ULTRAMONTANISM
as shown by his letters. At Strassburg he lectured for
many years amid great literary activity. From 1272 to
1277 he was provincial of the German province. He was
next sent to Paris to lecture on the Sentences and to obtain
the degree of master, but it seems he died before achiev-
ing this.
Ulric’s chief work is the Summa theologiae or
Summa de summo bono, usually referred to as the Summa
de bono. This is not devoted exclusively to the supreme
good, but is a summary of theology and philosophy that
dates from the same period as the Summa of THOMAS
AQUINAS. While lacking the systematic unity of Aqui-
nas’s work, it shows progress over earlier summae in or-
ganization and plan. Projected in eight books, it was
completed only to the fifth treatise of the sixth book. It
has never been completely edited or printed; no manu-
scripts of the last two books exist, but there are indica-
tions they were written. The earlier books are largely a
commentary on the De divinis nominibus and show
Ulric’s acquaintance with the principal Neoplatonic writ-
ings. They are of great interest to historians of thought
and are especially noteworthy as a link between Albert
and the later Rhineland mystics. The Summa de bono had
great popularity in the 15th century.
Ulric also wrote commentaries on the Sentences and
a book on meteors, but both are lost. Extant are a sermon
in Old German and 25 letters, mostly of the period of his
provincialate, and thus of value for Dominican history.
A treatise on the soul is doubtfully ascribed to him, while
a book on conscience is usually considered his.
Bibliography: É. H. GILSON, History of Christian Philosophy
in the Middle Ages. P. GLORIEUX, Répertoire des maîtres en théolo-
gie de Paris au XIIIe siècle 1:148–151. L. THOMAS (C. J. FAGIN),
‘‘Ulrich of Strasbourg: His Doctrine of the Divine Ideas,’’ Modern
Schoolman 30 (November 1952) 21–32. C. PUTNAM, ‘‘Ulrich of
Strasbourg and the Aristotelian Causes,’’ Studies in Philosophy and
the History of Philosophy 1 (1961) 139–159.
[J. F. HINNEBUSCH]
ULRIC OF ZELL, ST.
Cluniac monk; b. Regensburg, Germany, 1029; d.
Zell, Germany, July 14, 1093. A godson of Emperor
HENRY III, Ulric was trained and educated in the Abbey
of SANKT EMMERAM, served in the court chapel of the
emperor, and came to be archdeacon and provost in Freis-
ing. Ulric took part in the emperor’s march on Rome
(1046) and then made a pilgrimage to Palestine. On his
return he disposed of all his possessions and, after a sec-
ond visit to Rome, became a monk at CLUNY in 1061.
After short terms of office as prior in three different
monasteries, Ulric became in 1078 prior of the new foun-
NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
dation in Grüningen near Freiburg im Breisgau. He
moved this abbey, today known as Sankt Ulrich, to a
more advantageous location at Zell (1087), and it is here
that he was buried. His feast has been celebrated since
1139. Between 1079 and 1087, Ulric composed, at the
suggestion of WILLIAM OF HIRSAU, the Antiquiores con-
suetudines monasterii Cluniacensis (Patrologia Latina,
ed. J. P. Migne, 217 v., indexes 4 v. [Paris 1878–90]
149:635–778), which gives an important insight into the
internal organization of the Abbey of Cluny during this
period.
Feast: July 14.
Bibliography: Acta Sanctorum July 3:142–161. Vita, Monu-
menta Germaniae Historica (Berlin 1826– ) Scriptores,
12:249–253. A. M. ZIMMERMANN, Kalendarium Benedictinum: Die
Heiligen und Seligen des Benediktinerorderns und seiner Zweige,
4 v. (Metten 1933–38) 2:451–454. K. HALLINGER, Gorze-Kluny, 2
v. (Studia anselmiana [Rome 1933– ] fasc. 22–25; 1950–51). A.
ZIMMERMANN, Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, ed. M. BUCHBER-
GER, 10 v. (Freiburg 1930–38) 10:370–371. A. BUTLER, The Lives
of the Saints, rev. ed. H. THURSTON and D. ATTWATER, 4v. (New
York 1956) 3:101.
[L. KURRAS]
ULTRAMONTANISM
A term created in the nineteenth century (jointly with
its dialectic opponent Gallicanism) to describe the de-
fenders of the Roman vision of the papacy (from the other
side of the Alps) against the German or French national
conception. In the Middle Ages, as papal claims to power
and authority became more precise and also more ex-
treme, they were backed by canonists and theologians
from all countries who might well be called ‘‘proto-
ultramontanes,’’ but it is only in later controversies that
this designation is fully operative, as they dealt not only
with ecclesiological particulars but two visions of Cathol-
icism. This ‘‘early ultramontanism’’ represented the con-
cern to maintain or restore a strong Catholic identity by
focusing on the Roman center and developing common
features susceptible to reunite and expand Christendom.
