "Ultramontanism" is, fundamentally, directed against integral Catholicism--that is, against papal, anti-Liberal, and counter-Revolutionary Catholicism“ (Emphasis ours)

So we see clearly how absurd it is for ultra conservative or Integrist type papal critics to use especially this anachronistic term of the Church's old enemies polemically against those who defend the authority of the Holy Father---as defined by the First and Second Vatican Councils---today. It is simply another of their red herrings used naively due to a gravely insufficient grasp of the issues involved, and proves once again that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing---especially when used to engage polemics against the Holy Father himself as is part and parcel their sad agenda!

[Polycarp]

This author has a strange way of writing something with which I agree totally on principle, yet has managed by his patronizing and arrogant tone to make it just as unpalatable as the rantings of those he opposes. Too bad.

[cathway]

Yes, I'm told you have always been very sensitive. Except, of course, when your friends are attacking the Pope. Too bad.

The refutation of the ultramontanist ruse with facts is what is of consequence here and this shedding of crocdile tears is of none. Too bad.

[Polycarp]

Well, at least you confirmed my suspicions. Its always good to know exactly who we're dealing with, no? Good method of fact finding, I see too. God Bless.

[cathway]

Suspicions? How odd. Think as you wish! You haven't been right yet!

[Polycarp]

Go back through your posts, way back. You signed your name once or twice.

[cathway]

Wrong yet again! This fellow thinks he is a private EYE! But I thought you were sad for my friend! He was certainly sad to hear of your sadness again! I'm going to ask him to send you a hanky!

[Polycarp]

At least you are consistent. God Bless.

[cathway]

And many blessing on you too, friend!

[Mike Fieschko]

But the term acquired a new and pernicious theological meaning in the 17th and 19th centuries in the Church’s opposition to Gallicanism and liberalism. In the 19th century, liberals who opposed the First Vatican Council’s definition of Papal Infallibility---later to be known as the Old Catholics sect----revived the term which had principally been employed by the Gallicans, especially before the French Revolution. The Gallicans sought to put restraints on papal authority in favor of that of the bishops by asserting the superiority of the authority of councils over that of the Pope.

The author shows unfamiliarity with the legitimate disputes before and during Vatican I and the question of the pope's infallibility.

Until Vatican I defined the pope's infallibility, there was a range of positions, and while the question was being disputed, those who sought the broadest definition were called 'ultramontanes'. It is ignorant to lump them with the Old Catholics.

My personal opinion is that in our time, it is legitimate to call ultramontane, those who believe that all the Pope's exhortations, suggestions, pastoral concerns, reasoning and the like, are of equal weight with theological pronouncements intended to apply to all at all times. That is the sort of issue which the broadest definition of infallibility proposed before and during Vatican I would have covered.

I've seen those whom I would label 'ultramontane', argue that expressions of doubt, or criticisms of prudential judgment, accuse the doubters or critics, of placing themselves above the pope in authority. My opinion of that accusation is that it's absurd.

I don't know if Hand uses such tactics. What I've read of his leads me to consider him a loose cannon.