Comments on: A question for Stoa-readers

By: Roger M

Roger M — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:24:07 +0000

That would be the Society of St Pius X of which Mel Gibson is a well-known supporter.

A recent book by Garry Wills has an amusing chapter on a tiny American groupuscule which found even the Society of Pius X too liberal, seceded and elected its own anti-Pope.

As for the Latin mass, Vatican II plausibly claimed to be returning to the more primitive (or if you like fundamentalist, although I never heard that term used in a Catholic context) tradition of saying the liturgy in a language comprehensible to the congregation.

However the Latin mass was never actually banned and when I was still an occasional ‘taster of churches’ you could still find good sung Latin Masses at central London RC churches like Brompton Oratory, Farm St and St Etheldreda - although finding one in the suburbs and provinces was usually a challenge.

As for the Ultramontanists this was originally a term of abuse used in France asnd Germany for the papalist party in the Church who took their orders from over the Alps.

I suspect you’re really thinking of their ‘Old Catholic’ opponents who seceded from the Church rather than accept Vatican I and which still have a few congregations.

By: roger

roger — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:18:33 +0000

Wasn’t there some Catholic split off group that rejected Vatican 2, went back to the Latin mass, and denounced the liberalism of the popes? I seem to remember that they were led by a semi-senile French prelate.

Now, going back to the Latin mass seems like a fundamentalist thing to do. On the other hand, it also seems much prettiers, especially to an outsider who likes the idea that God is an ancients buff.

A-and there was also the ultramontanists from the 19th century…

By: Joseph Harder

Joseph Harder — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 01:05:57 +0000

Ok..ill grant Dennett does have sense a of humor..i just describing the common run of fundamentalists…
One of my dearest friends is a pentecostal Christian whom most people would describe as a “fundie”and he (usually) has a n impish sense of humor.
Yours, the beer drinkin/ pappist(which is what Ill call MY blog), if iever get one together.

By: Chris Brooke

Chris Brooke — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:08:23 +0000

Yes, yes. Sorry. We do Conciliarists as well as Papalists here at the Stoa.

By: Caleb

Caleb — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 18:31:33 +0000

*Papal* infallibility is rarely evoked certainly, but of course Ecumenical Councils can pronounce infallibly as well, and I think the official line is that the decrees of a doctrinal council like the Council of Trent are understood to be infallible. Papal infallibility was considered a theological novelty only in the sense that it established that the Pope can make infallible pronouncements without the bishops, but that isn’t to say that previous dogmas, e.g. the nature of the Trinity, which were decrees of ecumenical councils, were not infallible.

By: Chris Brooke

Chris Brooke — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:43:32 +0000

I think that’s right: Papal infallibility is when the Pope speaks ex cathedra on a point of disputed Catholic doctrine, and — I think the right phrase is — lays the smack down, and that happens very infrequently, though the 1950 proclamation of the bodily assumption into heaven of Mary was certainly one occasion.

By: Nick L

Nick L — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:17:46 +0000

Indeed, for these Catholic fundamentalists, Catholicism IS Catholic fundamentalism, since not to give absolute obedience to infallibly pronounced doctrines, and not to give general obedience to the teaching authority of the Church, is to fall away from Catholicism.

My understanding is that there are in fact only two doctrines that have been proclaimed to be infallible: that of papal infallibility itself, and that of the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary and of her assumption into heaven.

As an aside: Dennett can be described as many things, but certainly not humourlessness.

By: Joseph Harder

Joseph Harder — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:57:22 +0000

Since Iam one of the few, if not only, people here who actually subscribes to and readsFirst Things,Id say that while intelligent design has been debated in its pages, its never actually been advocated by Neuhaus or by any member of the magazines editorial board.
Hers another issue entirelyy..asa Catholic who is conservative on some theological and political issues,and quite liberal, if not radical liberal on others,Id like to say that one does not need to be a religious believer, or evena theist, to be a fundamentalist, of sorts. There are after all, fundamentalist Freudians,Fundamentalists Marxists,and even, mirabile dictu, fundamentalist Darwinists(witness messrs Dennett and Dawkins).
Fundamentalism, in any of its religious or irreligious forms, is usually strident, humorless,and convinced of its own righteousness.Ratzinger, while clearly a conservative catholic, is hardly a fundamentalist. ive met Fundamentalist Catholics, and some of them are (literally) insane.

By: Christopher Cradock

Christopher Cradock — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:50:42 +0000

Chris y

I’m not sure I follow your distinction between Nicene orthodoxy and ‘the Book’. I don’t know of any of the ‘Theologically Orthodox’ who would say Nicene orthodoxy goes beyond scripture. I also don’t understand how reference to Augustine etc. means one has departed from what the Bible says. If you refer to one source to resolve ‘inconsistencies’ somewhere else, the latter becomes consistent and there is no addition or reduction. Of course, I am referring to apparent ‘inconsistencies’ but if you think these are ultimate inconsistencies, neither Augustine, Clement not Jerry Falwell will be much use to you.

By: Caleb

Caleb — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:42:07 +0000

I think it is perhaps more useful in the case of Catholics to speak of ‘Traditionalist’, by which we would mean opposition to Vatican II (or, for the more conciliatory traditionalists, the ‘abuse’ of Vatican II) and a strict adherence to the traditional devotions and doctrines of the faith.

But it certainly is possible to be a Catholic fundamentalist, I think. I’ve met many trads who constantly quote papal bulls, encyclicals, ecumenical council decrees, etc. So they may not be that interested in a literal reading of the Bible (although I believe First Things, a conservative Catholic journal in the US, has been supportive of intelligent design) but they are certainly keen of a literal reading of certain other religious texts. Indeed, for these Catholic fundamentalists, Catholicism IS Catholic fundamentalism, since not to give absolute obedience to infallibly pronounced doctrines, and not to give general obedience to the teaching authority of the Church, is to fall away from Catholicism.