Jump to content

Neo-ultramontanism: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
 
 
(44 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Roman Catholic papal infallibility belief}}
'''Neo-ultramontanism''' (literally '''the new [[ultramontanism]]''') is a term used to describe the belief of certain [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholics]], primarily during the period immediately prior to [[Vatican I]], that [[papal infallibility]] was not restricted to a small number of papal statements but applied ''[[ipso facto]]'' (by that very fact, ie. by virtue of being said by the [[Pope]]) to all papal teachings and statements.
{{More citations needed|date=November 2017}}
'''Neo-ultramontanism''' (or '''new ultramontanism''') is the belief of certain [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholics]], primarily during the period immediately prior to the [[First Vatican Council]], that [[papal infallibility]] was not restricted to a small number of papal statements but applied ''[[ipso facto]]'' (by virtue of being said by the [[Pope]]) to all papal teachings and statements.


Although few of today's Catholic Church historians distinguish between neo-ultramontanism and the more moderate ultramontanism of mainstream nineteenth-century Catholicism, there were substantial differences between the two. The neo-ultramontanes wanted to pass by decree the most extreme definition of papal infallibility possible and did not wish for debates at all. They were, indeed, seen as quite ''imprudent'' by more moderate ultramontanists who won the debate at Vatican I.
Although few contemporary [[history of the Catholic Church|historians of the Roman Catholic Church]] distinguish between neo-[[ultramontanism]] and the more moderate ultramontanism of mainstream nineteenth-century Roman Catholicism, there were substantial differences between the two. The neo-ultramontanes wanted to pass by decree the most extreme definition of papal infallibility possible and did not wish for debates at all. They were, indeed, regarded as imprudent by more moderate ultramontanists who won the debate at the First Vatican Council.


==Origins and history==
==Origins and history==
Neo-ultramontanism as a movement dates back to the writings of [[Joseph de Maistre]], who in ''Du Pape'' ("about the Pope"), argued essentially that what the Pope says is true to the exclusion of all other contrary truths. In the following period the ideals of neo-ultramontanism were formulated - though for many years in a quite incoherent manner - to free the Curch from the power of the secular state. Many who know about it see neo-ultramontanism as the most extreme reaction to the ideas promoted by the [[French Revolution]], which made them turn to the papacy as the last bastion of truth. Its main bastion in these early days was the French journal ''[[Univers]]'' under the leadership of Louis Veuillot
Neo-ultramontanism as a movement dates back to the writings of [[Joseph de Maistre]], who in ''[[The Pope (book)|Du Pape]]'' ("The Pope"), argued essentially that what the [[Pope]] says is true to the exclusion of all other contrary truths. In the following period the ideals of neo-ultramontanism were formulated though for many years in a quite incoherent manner to free the [[Roman Catholic Church]] from the power of the secular state. Many who know about it see neo-ultramontanism as the most extreme reaction to the ideas promoted by the [[French Revolution]], which made them turn to the papacy as the last bastion of truth. Its main bastion in these early days was the French journal ''[[Univers]]'' under the leadership of Louis Veuillot.


The term "neo-ultramontanism", however, was not coined until 1863, when it was used by one of its strongest adherent, the British lay convert [[William G. Ward]] and adopted by [[Cardinal Henry Manning]]. Ward's viewpoint can be summed up in the following article by [[Cuthbert Butler]], the best historian of Vatican I:
The term ''neo-ultramontanism'', however, was not coined until 1893, when it was used by {{citation needed span |text=one of its strongest adherents, |date=November 2017}} the British lay convert [[William George Ward]]{{sfn|Collins|1997|pp=45, 60}} and adopted by Cardinal [[Henry Edward Manning|Henry Manning]]. [[Edward Cuthbert Butler|Cuthbert Butler]], an historian of the [[First Vatican Council]], summarized Ward's viewpoint:
{{quote|He held that the infallible element of bulls, encyclicals, etc., should not be restricted to their formal definitions but ran through the entire doctrinal instructions; the decrees of the Roman Congregation, if adopted by the Pope and published with his authority, thereby were stamped with the mark of infallibility, in short "his every doctrinal pronouncement is infallibly rendered by the Holy Ghost".{{sfn|Cuthbert|1962|pp=57–58}}}}


During the lead-up to the First Vatican Council the neo-ultramontanes were very well organized and included within their ranks a substantial portion of the 601 bishops who voted on the question of [[papal infallibility|infallibility]] at that [[ecumenical council|council]]. They were concentrated in Western Europe, but did not manage to win the debate, which liberal historians attribute to their lack of theological and historical understanding of how the doctrine of infallibility was first proposed.{{citation needed|date=September 2016}}
*''He held that the infallible element of bulls, encyclicals, etc., should not be restricted to their formal definitions but ran through the entire doctrinal instructions; the decrees of the Roman Congregation, if adopted by the Pope and published with his authority, thereby were stamped with the mark of infallibility, in short “his every doctrinal pronouncement is infallibly rendered by the Holy Ghost”...''


