"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
This brings to mind a point I make when explaining what we believe about grace (sanctifying and actual) and how God’s grace works in our lives.
It is the teaching of the Church–the Council of Trent in particular–that no truly good act can take place without the assistance of grace. Our good works, such as they are, are “good” only insofar as they are a fruit of God’s grace at work in our actions. The exact interplay between divine action and human response is a mystery I cannot fathom; yet we assert that human freedom is real and yet “it’s all grace.”
So when a sinner–however profound–turns to God in any way, or even prior to turning “to God,” simply begins to turn from sin to any degree, this must be attributed to the work of God’s grace.
Grace is not merely something we get after we do our repentance; it precedes, accompanies, sustains, draws and is the reward of repentance.
I’ve asked this question: if a terrible sinner–as bad as you can imagine–starts to feel bad, thinks of going to confession, shows up, goes in, confesses at length, receives a suitable penance, makes an act of contrition, receives absolution, and leaves, and completes his penance…at what point does he receive grace?
Of course, one must distinguish between actual–“helper”–graces, and sanctifying grace (and I use the discussion to explain that); yet sometimes the answer will reveal how some folks tend to see grace as something we’re rewarded with only after we “do our part.” My point is that grace–or, to be more precise in what I’m saying, God’s initiative to save us–does not wait for us to clean up our act.
I bring this up because I’m wondering what underlies the presenting question: why should someone in a state of mortal sin not be able to offer a prayer in an effective way? The very motive of prayer itself comes from God–it has to.
No one can turn even the slightest bit toward God, unless God himself is assisting that turning.
Thank you Fr. Z. for doing this Quaeritur. I have had the more general question on my mind for some time of whether we can pray and our prayers will be useful/acknoledged, etc. when in the state of mortal sin. quaeriturem meam respondisti.
Forgive my mistakes and do correct me! I am still relearning Latin from Cambridge Latin Course unit 1 of 4, and I am only 1/2 way through book 1. I tried to say “you have answered my question” using Quaeritur in the accusative case with “my” to indincate whose question, and respondet in the perfect tense (completed action). I am not perfect when it comes to Latin sentencing orders yet.
What is this “state of mortal sin”?
Surely an absence of the state of grace?
Fr. Fox, Thank you for your explanation about grace. I was a Methodist once and they make a big deal about grace being prevenient. There’s even a section in their hymnal called “prevenient grace.”
This is NOT a criticism of our enquirer.
Two things strike me: i) we must at all cost avoid scrupulosity, this is implicit in the phrase : “It seems it won’t be efficacious if the soul was in sin…” No, the efficacity depends on the disposition, not the state, of the soul. This leads me to ii) if you were set on repeated and besetting sin you would not WANT to start a Novena. The desire to start the Novena makes quite clear, BEYOND ALL DOUBT, that the soul is disposed to reject sin, and make amends, whatever it has done wrong in the past.
A warning: What is important is the disposition of the soul now. To fear that you may in the future relapse in to sin, and thus hold back from the means of grace now is serious scrupulousness: speak to your confessor. You many BELIEVE that you are more than likely to sin again within a few weeks, that is NOT THE POINT. What is important is that you intend to make amends now.
Thank you all for responding to my question!
Thank you, Fr Fox, that was most useful!