Author Topic: Fr. Z Publicly Mocks SSPX Defender for Making a Typo (Read 3922 times)

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #10 on:** March 22, 2012, 11:16:31 PM »

I wish he'd do a better job of arguing against supplied jurisdiction, or better still, agree that the Society has a point.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #11 on:** March 24, 2012, 11:25:05 AM »

I tried presenting the case for supplied jurisdiction on his blog a few years ago. He called it "canonical fandancing", gave no substantive response and banned myself and Catholic writer, Brian Mershon for our time. Typical Neo-Cath response. If you can't win the argument call their position a name and end the discussion. Same tactic he used with the SSPX'er who made a typo. No matter how much he ignores it, the issue remains. It will continue on long after Fr. Z fades from the blogosphere. It is a serious issue worth discussing.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #12 on:** March 25, 2012, 02:48:51 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

I tried presenting the case for supplied jurisdiction on his blog a few years ago. He called it "canonical fandancing", gave no substantive response and banned myself and Catholic writer, Brian Mershon for our time. Typical Neo-Cath response. If you can't win the argument call their position a name and end the discussion. Same tactic he used with the SSPX'er who made a typo. No matter how much he ignores it, the issue remains. It will continue on long after Fr. Z fades from the blogosphere. It is a serious issue worth discussing.

Their hostility is borne of fear and ignorance.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #13 on:** May 15, 2012, 07:02:39 PM »

Just for the record, I went to the website and took a peek. After collecting over 30 hollow, cult-like replies from readers, the following day, Fr. Z posted a single additional reply that does somewhat give his opinion on the topic, so to speak:

Quote

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf says:
15 March 2012 at 8:49 am

Everyone: Keep in mind that this whole entry has nothing to do with poor Fr. Guarnizo and his circuмstances, unless of course he were to join the SSPX. At that point he would have no faculties to hear confessions except in cases of danger of death.

IOW no supplied jurisdiction, barring the most extreme emergency, and even then, for "hearing confessions" only. Notice: he didn't say anything about giving a valid absolution!

That post was shortly followed (24 hrs) by Diego's, which was the final post on this topic:

Quote

Diego says:
16 March 2012 at 8:22 am

Not merely pedantic, Rev. Zuhldsorf’s showboating repartee is disparaging, non-responsive, prideful, not at all Christ-like, not evidence of grace, not remotely priestly. It is not empty talk or trivial to discuss the matter of supplied jurisdiction, but a serious concern for many practicing Catholics. In these days of diabolical disorientation, who can be surprised that 32 of Rev. Zuhlsdorf’s devotees have cheered his proud tongue and failed to notice that his interlocutor deserved a charitable, substantive, and priestly response?

[Don't forget to vote for me in the About.com awards for best blog, okay?]