After the First Vatican Council, neo-ultramontanism as a semi-organized movement declined as its chief adherents were not replaced. [[Pope Leo XIII]] never attempted to exercise infallibility and by the time of his death all the neo-ultramontane publications had been closed down or had changed their views on what was now "history" (the First Vatican Council and the debates within it). However, some liberal theologians and historians have argued since the beginning of [[John Paul II]]'s papacy that a view of papal infallibility analogous to that proposed by neo-ultramontanes has made a comeback. This has been especially true since the controversy surrounding the aftermath of ''[[Ordinatio sacerdotalis]]'' in 1994{{citation needed|date=November 2016}} and "On Not Inventing Doctrine", [[Nicholas Lash]]'s article in ''[[The Tablet]]'' about that letter published a year and a half later.<ref>{{cite news |last=Lash |first=Nicholas |author-link=Nicholas Lash |date=2 December 1995 |title=On Not Inventing Doctrine |url=http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/lash.asp |newspaper=The Tablet |page=1544 |access-date=16 November 2017 |via=Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research}}</ref> However, neither Pope John Paul II nor [[Pope Benedict XVI]] have cited nineteenth-century neo-ultramontanists as influences on their theological or ecclesiological viewpoints.
During the lead-up to Vatican I the neo-ultramontanes were very well organised and included within their ranks a substantial portion of the 601 bishops who voted on the question of infallibility at that council. They were concentrated in Western Europe, but did not manage to win the debate - a fact often attributed by liberal historians to their lack of theological and historical understanding of how the doctrine of infallibility was first proposed.


==Criticism of the term==
After Vatican I, neo-ultramontanism as a semi-organised movement declined as its cheif adherents were not replaced. [[Pope Leo XIII]] never attempted to exercise infallibility and by the time of his death all the neo-ultramontane publications had been closed down or had changed their views on what was now "history" (Vatican I and the deabtes within it). However, some liberal theologicans and historials have argued since the beginning of the [[John Paul II|Wojtyla papacy]] that a view of papal infallibility analogous to that proposed by neo-ultramontanes has made a comeback. This has been especially true since the controversy surrounding the aftermath of ''[[Ordinatio Sacerdotalis]]'' in 1994 and ''[[The Tablet]]'s'' article about that letter ''On Not Inventing Doctrine'' published a year and a half later. However, it ought to be emphasised that John Paul II and [[Benedict XVI]] have ''never'' cited nineteenth-century neo-ultramontanists as influences on their theological or ecclesiological viewpoints.
Many Catholic Church historians are critical of the term ''neo-ultramontanism'' because they believe that it fails to clarify clearly the position of those who advocated it and that it was never in any general use, always being confined to a few of either its staunchest advocates or to strong opponents of its beliefs like the [[John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton|Lord Acton]].


==Criticism of term==
==See also==
{{Portal|Catholicism}}
Many Catholic Church historians are critical of the term "neo-ultramontanism" because they believe that it fails to clarify clearly the position of those who advocated it and that it was ''never'' in any general use: always being confined to a few of either its staunchest advocates or to strong opponents of its beliefs like Lord Acton.
*[[Papal primacy]]
*[[Papal supremacy]]
*[[Traditionalist Catholicism]]
*''[[Unam sanctam]]''


==External links==
==References==
===Citations===
* [http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a050315.html School days]
{{reflist|22em}}
* [http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/unity8.html Christian Unity and the Role of Authority]
* [http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num40.htm Reply to Salmon's "Infallibility"]


===Works cited===
[[Category:History of the Papacy|Neo-ultramontanism]]
{{refbegin|35em|indent=yes}}
[[Category:Roman Catholic Church history|Neo-ultramontanism]]
* {{cite book
[[Category:Political terms|Neo-ultramontanism]]
|last=Collins
|first=Paul
|author-link=Paul Collins (Australian religious writer)
|year=1997
|title=Papal Power: A Proposal for Change in Catholicism's Third Millennium
|location=London
|publisher=Fount
|isbn=978-0-00-628039-2
}}
* {{cite book
|last=Cuthbert
|first=Butler
|author-link=Cuthbert Butler
|year=1962
|editor-last=Butler
|editor-first=Christopher
|editor-link=Christopher Butler (bishop)
|title=The Vatican Council, 1869–1870
|location=London
|publisher=Collins and Harvill Press
}}
{{refend}}

