Author Topic: Fr. Z Publicly Mocks SSPX Defender for Making a Typo (Read 3145 times)

stevusmagnus · « **on:** March 15, 2012, 10:09:34 AM »

Demonstrating once again the charity, patience, tolerance, seriousness, depth, and maturity of Fr. John Zuhlsdorf...

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/love-notes-from-the-gallery-gotta-chuckle/

Elizabeth · « **Reply #1 on:** March 15, 2012, 10:42:14 AM »

We have seen his type fall more than once. Those who place attention on themselves rather than Our Lord walk a dangerous path.

Roland Deschain · « **Reply #2 on:** March 15, 2012, 11:26:51 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Demonstrating once again the charity, patience, tolerance, seriousness, depth, and maturity of Fr. John Zuhlsdorf...

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/love-notes-from-the-gallery-gotta-chuckle/

Father "Z" and his Neo-Catholic, Neo-Trad yes-men are as much a problem as the unmasked modernists. In a way they are more dangerous since so many think that their "smells and bells" traditionalism is true Catholic Tradition.

There are currently many SSPX priests working in the Philippians, India and other places to save as many souls as possible while Father "Z" sips red wine and eats gourmet meals from behind his computer screen.

Caraffa · « **Reply #3 on:** March 15, 2012, 09:13:23 PM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

We have seen his type fall more than once. Those who place attention on themselves rather than Our Lord walk a dangerous path.

Fr. Z really does draw men after himself rather than Christ.

Diego · « **Reply #4 on:** March 16, 2012, 09:27:30 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Demonstrating once again the charity, patience, tolerance, seriousness, depth, and maturity of Fr. John Zuhlsdorf...

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/love-notes-from-the-gallery-gotta-chuckle/

I have attempted to post this:

Quote

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?

Likely it will be "moderated."

Diego · « **Reply #5 on:** March 16, 2012, 10:25:22 AM »

Surprisingly, the comment was not "moderated."

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/love-notes-from-the-gallery-gotta-chuckle/#comment-330144

Who can imagine the Curee d'Ars seeking such "vote for me [and my blog]" celebrity status?

TraditionalistThomas · « **Reply #6 on:** March 20, 2012, 01:11:23 AM »

With all due respect; what was he supposed to do? The note to him simply said "Learn Canon Law". He responded with pretty much "Learn to spell before accusing me".

Diego · « **Reply #7 on:** March 20, 2012, 09:46:26 AM »

Mr. Zuhlsdorf's critic raised the question of supplied jurisdiction. Mr. Zuhlsdorf dodged the issue with non-responsive, proud, and insulting repartee. Mr. Zuhlsdorf is no alter-Christus.

tradne13838 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 20, 2012, 12:40:23 PM »

Nothing new here. The debate will rage on until the Pope settles the issue. In the meantime, I believe Positive Doubt comes into play. I'll have to look at the argument again. If I remember right, there are multiple reasons supplied jurisdiction can come into play.

Sigismund · « **Reply #9 on:** March 20, 2012, 09:17:07 PM »

If Fr. Zuhlsdorf had an argument he should have made it. I don't buy the SSPX's arguments for suplied jurisdiction, but I assume they are made in good faith and feel no personal need to argue against them. If Fr. Z does, he really does his cause no service by being insulting.

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?]