Therefore, to the defense of Roman prerogatives and py-
ramidal ecclesiology was associated a forceful mission-
ary program. In this perspective there is a direct
continuity between post-Tridentine ‘‘Romanism’’ and
nineteenth-century Ultramontanism.
Romanism. Already in the later sessions of TRENT,
a majority of bishops realized the necessity to quiet down
their objections and fully support papal authority. At their
request the reform movement that followed the council
was clearly under the leadership of the popes and under
the control of their reorganized administration; it could
283
ULTRAMONTANISM
not but stress the bonds between the local church and the
Apostolic See. This perspective was accepted by most,
who saw in it a guarantee of unity and success. The im-
pressive Catholic renewal that marked the seventeenth
century was therefore inspired by a new attachment to the
papacy. Especially in countries where Protestants were
nearby, such as France and Germany, there was a tenden-
cy to stress the constitutive notes of the church including
that of ‘‘romanitas.’’ In France, the reforming prelates,
Du Perron, La Rochefoucault, the reformers of old reli-
gious orders and the founders of new forms of apostolate,
Bérulle, J. Eudes, V. DePaul, J. J. Olier, were all ‘‘Ro-
mans,’’ in the sense that they emphasized the authority
of the papacy and welcomed its intervention. Though this
conviction was propagated by international religious or-
ders, especially the Jesuits, in most cases it was accepted
without any resistance. Far from being a bullwark of Gal-
licanism, the Faculty of Theology of Paris, where the elite
of the French clergy was educated, represented a conflic-
tual place, where an ultramontane majority confronted a
Richerist or Gallican minority.
This ‘‘Romanism’’ has not been investigated in itself
but only in the context of the growth of ‘‘GALLICANISM,’’
which is understandable as it expressed itself mostly in
these polemical circumstances. It was, however, an im-
portant and rather homogeneous movement, as its main
features demonstrate.
A strong hierarchical system, that defends Roman
prerogatives and strives to extend them [M. Mauclerc, De
Monarchia divina ecclesiastica (Paris 1622)]. Papal pri-
macy is clearly established, together with the exclusivity
of doctrinal pronouncement. Papal INFALLIBILITY is also
present, conceived more as a form of direct inspiration
than protection from error. As a result of the Jansenist
controversy, it has a great extension, including ‘‘dogmat-
ic facts’’ [M. Grandin, Opera theologica, (Paris
1710–1712)]. On the other hand—this is the major differ-
ence with the Roman schools—there is no claim to direct
or even indirect authority over the secular power. Thus
the Gallican ‘‘distinction of powers’’ is tacitly admitted
(Censure of Santarelli, 1626). The best presentation is in
the Tractatus de Libertatibus Ecclesiæ gallicanæ by A.
Charlas (Paris, 1682), a refutation of the Four Gallican
Articles. It also develops important theological reflec-
tions, including the notion of dogmatic progress.
A clerical and authoritarian Catholicism that re-
strains access by the laity to the Bible or Liturgy. In
adopting the regulæ of the Roman Index, it practically
forbade any translation of normative texts: Scripture and
Liturgy, but also philosophy (Summa of Th. Aquinas), or
theology (including the documents of Trent). This atti-
tude was directly in opposition to that of the Jansenists,
who favored such an access.
284
A festive and sociable Catholicism. The clear differ-
entiation between the tasks of the cleric and those of the
layman is compensated by the involvement of all in the
mission of the church. This is realized by the diverse as-
sociations or sodalities, such as the famous Compagnie
du Saint-Sacrement, and the structuring of a religious life
focused on the identity of the company: chapel, protector
saint, specific pilgrimage.
A devotional and charitable Catholicism. This asso-
ciative life is the starting point of a process of personal
and collective sanctification at once educational, moraliz-
ing, and charitable. This aspect is better known through
recent investigation of sodalities or congrégations in the
Europe of the Devouts [L. Châtellier]. The features of
‘‘ultramontane piety’’ influenced by southern Europe, are
clearly in evidence: an emotional and intense spirituality,
attached to particular Marian devotions or devotions to
the Sacred Heart.
An expansionist Catholicism. Another component of
this attitude is a concurrent opposition to any religious
toleration and a strong conversion venture. It is not a sur-
prise that the first missionary endeavors of the time, asso-
ciating clergy and laity, in close link with Rome’s
Propaganda fide, were born in this context (Missions Ét-
rangères de Paris, 1658).