==Further reading==
{{refbegin|35em|indent=yes}}
* {{cite book
|last=Brown
|first=Marvin L. Jr.
|year=1977
|title=Louis Veuillot: French Ultramontane Catholic Journalist and Layman, 1813–1883
|location=Durham, North Carolina
|publisher=Moore Publishing Co.
|isbn=978-0-87716-070-0
|url-access=registration
|url=https://archive.org/details/louisveuillotfre0000brow
}}
* {{cite book
|last=Gough
|first=Austin
|year=1986
|title=Paris and Rome: The Gallican Church and the Ultramontane Campaign, 1848–1853
|location=Oxford
|publisher=Clarendon Press
|isbn=978-0-19-821977-4
|url-access=registration
|url=https://archive.org/details/parisromegallica0000goug
}}
* {{cite book
|last=Holmes
|first=J. Derek
|year=1978
|title=More Roman than Rome: English Catholicism in the Nineteenth Century
|url=https://archive.org/details/moreromanthanrom0000holm
|url-access=registration
|location=London
|publisher=Burns and Oates
|isbn=978-0-86012-060-5
}}
* {{cite book
|year=1960
|editor1-last=Nédoncelle
|editor1-first=Maurice
|editor2-last=Aubert
|editor2-first=R.
|display-editors=1
|title=L'ecclésiologie au XIXe siècle
|trans-title=Ecclesiology in the 19th Century
|language=fr
|location=Paris
|publisher=Éditions du Cerf
}}
* {{cite web
|last=Rao
|first=John C.
|author-link=John Rao
|year=2005
|title=School Days
|url=http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a050315.html
|website=Seattle Catholic
|access-date=17 November 2017
}}
* {{cite book
|last=Ward
|first=Wilfrid
|year=1912
|orig-date=1893
|title=William George Ward and the Catholic Revival
|url=https://archive.org/details/riwilliamgeorgew00ward
|location=London
|publisher=Longmans, Green, and Co.
|lccn=01020612
|access-date=16 November 2017
}}
{{refend}}

{{Joseph de Maistre}}
{{Religion and politics}}

{{Use British English Oxford spelling|date=November 2017}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Neo-Ultramontanism}}
[[Category:19th-century Catholicism]]
[[Category:History of the papacy]]

Latest revision as of 21:57, 26 May 2024

Neo-ultramontanism (or new ultramontanism) is the belief of certain Roman Catholics, primarily during the period immediately prior to the First Vatican Council, that papal infallibility was not restricted to a small number of papal statements but applied ipso facto (by virtue of being said by the Pope) to all papal teachings and statements.

Although few contemporary historians of the Roman Catholic Church distinguish between neo-ultramontanism and the more moderate ultramontanism of mainstream nineteenth-century Roman Catholicism, there were substantial differences between the two. The neo-ultramontanes wanted to pass by decree the most extreme definition of papal infallibility possible and did not wish for debates at all. They were, indeed, regarded as imprudent by more moderate ultramontanists who won the debate at the First Vatican Council.

Origins and history

[edit]

Neo-ultramontanism as a movement dates back to the writings of Joseph de Maistre, who in Du Pape ("The Pope"), argued essentially that what the Pope says is true to the exclusion of all other contrary truths. In the following period the ideals of neo-ultramontanism were formulated – though for many years in a quite incoherent manner – to free the Roman Catholic Church from the power of the secular state. Many who know about it see neo-ultramontanism as the most extreme reaction to the ideas promoted by the French Revolution, which made them turn to the papacy as the last bastion of truth. Its main bastion in these early days was the French journal Univers under the leadership of Louis Veuillot.

The term neo-ultramontanism, however, was not coined until 1893, when it was used by one of its strongest adherents,[citation needed] the British lay convert William George Ward[1] and adopted by Cardinal Henry Manning. Cuthbert Butler, an historian of the First Vatican Council, summarized Ward's viewpoint:

He held that the infallible element of bulls, encyclicals, etc., should not be restricted to their formal definitions but ran through the entire doctrinal instructions; the decrees of the Roman Congregation, if adopted by the Pope and published with his authority, thereby were stamped with the mark of infallibility, in short "his every doctrinal pronouncement is infallibly rendered by the Holy Ghost".[2]

During the lead-up to the First Vatican Council the neo-ultramontanes were very well organized and included within their ranks a substantial portion of the 601 bishops who voted on the question of infallibility at that council. They were concentrated in Western Europe, but did not manage to win the debate, which liberal historians attribute to their lack of theological and historical understanding of how the doctrine of infallibility was first proposed.[citation needed]

After the First Vatican Council, neo-ultramontanism as a semi-organized movement declined as its chief adherents were not replaced. Pope Leo XIII never attempted to exercise infallibility and by the time of his death all the neo-ultramontane publications had been closed down or had changed their views on what was now "history" (the First Vatican Council and the debates within it). However, some liberal theologians and historians have argued since the beginning of John Paul II's papacy that a view of papal infallibility analogous to that proposed by neo-ultramontanes has made a comeback. This has been especially true since the controversy surrounding the aftermath of Ordinatio sacerdotalis in 1994[citation needed] and "On Not Inventing Doctrine", Nicholas Lash's article in The Tablet about that letter published a year and a half later.[3] However, neither Pope John Paul II nor Pope Benedict XVI have cited nineteenth-century neo-ultramontanists as influences on their theological or ecclesiological viewpoints.

Criticism of the term

[edit]

Many Catholic Church historians are critical of the term neo-ultramontanism because they believe that it fails to clarify clearly the position of those who advocated it and that it was never in any general use, always being confined to a few of either its staunchest advocates or to strong opponents of its beliefs like the Lord Acton.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ Collins 1997, pp. 45, 60.
  2. ^ Cuthbert 1962, pp. 57–58.
  3. ^ Lash, Nicholas (2 December 1995). "On Not Inventing Doctrine". The Tablet. p. 1544. Retrieved 16 November 2017 – via Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research.

Works cited

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]