"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 ...
What is the proper recourse? Write a letter? Pray that cardinals and bishops band together and express their concerns? I do not think this has ever happened before…
We are asking about whether the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith should issue a binding interpretation of one footnote in Amoris Laetitia, which is problematic if and only if one were to insist on interpreting it in a heterodox manner.
Meanwhile, none of the following have “changed” :
Catechism of the Catholic Church : 1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ – “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery”160 the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.
…
2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.
…
Can. 1085 §1. A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.
§2. Even if the prior marriage is invalid or dissolved for any reason, it is not on that account permitted to contract another before the nullity or dissolution of the prior marriage is established legitimately and certainly.
…
Can. 1096 §1. For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.
…
Can. 1101 §1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words and signs used in celebrating the marriage.
§2. If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly.
…
Can. 1107 Even if a marriage was entered into invalidly by reason of an impediment or a defect of form, the consent given is presumed to persist until its revocation is established.
Speculation about an invalid conclave based on collusion of some Cardinals. If we believe a pope cannot err when speaking definitively in matters of faith and morals ( ex cathedra or ordinary magisterium), is it possible Francis is not the Vicar of Christ? Could Benedict be retaining the office?
I would say: no . . . at least, not without the “common” assent of the Pope.
The CDF does participate in the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff (as per its own Donum Veritatis, no. 18), but it does not supersede or replace it. But, I think, it’s a question about whether on its own it make binding interpretations of Papal statements.
This is a dangerous matter for some “Conservatives” who seem to want to use the CDF as an “end-run” around a Pope they truly find it hard to like.
I meant: ” . . . it COULD make . . . ” above.
allenmurphy, if collusion invalidates a conclave then we are in real trouble, starting pretty much from the first conclave in the 12th c. Francis is the Pope.
I noted on Facebook that CathProgs don’t need the Pope’s permission to do what they want to do. They just do it. Faithful Catholics follow the rules and always will (to the best of their ability). A “binding interpretation” from the CDF or the Pope or anyone else won’t make any difference to the CathProgs. They will do what they always do: create loopholes, spin ambiguity, claim pastoral need, and basically just whatever they *feel* like doing.
If I had a dime for every time one of my studium profs read a Vatican document in a way that completely undermined its intent. . .I’d have a much larger library.
It has always been thus.
Fr. Philip Neri, OP (Order of Pessimists)
Allen: the Pope hasn’t exercised infallibility. The Pope only personally exercises the Church’s infallibility when defining doctrine definitely ex cathedra. This is exceedingly rare. Yes the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible – but this doesn’t necessarily mean the ordinary magisterium of one pope – it means the consistent teaching of the ENTIRE college of bishops, United to the Bishop of Rome, in every time and place, is infallible.
I would prefer not. Leave it unspecified by the Holy Father, and pray.
TWF says:
Allen: the Pope hasn’t exercised infallibility. The Pope only personally exercises the Church’s infallibility when defining doctrine definitely ex cathedra. This is exceedingly rare. Yes the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible – but this doesn’t necessarily mean the ordinary magisterium of one pope – it means the consistent teaching of the ENTIRE college of bishops, United to the Bishop of Rome, in every time
The ex cathedra infallibility of the pope is not limited to definitions (cf Vat I and Vat II).
The Pope has not exercised infallibility in this matter because no phrases to indicate infallibility, such as “all the Faithful must believe” and so on, have been used.
@Fr Philip Neri
“I’d have a much larger library…”
First laugh I’ve had all day!
The Holy Father is infallible with regards to faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra, and like all bishops, when teaching from the Ordinary AND Universal Magisterium. Him merely teaching from his ordinary magisterium requires only religious asent from the faithful but does not require divine faith.