"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
Loading ...
“The commemoration of St. Ezechiel, the prophet, the son of Buzi the priest. He was privileged to a vision of the presence of the LORD at the time of the Exile in the land of Babylon and was appointed the Watchman over the House of Israel[shaphat beit Israel]. He pointed out the infidelity of the Chosen People, foresaw the holy City Jerusalem in ruins, and that the people would be turned out to go and sent into exile. He himself was placed among the captives, and fed their hope that their dry bones would rise to life. [Ch. 37}]”
“Hatzmot ha’bashot, shema devar [Adonai].
Linua latina una sententia, anglica tres, loquitur.
Salutationes omnibus.
Erratum: Linua; corrigendum: lingua.
Causa patientiae gratias ago.
[Sweet OT : http://www.paolorodari.com/2010/07/23/baseball-a-castelgandolfo/ :]
Today is also the feast of St Bridget of Sweden
A small point:
Perhaps a better parallel in English would have been to set praepositus with improbavit,. The next English sentence would follow prospexit. Missum could be better as “be sent.”
Tsepha beit Israel is 3:17; Hatzmot is 37:4
Ad astra per aspera.
St. Ezekiel, patron saint of wargamers and roleplayers, pray for us!
(See Ezekiel 4:1 and following.)
The future passive infinitive is formed off the accusative supine, so it should be ‘eversum iri’, rather than ‘eversurum iri’, unless I’m missing something. If it is meant to be a future passive infinitive, its “subject” would almost certainly be ‘civitatem sanctam Ierusalem’ and not ‘populum’: “… he foresaw that the holy city Jerusalem would be razed to ruins and that the people would be sent into exile.”
torontonian
Actually it should be “eversam iri” – “civitas” is feminini generis.
My understanding of the form is as follows: The ‘eversum’ in ‘eversum iri’ is the accusative supine of ‘everto’. The supine, being a defective fourth declension verbal noun, is not a true participle and thus does not change its gender to match the accusative (‘civitatem’) of the indirect statement. Thus, ‘eversum iri’ would be the correct form.
I am, however, open to correction.
(Also, apologies to all for interrupting the conversation with grammatical quibbling.)
BTW… the text really does read eversurum iri.
Fr. Z:
Curious! My 2001 edition, on page 385 reads “eversam iri”.
Andrew: The 2005 edition has eversurum iri. The 2005 edition was put out to correct errors and add other entries.
Fr. Z:
Thank you for the clarification. I didn’t know there was a later edition.