Though they did not openly express an ideology, all
these components were specific enough to prepare its for-
mulation. In addition, if the opposition raised in most
Catholic countries by this vision forced its adherents to
keep a low profile, it was never destroyed. It survived the
suppression of the Society of Jesus and was able to resist
and counter the Catholic Enlightenment in its various
forms—a stand that the papacy started to acknowledge
and encourage in the last decades of the 18th century. But
it was undeniably the FRENCH REVOLUTION, both in its
discrediting Gallicanism and in its reinforcing the spiritu-
al authority of the pope, that allowed for an aggressive
revival of Ultramontanism.
Ultramontanism. The advance of anti-Roman theo-
ries during the eighteenth century did not go without re-
sistance, and, especially in Italy, the defenders of papal
authority (Zaccharia, Cucagni, Marchetti, Anfossi, Bal-
lerini, Cappelari) produced apologetic refutations that
would become influential in the next century. The pope
also prepared the future in the precise condemnations of
every attack against his jurisdiction (Censures of Fe-
bronius, 1764; Responsio super Nunciaturis, 1789; Auc-
torem Fidei against the Synod of Pistoia, 1794). But it
was in the new generations that new forms of Ultramon-
tanism took shape. Rejecting the principles of the French
Revolution in which they saw the realization of a process
started by the Protestant Reformation and intensified by
NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

the Enlightenment, the ‘‘Traditionalists,’’ de Bonald and
de Maistre, stressed the necessity of an irrecusable au-
thority, which they placed in the papacy. On the other
side, it was because of Gallicanism’s allegiance to liberal
principles that Lamennais and his disciples rejected it and
placed their hopes in a renewed papacy. Closer to early
popular Ultramontanism, strengthened by the revolution-
ary trials, was the group lead by L. Veuillot, which ex-
pressed itself in the daily L’Univers. Lamennais’
condemnation (1832) and the encyclical Quanta Cura
(1864) detached from that movement the majority of the
liberal Catholics, who joined a ‘‘neo-Gallican’’ episco-
palist faction. The others (P. Guéranger) reinforced the
Ultramontane party, bringing with them theological
savvy and eager zeal. With more and more explicit sup-
port of Rome they launched a wide offensive against the
remnants of Gallicanism: substituting diocesan liturgical
books with Roman ones, correcting historical and theo-
logical class-books, soon replacing them with more ade-
quate editions. The encyclical Inter muliplices (March
1853) marked a direct involvement of PIUS IX in favor of
this centralizing effort. His intervention responded to the
expectations of many, against the reservations of isolated
bishops and theologians. It encouraged what has been
called ‘‘neo-ultramontanism,’’ to distinguish it from the
doctrine proclaimed at Vatican I: an extreme exaltation
of the Roman Pontiff, associated with a high interpreta-
tion of his infallibility, closer to direct inspiration than in-
errancy. With interesting variations, it can be found in all
Catholic countries, with the uncompromising and preju-
diced traits well illustrated by L’Univers. The discussion
of these themes at VATICAN I allowed for a beneficial re-
flection. The constitution Pastor Aeternus that resulted
did affirm papal primacy and infallibility, but did not fol-
low the more extreme Ultramontanes in their interpreta-
tion.
Four features appear constitutive of 19th-century Ul-
tramontanism:
Ecclesiology. A rather weak theology that forsakes
the supernatural and ‘‘mysterical’’ conception of the
Roman School (Passaglia, Schrader, Franzelin, Perrone)
in favor of a juridical interpretation. The church is
founded upon the pope, principle of its unity.
Spirituality. The expression ‘‘Ultramontane piety’’
is used to define a popular and festive religion that accen-
tuates the traits of baroque piety of the early centuries.
It represents an integration of local traditions, formerly
considered superstitious or pagan, an honoring of miracu-
lous saints and relics, an evolution of the devotions to the
Blessed Sacrament, the Sacred Heart, and the Virgin, into
a more emotional and penitential type of piety. A great
interest in the supernatural is generally evident, often as-
NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
ULTRAMONTANISM
sociated with Marian apparitions (Lourdes 1858). Facili-
tated by new means of transportation, pilgrimages to old
and new shrines are also very successful.
Moral theology. In direct opposition to ‘‘Jansenist’’
rigorism, the moral theology founded by St. ALPHONSUS
LIGUORI became during the nineteenth century the offi-
cial doctrine of the Church. This shift supported a more
frequent use of penance and Eucharist, perceived as
sources of spiritual strength and food of apostolate.
