"The great Father Zed, Archiblogopoios"
-
Fr. John Hunwicke
"Some 2 bit novus ordo cleric"
- Anonymous
"Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a traditionalist blogger who has never shied from picking fights with priests, bishops or cardinals when liturgical abuses are concerned."
- Kractivism
"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.”
- Comment
"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."
- Comment
"A cross between Kung Fu Panda and Wolverine."
- Anonymous
Fr. Z is officially a hybrid of Gandalf and Obi-Wan XD
- Comment
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 thought he died June 29, as the basis for the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. hm…
Father – a TLM alert – Extraordinary Form at St. Monica Parish in Philadelphia, 12 Noon on Dec. 8th.
Joe-
I can do better- Solemn high Midnight Mass at Our Lady of Lourdes, Philadelphia, 12 Midnight, Christmas eve.
It’s our first solemn high mass.
Where did rogueclassicism get this?
Why wouldn’t the martyrology state this date for Peter’s crucifixion?
Hugo, that’s correct. The Martyrology gives 29 June as the date for St. Peter’s crucifixion.
Hugo said: I thought he died June 29, as the basis for the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. hm…
Actually it’s more likely to be the other way around: his feast on June 29 is probably the basis for the belief that he died on that date. The Church remembers his crucifixion on June 29, but that doesn’t mean that St. Peter actually was crucified then.
Where did rogueclassicism get this?
Good question. I’d never heard of Nov. 23 as the date of St. Peter’s crucifixion before.
The old Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about the date of St. Peter’s death and of his feast:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm#IV
Of course it is possible, although not provable, that the June 29 translation of the relics of the Apostles happened on the traditional date of St. Peter’s crucifixion.
From the Roman Martyrology for 29 June:
Romæ natalis sanctorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, qui eodem anno eodemque die passi sunt, sub Nerone Imperatore. Horum prior, in eadem Urbe, capite ad terram verso cruci affixus, et in Vaticano juxta viam Triumphalem sepultus, totius Orbis veneratione celebratur; posterior autem, gladio animadversus, et via Ostiensi sepultus, pari honore habetur.
St. Peter was crucified on that day. It says so.
Yes, and the Kalends of Christmas also say that Jesus was born on 25 Dec., one thousand years after the anointing of King David, in the 194th Olympiad, in 752 A.U.C., in the 42nd. year of the reign of Augustus — and yet Jesus may not have really been born on 25 Dec. in the exact year specified in the Kalends, nor was it necessarily exactly 1,000 years from David’s anointing to the birth of Jesus (the traditional Martyrology says 1,032 years, which might not be right either: similarly, the traditional Martyrology’s assertion that Jesus was born in the 5,199th year from the Creation of the world isn’t necessarily true). In the same way, the Roman Martyrology does not actually say that St. Peter was crucified on 29 June. It says that day is the “birthday” of Saints Peter and Paul, which means that is when the Church commemorates their martyrdoms, not that they were actually martyred on 29 June. Maybe they were, but there is no way to tell, and the Martyrology is not evidence of the actual date of their martyrdoms.
“Birthday” in the Martyrology means the day that someone died. When we commemorate them on a different day, there is a notation on the saint’s birthday that indicates the date of the commemoration, and another notation on the day of the commemoration which indicates the date of their “birthday.”
“Birthday” in the Martyrology means the day that someone died.
Or the day that the saint’s “birthday” is traditionally commemorated.
When we commemorate them on a different day, there is a notation on the saint’s birthday that indicates the date of the commemoration, and another notation on the day of the commemoration which indicates the date of their “birthday.”
That only applies when a saint’s date of death is actually known. Nobody but God knows the exact date when Sts. Peter and Paul died, so there can be no “different day” when their deaths might be commemorated apart from the traditional date of 29 June, which only began to be observed as their feast day in and after A.D. 258.
As I said, the Martyrology is not evidence of the actual date of their martyrdoms. It is only evidence of the date that the Church has traditionally remembered their martyrdoms, which may or may not have been on 29 June, and may or may not have been on the same day of the same year, and may or may not have been on the same day exactly one year apart — all of those possibilities are attested in ancient tradition, but there is no historical evidence favoring one possibility above the others. The passage from the Martyrology is NOT the Church’s insistence that St. Peter actually died on 29 June and that Catholics must believe that is when he died.