www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ultramontanism and the Universal Church

Friends,

Brother Michael (Coalesco) has shared with me a discussion he's had on a RC board about Ultramontanism(sp?). If I understand this idea it has to do with extreme claims to administrative authority on behalf of Rome. I'll let Mike, if he chooses, to add his own words.

I keep running into roadblocks in this area not only against reunification or recommunion talks with the East but also with some faithful Protestants whose only objections to recommunion seem to derive from Rome's ultra claims to authority.

What are your insights on this topic?

CDL

Dan:

I'm puzzled about Protestants coming into some sort of communion with Rome. As I understand it, the only sacraments that Rome recognizes among Protestants are those which can be or are administered by the laity themselves: Baptism can be administered by anyone in an emergency and in the Latin understanding couples confer the Sacrament of Marriage on each other. While we can approach an Orthodox priest in an emergency for spiritual support, it is my understanding that we can never approach a Protestant minister for anything sacramental.

Given that, how would we ever come into communion as parallel bodies of Christians? It seems to me that coming into communion assumes that two separated bodies have preserved a common (perhaps parallel) theological and liturgical life and they find that their differences are no longer real. They discover the unity that was there but that they have not been able to see for the period of separation: they are healed of a a spiritual blindness to a common unity that is already there. We have those conditions present in the Apostolic Churches. But so much of what defines Apostolic Churches seems to be denied in so many parts of Protestantism.

Vatican II used the term "ecclesial bodies" as a vague term to describe so much of Protestantism because of this lack of so much: the sacrificing priesthood, the Liturgy as unbloody anamnesis of the Sacrifice of the Cross, the power of the priest to forgive or not to forgive sins in Christ's Name, etc. So, again, how could this type of reconciliation happen?

Thanks

BOB

Bob,

I wasn't very clear. I believe that some individual protestants might well convert but they are put off by the ultramontane attitude of some Roman Catholics that they meet.

I agree. There is no equivalency between Protestant schismatic groups and the Church either Catholic or Orthodox and for the very reasons you set forth.

Sorry about my imprecision.

CDL

Dear Professor Dan,

(Why isn't Michael here, by the way?)

Ultramontanism (or "Beyond the Mountains" referring to the location of the Pope of Rome) was initially a positive thing.

Today it has the pejorative meaning of "absolutist papal authority" that it simply did not have originally.

Ultramontanism was born in the tension between national Catholic Churches and the authority of the Primate/State versus the authority of the Pope/Papal States.

St Thomas More was a classical "ultramontanist" as he obeyed the authority of the Pope and went against the national/state authority of England - which was also in schism from Rome at the time.

More's view of the papacy was actually closer to that of Orthodoxy than to what would today be called "ultramontanist" (ie. the absolute power of the Pope).

Cranmer interviewed More and discovered that, in fact, More's views of the Papacy closely approximated his own and so expended every effort in trying to save More's life - as did Thomas Cromwell, portrayed as the villain in the play and movie, but who became the Godfather of More's grandchild after his martyrdom (More's family did not see Cromwell as a villain, in other words).

But there are other examples in continental Europe. And the Church of Poland, aligned to the King as it was, often threatened to break ties to Rome if Rome's policies threatened Poland's interests. The Polish Catholic Church DID in fact formally break jurisdictional ties with Rome throughout its history - and if one counted up the number of years in which Poland was formally in schism from Rome, these would add up to about 200 years!

So Ultramontanism was formerly a way that Catholics asserted a "Catholic vision" that transcended national Church/State loyalties.

Today the western democratic movements have tended to unseat the autocracy of national Church/State authority - leaving only the Papacy as such

The fact is that the Papacy has shifted gears in how it understands its powers over the centuries and the current Pope has lead the way in helping to transform a formerly bureaucratic, statist office into a more charismatic ministry of service based on the Evangelical Petrine model.

RC ultramontanism is alive and well in certain quarters - and it has no tolerance for the ecclesiologies of the Particular Eastern Catholic Churches.

