Talk:Ultramontanism

Unsupported?
"The Vatican Council issued numerous written attacks upon Ultramontanism." - This doesn't make any sense given the sentences following it. The Vatican Council was opposed to Catholics adhering to Rome? Kd5mdk 10:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Lack of Clarity
Someone please restructure /edit this page: it has no headings, is full of technical jargon, and leaves the reader (from the very opening) unclear as to what exactly 'Ultramontanism' means.Iamlondon 11:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Paleoconservatives = Ultramontanists?
If the "Paleoconservatives" in the U.S. are considered Ultramontanists then this definition requires a great deal more explication. Ultramontanism asserts Papal supremacy over the secular state, if this is so then how do Paleoconservatives fit in? Does the writer mean to say that Paleos are religious conservatives and would have religion dictate public policy? If so, then this needs elaboration. It's my understanding that most Paleos are of Evangelical Protestant orientation and the papalist analogy seems tenuous. LAWinans (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

clarification

 * Roman Catholic apologists argued that if the Pope has ultimate authority in the Church, then national churches would be more immune to interference from their governments. But subsequent history seems to have shown that states which had national churches grew increasingly secular, and have either granted charters of religious freedom or have disestablished the national church.

The word "But" at the start of the second sentence means that the second sentence is in contrast to the first sentence, but I don't see the contrast; they don't even seem to be talking about the same thing. The relationship between the church and the state, is the general scope of the discussion; but in one case it's saying religions would be freer if separated from the state; and in other case it's saying national churches/state religions have failed to survive into the modern age. The later developments presented in the second sentence quoted above in no way contradict the view of the unspecified "Roman Catholic apologists". I'm also concerned that the second one reads like original research.

—Felix the Cassowary 11:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)