"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 ...
That’s the way it has been since “the beginning” back in 1965. Maybe they should rename it the “synod of ordinaries.” … Maybe not….
There’s ancient precedent for Abbots to participate in synods. I believe the voting priests were major superiors…so there’s kinda a connection ?
Yes, it’s inconsistent.
But really, does it matter one bit? All votes are in a sense for naught. Even if 100% of the votes in a synod were cast one way, it won’t happen unless the Holy Father agrees to it and implement it. Likewise, he can do things with 0 votes.
It’s not as if these votes decide anything. They can act as an excuse for various things, seemly and unseemly, but I very much doubt that on these topics, people needed more excuses. They tend to have a very long line of bad ones lined up already.
In fact, it never ceases to amuse (though rarely amaze) me how much store progressives set by formal regulations when they smell a chance to change them in their favor, and how little when it comes to actually heeding them.
The one brother is an odd exception, even if superior general. As are priestly delegations.
However, priests with the dignity of abbots, or of superiors-general of fairly important (read: Papal) orders have long been treated as somewhat on par with bishops – jurisdiction-wise, not ordination-wise, of course – and were thus, e. g., also members of an Ecumenical Council according to the Old Code (the new one is less specific, can. 339).
However, apart from the abbots that only ever included superiors-general – i. e. the actual leaders, not a delegation of a couple of persons. And as far as I know, in practice at least were all priests (though I cannot find a restriction to priests in can. 223/old).
It’s because one brother voted at people like Fr. James Martin, SJ are calling the Synod sexist for not allowing lay females to vote on the Synod.
Well from my reading, Canon 342 might appear to limit the Synod to Bishops but Canon 346 indicates that some religious may also be invited to the process. Nowhere in canons do I see anything about process or voting, so it appears that it may be allowed.
My guess is that ambiguity is intentional, both because we haven’t yet refined the best approach for holding a synod and since synods don’t necessarily have anything to do with the care of souls. [O my prophetic soul!] They may be called for everything from new challenges from science and bioethics to the place of biblical/patristic studies in the Catholic life to relations with the Eastern Orthodox. Some experts may have valuable insight on some topics than the average bishop does not, and because it doesn’t directly address doctrine or pastoral practice, their voice is valuable. However, the synod on the family is clearly one place where no-one but bishops *should* be the only ones to vote.
Phillip:
Yes, the Synod isn’t binding without papal action, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter. Synods of bishops have been central to the Church throughout her long history. It is an ancient tradition, and much of what we now take for granted is thanks to various local synods (which in ancient times, as in the Eastern Churches today, did have binding authority). Take the canon of scripture for example…
[Who knows what your point is. So… is it: Synods in the ancient Church helped define the Canon of Scripture, therefore this Synod… what exactly?>]
My answer to “confused” is that many in the Vatican operate like the American democrat party. When you don’t get the result you want from a legitimate law abiding election, bus in the illegals, register illegitimate voters, and illegally vote multiple times to satiate the thirst of “progressive” god of the zeitgeist.
[It does seem like that, doesn’t it. I think I mentioned Delphi Technique elsewhere.]
Surely this is an ontological question?
Father: above I just meant that a lot of well meaning people seem to want to downplay the importance of the synodal process in general, just because some have tried to abuse this synod. Any institution including the papacy itself can be abused by those who wish to destroy the Church. Synods with real teeth is the ancient tradition of the Church and I wouldn’t want to see this tradition downplayed or dismissed simply on account of liberal abuses. Eastern Catholic synods have canonical binding autbority and they are free of liberal influence. Liberals will cause problems regardless- synods or not.
(I understand that the Church is not a democracy.)
So, if liberals think that the Church is a democracy, how can any synod in which only a small portion of bishops are included, be taken seriously at all? Clearly, we have lot of disenfranchised bishops who did not get to vote in the synod.
The Code of Canon Law gives some general law for the Synod of Bishops, but most of the special law is contained in the Ordo Synodi Episcoporum. Most of the members named are bishops, but Article 5.1.e lists among the other members the following:
“Ten Men-Religious, representatives of Clerical Religious Institutes, elected by the Union of Superiors General, according to Article 6, § 2;”
These would not necessarily be bishops. Likewise Article 1.1.3 lists among the authorities of the Holy Father:
“to ratify the election of its Members, who are to be elected according to the norms of Article 6, § 1, § 2, and also to appoint the other Members;”
There doesn’t seem to be any limit to who could constitute these “other members.” All the participants are there to advise the Holy Father, so it makes some sense that, ultimately, he can invite whomever he wants.
Fr. Tunink,
According to “Apostolica sollicitudo” n. X, the pope can appoint, at most, 15% of the total members (see, for a reference to this, the Ordo, art. 5, paragraph 4). I didn’t run the numbers on this Synod and the percentage. He can go beyond the 15%, of course, but the number is there for a reason (I would think).
Dan