It certainly does represent a major roadblock to unity.

As an aside, the issue of Protestant churches coming into communion with Rome, this is entirely possible.

Certainly the issue of Orders and validity of Sacraments would have to be addressed.

But in the conversations with Anglicans and Lutherans with Rome, the theologians leave no doubt that both churches could foreseeably form two Particular Western Churches with patriarchates in communion with Rome.

They have their established "Rites" (Anglicans have their Rites in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy today), traditions and even canonical laws.

The High Church Lutherans have looked to ST Ansgar, the Apostle to the North, and his original plan for a northern European patriarchate for Scandinavia et al. based at Hamburg.

Certainly, Uppsala in Sweden has acted like a High Church Lutheran patriarchate historically.

So the Protestant churches that have liturgical traditions and hierarchies, whether canonical or else, can indeed maintain their traditions as a future Particular Catholic Church in communion with Rome.

Alex

Greetings all,

Sorry, I only just got back into the board today. The whole issue is disturbing to me. Ultramontanism in the western church is an historic phenomena that lies at the heart the conflict between the Patriarchal form of church administration and the Monarchic form. This is a key issue in the struggle for church unity.

The Monarchical model in the Latin church is (in my opinion) a later development. The early church could not possibly have been organized so rigidly along these lines. Communication was poor and travel was difficult. In many parts of Europe (Ireland is a good case) there were generations of bishops who were totally unknown in Rome, elevated locally. Missionaries were given a mandate or instruction and sent off, sometimes never heard from again. The records we have of the Christianization of Europe during the early middle ages are mostly appeals over conflicts between established churches and Irish or Anglo-Saxon missionaries on the continent. This reflects the type of function the Papacy had then, one of resolving conflicts.

This is reflected in our records of the Fathers commenting on the Primacy of Peter. Rome did not (and could not have) micro-managed the affairs of each local church, but Rome�s function as an arbiter of disputes is well established. The church of Rome had a reputation for orthodoxy in the early years, and it�s voice was important during the Christological debates.

Ultramontanism, the way I use the term refers to the latest phase in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. I understand how the party could develop organically just by observing the historic struggle between church and state. Naturally the church attempted to liberate itself from the sometimes oppressive control (or interference) of the Princes around Europe.

In the Byzantine East there was no question that the Royal prerogatives would have a dominating influence on the church. In the Latin West the question was often up for debate.

When the Papal States were in full verve the vision of this struggle could be cast into a mammoth struggle between Princely powers, the Guelphs and Ghibellines, for example. Thomas More and King Henry.

There was simply a party in the church that emphasized the Papal prerogatives. In their campaign they took care to reemphasize and interpret Jesus Christ�s appointment of Simon as �the Rock� upon which the church would be built. It�s not that I oppose this in theory, I would stand with Thomas More, whom I admire greatly, it�s the extension of this argument that makes it so difficult. With the end of the Papal States the Ultramonanists �flew off the Handle� so to speak and the Pope as the successor of Peter is seen to have total and absolute control over ever aspect of church life. No longer a guiding father, he has terrible despotic potential.

I believe it was in this context that the emphasis on every aspect of church life and function should be regulated from Rome, and all important decisions would require a sign off in Rome. This leaves the individual Latin bishops with very little leeway in performing their jobs. Vatican I seems to have been the climax of the Ultramontanist influence, often referred to as the �triumph� of Ultramontanism, and the Papal prerogatives are enshrined in Conciliar decrees, making a critic of the system a heretic by definition! In those cases where the eastern churches are administered like the western churches the effect is stifling. We actually need a directive from Rome to restore our traditions!

The fact that we need to be told to restore our traditions speaks volumes, this goes beyond asking for a second opinion or even requesting permission. This reflects not our own best interest but the interest of another party that may find it convenient at this time. When the �other� party decides to rein us in, what then?

