Talk:Ultrajectine

Can I import a passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia verbatim for reference? 61.246.204.115 14:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Probably. See Wikipedia:Using Catholic Encyclopedia material for information on doing so. Just be sure to cite it, using Wikipedia:Citation templates. --Elkman 15:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Important: It might be useful to watch that the sources being used are objective, or at least, get a balance between information taken from those who are pro-Old Catholic, and those who are anti-Old Catholic... I notice an SSPX article and a reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia, and a mention of the ORCCNA website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.233.203 (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Important: Besides making this an article on the "secondary", "tertiary", "founders" of Ultrajectine Catholic tradition, we should put more emphasis on the ideas of the Ultrajectine tradition and how they differ from those of Roman Catholics. To speak of a moment and ignore it's fundamental ideas is vain, and perhaps even, biased. The theology and Ultrajectine understanding of Catholicism needs to be explained here to understand then the Old Catholic movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.187.76 (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I concur with this opinion. This article is about a Catholic heresy and does not respect that this movement is a human one. Perhaps it would be best to merge this and the various articles on the Old Catholic Churches into one large one which will both portray OCC theological views along with Roman Catholic views. I can envision the structure as such: a primary article about the Union of Utrect, including RC views on the schismatic aspects of the OCC, along with a sort of comparison surrounding issues of papal authority and other doctrinal differences. As it stands, all articles in this matter are slanted one way or the other, and there is much guidance to be taken from the articles about divergences in Islam when it comes to neutrality. Stew312856 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

In error?

Quoting the article:

'they often quote St. Vincent of Lerins, a Church Father recognized by Rome, saying: "We Catholics must ever hold fast that which is has been believed everywhere, always, and by all."'

I wonder if the quotation of St. Vincent is missing a word, or possibly has had a word added by mistake.

Eg., "We Catholics must ever hold fast that that which is has been believed everywhere, always, and by all."

OR

"We Catholics must ever hold fast that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all."

Response: the quotation is correct...Look it up if you like, but you can't delete what Ultrajectine Catholics believe because you don't like it. It is appropriate to the Wikipedia entry on Ultrajectinism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.233.203 (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wanderer57 (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that he doesn't mean the quote should be removed as "wrong" or whatever, but that there's a grammatical error which is unlikely to be original. "...that which is has..." just doesn't sound right to me. Most likely the "is" is a typo, I would say. 62.74.229.177 (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The passage in the article in Christian Classics Ethereal Library on Sulpitius Severus, Vincent of Lerins, John Cassian reads "With regard to antiquity, that interpretation must be held to which has been handed down from the earliest times; with regard to universality, that which has always been held, if not by all, at least by the most part, in preference to that which has been held only by a few". Ian S (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Dutch sources

Which Dutch written sources use the term Ultrajectine? Or else: how is this subject called in Dutch? Sonty567 (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ultrajectine is a descriptor for one who originates in Utrecht, Holland, akin to calling one who originates from New York a New Yorker. The word itself is derived from either Latin or Dutch, I'm not certain of etymology.Stew312856 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality??

Someone placed a neutrality template in the article. Of course it is not neutral, it is from Encyclopedia Catholica 1913! The text has to be reworded so that "(alleged)" and other POV-inlines are removed. The original text happily seems to confuse apostolic succession with "Roman Pontiff supremacy". Such confusions should also be disconfused. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 09:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Fishy

Just made a bunch of reformulations to remove some serious neutrality issues, but the story doesn't have much in common with the story in Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands which should be about the same topic. The reasons for behaviors are quite differing: this article essentially claims that "sneaky jansenites" fell into hiding, and "infiltrated" the catholic laity, etc. etc., while the other claims that "the violent reformation (anabaptists and calvinists)" forced the utrecht catholics into hiding, but the "papal authorities" trampled the true saviors of the catholic laity down in its rigidity, etc. etc.. Somehow I think there's something fishy about both articles, and that NPOV is very very hard to achieve. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 22:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is riddled with Roman Catholic false claims. For example, that Anglicans do not uphold Catholic doctrines. Nonsense. There might be Roman Catholic doctrines that Anglicans do not uphold, but Roman Catholicism is not the same as the Catholic Church, even though many Roman Catholics are swayed in ignorance by the preposterous naming by Roman Catholics of the Roman Catholic Church as "Catholic Church". --jrl 10:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

the Ultramontane not Roman Catholic bias

The entry has a bias against Old Catholicism. The bias might be termed Ultramontane rather than Roman Catholic. Some Roman Catholics (it is impossible to know what proportion) would take issue with aspects of the condemnation of Old Catholicism and its origins and development, and would argue that the Ultramontanism evident in the entry's condemnations is a perversion of Catholicism, and the Old Catholics of the eighteenth (Dutch) and ninteenth (mainly German-speaking)centuries were attempting to uphold the ancient Catholic faith against the novel spirit of Ultramontanism in late-nineteenth century Catholicism. The Catholic Church of the twentieth century emphasised a Church which was hierarchical but at the same time collegial; papal with supremity but with the Pope as the Head of the Episcopal College - not a separate authority exercising its power without reference to the tradition of the Church and the authority of the college of bishops. According to this Roman Catholic perspective the Ultramontanism of late-nineteenth century Catholicism is out of kilter with ancient Catholic tradition, and the thinking of Dollinger and the "Old Catholics" is entirely in keeping with this ancient tradition. In other words, the apotheosis of Ultramontanism in the Catholic Church of the late nineteenth century was the grave error of the time (even if it was championed by the Pope of the day Pius IX and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster Manning), and their error was condemned by the great minds of the Church including Dollinger. (the "is" in the St Vincent of Lerins quotation refered to by earlier entries is a typo!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.191.163 (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Some parts of the article are still POV

I noticed that the POV flavor of the Catholic Encyclopedia still sticks through in some parts of the article.198.151.130.41 (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That Vincent quote

Could we standardise the text? I suggest:

  «all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.»

--Clifford Mill (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)