Apostolate. Under many diversified forms, lay and
clerical men and women became involved in the aposto-
late of the church, thus manifesting both at home and in
mission territories a perception of Roman Catholicism as
a universal and expanding community.
After Vatican I, the concept of Ultramontanism is
only analogical, for instance in the qualification of ‘‘inte-
gralist’’ perspectives that arose during the Modernist cri-
sis, or of oppositions to the Vatican II doctrine of
collegiality.
See Also: PAPACY; KETTELER, WILHELM EMMANUEL
VON; LACORDAIRE, JEAN BAPTISTE HENRI;
LAMENNAIS, HUGUES FÉLICITÉ ROBERT DE;
MAISTRE, JOSEPH DE; MANNING, HENRY EDWARD;
MONTALEMBERT, CHARLES FORBES RENÉ DE;
VEUILLOT, LOUIS FRANÇOIS; WARD, WILLIAM
GEORGE.
Bibliography: J. VIDAL, Dans l’entourage de Caulet, III, An-
toine Charlas directeur du séminaire et vicaire général de Pamiers,
1634–1698 (Castillon-de-Couserans 1943). A. G. MARTIMORT, Le
gallicanisme de Bossuet (Paris 1953). J. ORCIBAL, ‘‘L’idée d’Église
chez les catholiques du XVIIe siècle,’’ in Études d’histoire et de lit-
térature religieuses (Paris 1997; org. pub. 1955). M. NÉDONCELLE,
ed., L’ecclésiologie au XIXe siècle (Paris 1960). H. RAAB, ‘‘Zur
Geschichte und Bedeutung des Schlagswortes ‘Ultramontan’ im 18
und frühen 19. Jahrhundert,’’ Historisches Jahrbuch 81 (1962),
59–173. J. GUERBER, Le ralliement du clergé français à la morale
liguorienne: l’abbé Gousset et ses précurseurs (1785–1832) (Rome
1973). H. J. POTTMEYER, Unfehlbarkeit und Souveränität: Die päp-
stliche Unfehlbarkeit der ultramonten Ekklesiologie des 19.
Jahrhunderts (Mayence 1975). R. F. COSTIGAN, Rohrbacher and the
Ecclesiology of Ultramontanism (Rome 1980). U. HORST, Unfehl-
barkeit und Geschichte (Mayence 1982). T. A. KSELMAN, Miracles
and Prophecies in Nineteenth Century France (New Brunswick
1983). J. GADILLE, Les Ultramontains Canadiens français (Montré-
al 1985). A. GOUGH, Paris and Rome: The Gallican Church and the
Ultramontane Campaign, 1848–1853 (Oxford 1986). L. CHATEL-
LIER, Europe of the Devouts (Cambridge 1989). K. GANZER, ‘‘Galli-
kanische und römische Primataufflassung im widerstreit. Zu den
ekklesiologischen Auseinandersetzungen auf dem Konzil von Tri-
ent,’’ Historishe Jahrbuch 109 (1989) 109–163. B. CHÉDOZEAU, La
Bible et la liturgie en français (Paris 1990). K. SCHATZ, Papal Pri-
macy: From Its Origins to the Present (Collegeville Minn. 1996).
M. VÉNARD, ‘‘Ultramontane of Gallican? The French Episcopate at
the End of the Sixteenth Century,’’ The Jurist 52 (1992), 142–161.
B. NEVEU, L’erreur et son juge. Remarques sur les censures doctri-
nales à l’époque moderne (Naples 1993). L. CHATELLIER, The Reli-
285
UMAYYADS
gion of the Poor (Cambridge 1997). J. VON ARX, ed., Varieties of
Ultramontanism (Washington 1998). J. M. GRES-GAYER, Le Galli-
canisme de Sorbonne 1657–1688 (Paris 2001).
[J. M. GRES-GAYER]
UMAYYADS
Caliphs of the aristocratic Meccan clan of Banū
Umayya, who came to power in Syria in 661 A.D., and
began the first Islamic dynasty. Because they were un-
popular with the pietist element among Muslims, they
were destroyed in a general revolution in 750 (see
’ABBĀSIDS), but a prince of their house established him-
self in Spain, where they ruled until 1031A.D..
Rise. The Banū Umayya were the leaders of the
pagan oligarchy at MECCA that had opposed the prophet
Muh: ammad. One of them however, ’Uthmān ibn ’Affān,
was a prominent early convert to Islam. (See ALI.) After
Muh: ammad’s triumph and the foundation of the Arab
empire, ’Uthmān was elected CALIPH (644–656) and gave
many of his kinsmen high places.