In Christ,
Michael

Alex:

You posted:

As an aside, the issue of Protestant churches coming into communion with Rome, this is entirely possible.
________________________
From what I read, the issue is no longer a serious discussion since these groups have taken the totally un-Apostolic step of ordaining women to the major orders. As I understand it, Pope John Paul II took the step of closing further discussion of this issue about ten years ago.

I wonder how representative of the bodies they speak from these theologians are. Maybe it's because of the seeming comprehensiveness of the positions that these bodies hold that makes me wonder.

For example, most of the Lutherans in the United States seem to believe that the office of bishop is one that is elected and after the term of office is over the person holding the office is no longer a bishop again. That was part of the disagreement with the Anglicans here that prevented them from entering fuller communion.

Another example is the opinion of some Lutherans here that the Lord "disappears/leaves" the consecrated bread and wine as soon as the Communion Service is over. They feel that it is of no consequence if they put the elements back into the box or other container until the next time.

Please understand that I pray for the day of unity, but I wonder how so much of what I have learned from my Anglican and Lutheran brothers and sisters in these areas can be reconciled with the Apostolic faith that I have learned from both Latin and Byzantine Catholic sources, as well as Orthodox sources. Granted there are some Anglican parishes here that are as Catholic and Apostolic as can be. Some of them even send to Canada for clergy because they don't believe that the seminaries here will form the clergy the way that they should be. But reconciliation with either of these two groups may come only on a country by country basis and not the whole of either group at once.

In Christ,

BOB

Dear Bob,

Certainly, the issue of women's ordination is a problem - but I am talking hypothetically about the possibility of having Particular Western Churches that are derived from the Anglican and Lutheran traditions.

Of course, those traditions would have to be at one with Catholic teachings and anything defective etc. would have to be resolved.

There are High Church Lutherans I've known that are very orthodox and catholic in their beliefs and practices, particularly from the Swedish church.

There is a Lutheran Benedictine monastery in the U.S. and they are VERY close to Catholicism. I receive their newsletter and the Prior wrote an excellent article about images and the need for them in the Church etc.

There are also Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians I've met that, while members of Apostolic Churches, can just leave one wondering where the gatekeepers are . . .

Alex

Alex:

As to your last observation--

Many years ago (as I was coming out of high school) I had a very serious chat with the pastor of my parish. At that time he told me that the future would see groups within the Church fall into two main categories: those who keep the faith and those who do not. It seems to have been a prophetic call.

But isn't that the same pattern that can be seen in any part of history and in every country?

It fits with St. John Chrysostom's observation about "thousands and thousands of people jamming the churches . . . "

So we've all got struggles to be faithful to the Lord's teaching as we have received it, living it faithfully, and in passing it along to our children in the purest form we can muster.

BOB

Friends,

I know that we view the "dogma" of the infallibility of the pope in a somewhat different way than Westerners do. In practice we are probably more obedient but in theory we reinterpret it to mean...well, I'm not sure how we reinterpret it. All I know with some confidence is that we do not see the Pope in the same light as the ultramontanes. Could someone clarify our position for me?

Dan L

Ok. Perhaps some examples will help.

1. Why do we have an "arms length view of the papal infallibility?"

2. Why do we have a different take on the sinlessness of Mary when the "dogma" of the Roman Church says that she was physically born without sin?

Dan L

And why do you put the word "dogma" in quotes? It is a genuine dogma of the Catholic Church, not a "fake" one.

Glory to Jesus Christ !

Inasmuch as Luther and Cranmer despised the idea of the Mass being the True, albeit unbloody Sacrifice of the Cross, I don't really see how the Lutheran or Anglican "ecclesial bodies" could be brought back into communion with Rome under any sort of patriarchate arrangement wherein their liturgies were not radically revised or replaced by a Catholic Liturgy entirely.

Just my two cents!! :p

God Bless,

Sam
baptized and brought up as an Episcopalian...Protestant by birth, Byzantine Catholic by choice !

Theist,

I don't know how to answer the question except to say that the East, including Eastern Catholics, views the holiness of Mary differently than does the West.

Sam,

I sent you a private message.

Dan L