"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
This is a wonderful podcazt father. I hope many priests get a chance to hear it. It was worth waiting for. Thanks be to God for your wonderful gifts and that you use them as you do.
Father Z: I have listened to all 48 podcazts so far. If I could choose just one for every priest and bishop to hear and ponder, this might well be it. As we look janus-like both forward and backward, thanks for a podcazt fully worthy of the wonderful year 2007 of Summorum Pontificum, and of our hopes and prayers for the continued success of Benedict’s “Marshall plan” in 2008. Truly, “Happy days are here again!”
Dear Fr. Z,
The new Roman Martyrology (2004) has a somewhat different text at the beginning of the Christmas reading. I don’t have it in front of me, but, as I recall, the ordinal numerals given in connection with the the years of the creation and the flood have been replaced with indefinite adjectives modifying centuries ( *innumerabilibus saeculis* since the creation, and *permultis saeculis* since the flood, I think). I believe the rest of the ordinal numerals are either the same or nearly so. It’s interesting how the Church modifies her account of the physical universe in accordance with the most contemporary accounts provided by natural science. It’s only sensible, I guess, but it is curious that an official liturgical text once told us that the world was about 5200 years old when Jesus was born. It seems like an easy potshot for critics of the Church to make.
Is it only in the 2004 Roman Martyrology that the traditional Kalends of Christmas were edited to remove the specific chronological numbers for the age of the world and the year of the Flood? I became a Catholic in 2000, and every year since then I’ve seen that indefinite language in the Christmas Kalends. I would expect the previous edition of the Roman Martyrology had the same language.
I too find it interesting that the Church formerly was so specific in her liturgy about the age of our world. Granted, a liturgical text is not a formal teaching document, but even so, the liturgy is to convey and enshrine the faith of the Church.
The figure of 5,200 years, by the way, seems to be based on the Septuagint chronology, which places the creation of Adam around 5,500 years before Christ. That figure of 5,500 was very popular in the early Church, and appears in several places, including the fictitious Gospel of Nicodemus. Anyway, I’ve long been fascinated that the Septuagint chronology would place the Flood around 3,300 years before Christ. The Masoretic chronology would date the Flood to historical times, but 3300 B.C. is safely prior to the emergence of written records around 3100 B.C.
Many dates in Sacred Scripture are, of course, symbolic. That liturgical texts respect this is laudable. To think that liturgical texts have to be flattened to a scientific outlook is to miss the point altogether.
No one is denying anything scientific, especially not those who employed those datings in Scripture: they were not trying to be scientists. They were literary giants in their own right, and were inspired as well.