After ’Uthmān’s assassination, his cousin Mu’āwiya
ibn Abı̄ Sufyān, the governor of Syria, asserted the right
to vengeance and so adroitly directed his struggle against
’Alı̄ that he emerged as caliph in 661. ’Alı̄’s caliphate,
important as it was, can thus be regarded as an interlude
in events that made the Banū Umayya, former enemies
of Muh: ammad, his successors.
The base of Umayyad power was the formerly By-
zantine Syria, where Mu’āwiya had the loyalty of the
half-Christianized Syrian Arabs and the good will of the
Syrian Christians, and where he had laid the foundations
of Arab sea power in repeated campaigns against the
Christian Byzantine Empire. An astute statesman and
diplomat, more interested in governing than in religion,
he drew heavily on the skills of the Syrian Christians in
administering his realm. Iraq, ’Alı̄’s former base, re-
mained a seat of opposition. Mu’āwiya initiated the fami-
ly policy of leaving the eastern provinces to be governed
by determined, semiautonomous henchmen whose meth-
ods were not questioned so long as they kept order. Even-
tually this policy alienated Iraq and Iran from the
dynasty.
Mu’āwiya’s arrangements were crowned with the
recognition of the right of his son to succeed him. This
heir, the execrated Yazı̄d I (680–683), was unlucky
enough to be responsible for the death of Husayn ibn
’Alı̄, the Prophet’s surviving grandson. Husayn had tried
to raise a rebellion in Iraq at Mu’āwiya’s death and was
killed in deplorable circumstances at Kerbela in 680 by
the viceroy of Iraq. His ‘‘martyrdom’’ furnished the oc-
286
casion for the emergence of the SHĪ‘ITES, and was a rally-
ing point for all who distrusted the ‘‘irreligious’’
Umayyads. After Yazı̄d’s premature death in 683, fol-
lowed soon by that of his minor son, the Syrian tribes
elected their aged cousin Marwān (684–685), the unpop-
ular former secretary of ’Uthmān. His reign was spent in
struggle with an anticaliph at MEDINA, son of the Proph-
et’s companion Zubayr, who had once supported and then
opposed ’Alı̄. Marwān’s son ’Abd al-Malik (685–705)
introduced a policy more Arab and Islamic, in conformity
with Muslim public opinion, and discriminated against
native Christians, who nevertheless remained influential.
The eminent Doctor of the Greek Church, St. JOHN OF
DAMASCUS, was reared at the Umayyad court and fol-
lowed his family’s tradition by acting as a high financial
official perhaps as late as 726, before retiring to the Mon-
astery of St. Sabas in Palestine.
Under Walı̄d ibn ’Abd al-Malik (705–715), the em-
pire reached its greatest expansion; eastern Iran and
Transoxania, Visigothic Spain and the lower valley of the
Indus were conquered by Muslim armies, and the cities
of the empire enriched with splendid sanctuaries worthy
of an imperial destiny, in contrast to the rusticity of early
Islam. Under his brother Sulaymān (715–717), a major
attempt to take Constantinople failed.
Decline in the East. At first ‘‘Arab’’ and ‘‘Muslim’’
were synonymous. Converts were accepted often grudg-
ingly, had an inferior status, and were expected to contin-
ue paying the tribute. The anti-Umayyad Shı̄‘ites and
Kharijites took up the cause of the new Muslims, and de-
spite the objections of the Arab military class, orthodox
pietists also insisted that Muslims of whatever origin
must all receive equal treatment.
With the Umayyad ’Umar II, son of ’Abd al-’Azı̄z
ibn Marwān, a man of pietist persuasion came to the
throne (717–720). For expensive military expansion he
substituted remission of the tribute for all converts, re-
sulting in mass conversions, particularly in North Africa
and the East. With his death, however, the old policies
were resumed, and the now considerable convert element
joined in opposition to the dynasty. Moreover, the caliphs
had unwisely begun to take sides in the persistent feuds
of the Arab tribal factions. The Arab character of the
dynasty was always marked: they preferred the carefree
life of desert residences to their capital of Damascus.
The fiscal policies of Hishām (724–743) brought
local uprisings, and the profligacy of his nephew, Walı̄d
II (743–744), pushed the dynasty into the abyss. A revolt
of the Syrian Arabs cost Walı̄d his life; religious and trib-
al revolts broke out on every hand as a reflection of the
family failure to adjust the simple patriarchal and tribal
system they had inherited, either to the needs of the vast
NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA