"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
The best thing about the translation is the return to the royal We: Everything that has been decide by Us in this Apostolic Letter.
Is it just me or does Canon 1009 § 3 still seem overly vague? From this read it would seem that mixed marraiges are now harder to get or easier? Who would be the competant authority? Would this be the local parish priest or the some person, tribunal, etc. at the diocesean level?
I’m confused moon – canon 1009 has nothing to do with mixed marriages. The new paragraph added to the canon clarifies the fact that deacons do not receive the mission and faculty of acting in persona Christi capitis, but are ordained for service. A necessary clarification, and this aligns the law of the Church with the catechism.
A mixed marriage is now no easier or harder to obtain than before – recourse is still needed to the competent authority, which is clarified in the following canon (1125) to be the local ordinary (see canon 134 for a definition of who a local ordinary is). The local ordinary must grant permission for a Catholic to marry a baptized non-Catholic (and a dispensation, ceteris paribus, for a Catholic to marry an unbaptized person. That hasn’t changed.
What has changed is that a person who was baptized Catholic but later abandoned the practice of the faith, either formally or informally, is still considered a Catholic. No dispensation or permission is required for him to marry another Catholic in the Church. This will have great impact in the United States, where people frequently drift from denomination to denomination. If John was baptized Catholic at grandma’s parish when he was a baby, but then raised as a Presbyterian by mom and dad – despite the fact that he never really considered himself Catholic, in virtue of his Catholic baptism, he is Catholic, and as such is bound by canon law.
Thanks to the translator for this work.
The changes to clarify the meaning of the diaconate are interesting. I wonder whether the previous version’s lack of specificity had enabled any misunderstanding about the distinctions between the priesthood and the diaconate. Had some theologian tried to speculate that deacons could perform priestly acts in some circumstance?