"The great Father Zed, Archiblogopoios"
- Fr. John Hunwicke
"Some 2 bit novus ordo cleric"
"Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a traditionalist blogger who has never shied from picking fights with priests, bishops or cardinals when liturgical abuses are concerned."
"Father John Zuhlsdorf is a crank"
"Father Zuhlsdorf drives me crazy"
"the hate-filled Father John Zuhlsford" [sic]
"Father John Zuhlsdorf, the right wing priest who has a penchant for referring to NCR as the 'fishwrap'"
"Zuhlsdorf is an eccentric with no real consequences" - HERE
- Michael Sean Winters
"Fr Z is a true phenomenon of the information age: a power blogger and a priest."
- Anna Arco
“Given that Rorate Coeli and Shea are mad at Fr. Z, I think it proves Fr. Z knows what he is doing and he is right.”
"Let me be clear. Fr. Z is a shock jock, mostly. His readership is vast and touchy. They like to be provoked and react with speed and fury."
- Sam Rocha
"Father Z’s Blog is a bright star on a cloudy night."
"A cross between Kung Fu Panda and Wolverine."
Fr. Z is officially a hybrid of Gandalf and Obi-Wan XD
Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a scrappy blogger popular with the Catholic right.
- America Magazine
RC integralist who prays like an evangelical fundamentalist.
-Austen Ivereigh on Twitter
[T]he even more mainline Catholic Fr. Z. blog.
-Deus Ex Machina
“For me the saddest thing about Father Z’s blog is how cruel it is.... It’s astonishing to me that a priest could traffic in such cruelty and hatred.”
- Jesuit homosexualist James Martin to BuzzFeed
"Fr. Z's is one of the more cheerful blogs out there and he is careful about keeping the crazies out of his commboxes"
- Paul in comment at 1 Peter 5
"I am a Roman Catholic, in no small part, because of your blog.
I am a TLM-going Catholic, in no small part, because of your blog.
And I am in a state of grace today, in no small part, because of your blog."
- Tom in comment
"Thank you for the delightful and edifying omnibus that is your blog."- Reader comment.
"Fr. Z disgraces his priesthood as a grifter, a liar, and a bully. - - Mark Shea
I wonder if Alaric ever had the chance to meet His Excellency the bishop of Carthage?
And I wonder if he converted? The Vandal, that is.
God bless you.
The bishop of Hippo.
Dan, I thought it was the Vandals, not the Goths, who came to N. Africa.
My mistake. I thought Alaric was a Vandal.
Reminds me of that old SNL skit when Steve Martin was the guest host: “Centurion! Centurion! The Vandals have toilet-papered the camp!”
“Sacked” is a bit strong, don’t you think? “Occupied” might be a more accurate term,no? It’s not like Alaric was a stranger to the Romans, and he didn’t rape, pillage or plunder, which is more along the order of sacking a city. Like what Ghenghis Khan would do.
I knew I should’ve stayed in bed this morning!
Dan said: I thought Alaric was a Vandal.
You were probably thinking of Gaiseric or Genseric, King of the Vandals, who also sacked Rome.
Stephen said: Itâ€™s not like Alaric was a stranger to the Romans, and he didnâ€™t rape, pillage or plunder, which is more along the order of sacking a city.
Traditionally it’s been called the Sack of Rome, not the Visigothic Occupation of Rome: and they did do some pillaging and plundering.
Here’s how one website describes Alaric’s Sack of Rome:
It was no picnic, but still it was pretty mild compared to what passed for sacking in those days. What Rome did to Carthage was a “sack”. The Mongol hordes hundreds of years later also “sacked”. The “sack of Rome” was more emotional and cultural, as Alaric himself was a former “soldier for hire” for Rome, as were all those troops. So they weren’t strangers.
Yes, apart from the burning of buildings, the looting, the killing, and enslavement, it was a mild sacking. Henceforth let all scholars of Roman history refer to Alaric’s Comparatively Mild Sacking of Rome.
Okay, I’m having a bit of fun here. You’re right that as sackings go it wasn’t as bad as most. Psychologically, emotional, and culturally, though, it made a serious impact on Rome and the Empire, and rightly was remembered as one of the pivotal moments or milestones in Western civilisation.
By the way, what Rome did to Carthage was much more than a simple “sacking”: Carthage was completely demolished and salt was sowed there to prevent anything from growing there.
Roman fastidiousness. Let’s say the Romans at Carthage defined one end of the boundary within which we can use sacking, and Alaric (Gothic sloppiness or mercy?) the other end. Yes, it was a low point for Rome, but the Empire endured.
I have always loved Livy’s description of the sack of Rome by the Gauls 800 years before Alaric. Way to go, Papirius!
“After all the arrangements that circumstances permitted had been made for the defence of the Capitol, the old men returned to their respective homes and, fully prepared to die, awaited the coming of the enemy. Those who had filled curule offices resolved to meet their fate wearing the insignia of their former rank and honour and distinctions. They put on the splendid dress which they wore when conducting the chariots of the gods or riding in triumph through the City, and thus arrayed, they seated themselves in their ivory chairs in front of their houses. Some writers record that, led by M. Fabius, the Pontifex Maximus, they recited the solemn formula in which they devoted themselves to death for their country and the Quirites.
“As the Gauls were refreshed by a night’s rest after a battle which had at no point been seriously contested, and as they were not now taking the City by assault or storm, their entrance the next day was not marked by any signs of excitement or anger. Passing the Colline gate, which was standing open, they came to the Forum and gazed round at the temples and at the Citadel, which alone wore any appearance of war. They left there a small body to guard against any attack from the Citadel or Capitol whilst they were scattered, and then they dispersed in quest of plunder through streets in which they did not meet a soul. Some poured in a body into all the houses near, others made for the most distant ones, expecting to find them untouched and full of spoils. Appalled by the very desolation of the place and dreading lest some stratagem should surprise the stragglers, they returned to the neighbourhood of the Forum in close order. The houses of the plebeians were barricaded, the halls of the patricians stood open, but they felt greater hesitation about entering the open houses than those which were closed. They gazed with feelings of real veneration upon the men who were seated in the porticoes of their mansions, not only because of the superhuman magnificence of their apparel and their whole bearing and demeanour, but also because of the majestic expression of their countenances, wearing the very aspect of gods. So they stood, gazing at them as if they were statues, till, as it is asserted, one of the patricians, M. Papirius, roused the passion of a Gaul, who began to stroke his beard–which in those days was universally worn long–by smiting him on the head with his ivory staff. He was the first to be killed, the others were butchered in their chairs. After this slaughter of the magnates, no living being was thenceforth spared; the houses were rifled, and then set on fire.”
Stephen said: Yes, it was a low point for Rome, but the Empire endured.
In the East anyway. In the West it suffered total collapse, with a comparatively shortlived paste-up job under Justinian.
Alaric’s sack was an important milestone in the collapse of the Empire in the West.