Author Topic: What do you think of Father Z? (Read 2302 times)

Jehanne · « **on:** October 28, 2014, 05:37:46 AM »

I've emailed him several times presenting myself as "a traditional Catholic," and he never replies back. I am quite surprised by his direct solicitations for money and his Amazon "wish list". He seems like he wants to write a lot on the SSPX and traditional Catholics but he does not, at the same, want much of a dialogue on the topic, as those posts have the comment section disabled.

Stubborn · « **Reply #1 on:** October 28, 2014, 06:11:58 AM »

Like Michael Voris, he's a dyed in the wool compromiser.

TKGS · « **Reply #2 on:** October 28, 2014, 06:32:39 AM »

When he first started his weekly column in The Wanderer many years ago which demonstrated the way the ICEL, in many cases, wrote new prayers instead of translating the prayers of the Mass (that first year he dealt with the Collects of the Sunday Masses) he was very informative.

He should have stopped there. But then he started adding his own commentary instead of merely giving a faithful translation of the prayers.

In any event, his purpose was to explain what the prayers of the Novus Ordo really said. He has never been a traditional priest and, as far as I know, he is not a traditional priest now.

He helped keep me stuck in the Novus Ordo for a couple of extra years as I read his columns and continued to inanely think, "If only the pope really knew what was going on."

Stubborn · « **Reply #3 on:** October 28, 2014, 07:48:38 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

In any event, his purpose was to explain what the prayers of the Novus Ordo really said. He has never been a traditional priest and, as far as I know, he is not a traditional priest now.

This is true - he is not a traditional priest.

IMO, it is impossible to serve both the NO and VO and be a traditional anything - for those who do attempt to serve both, they have Fr. Z for their poster child.

Those who do serve both are either indifferent, which is to say "luke warm" aka Apoc 3:16, or they really only tolerate one or the other.

Because of the nature of the beast, typically they will only tolerate the VO for a time before they either become indifferent or they'll embrace the NO and despise the VO. No man can serve two masters. Rarely does one who serves both end up embracing the VO while despising the NO - it may happen, but imo it's rare.

Emitte Lucem Tuam · « **Reply #4 on:** October 28, 2014, 07:49:22 PM »

"Father" Z is a misguided fool at best. He is a good person and an "adequate" Christian, but that's as far as I would go. He is not Catholic judging by many of his posts and speeches. Fact. He may dress the part and say the words, but he's not authentic.

AlligatorDicax · « **Reply #5 on:** October 30, 2014, 10:00:15 PM »

You might want to read what other CathInfo members have written about the Novus Ordo "Father" Z. over (recent) years, via the nonOrwellian search-engine at Ixquick:

<https://ixquick.com/do/search?q=host:cathinfo.com+%22Zuhlsdorf%22>

Many CathInfo members might want to start with the search-results that also have "SSPX" in their Web-page titles (as Ixquick finds them).

Mabel · « **Reply #6 on:** October 30, 2014, 10:02:18 PM »

Think of him? Rarely. We're from different realities.

bernadette · « **Reply #7 on:** October 30, 2014, 10:14:16 PM »

Is he a food critic or a priest?

AlligatorDicax · « **Reply #8 on:** October 31, 2014, 01:00:38 PM »

Quote from: TKGS (Oct 28, 2014, 7:32 am)

["Fr. Z"] has never been a traditional priest and, as far as I know, he is not a traditional priest now.

Zuhlsdorf is a Novus Ordo neocon--thus not traditional as the term is used on CathInfo.

He is either oblivious or disingenuous about the doctrinal issues & "spirit of Vatican II", by which Modernist Rome turned away from the religion of Eternal Rome. Including the issue of the doubtful validity of the Novus Ordo ordinations and consecrations. An explosive one for him personally, considering that it was JP II

who presided at Zuhlsdorf's "ordination" in St. Peter's Basilica.

But really, what should any of "Father" Z.'s readers expect? He was born in 1959, thus Vatican II concluded before he reached the age of reason. Not to say that he would have been even childishly aware of V-II, because he was born and reared as a Lutheran!  He didn't convert to any variety of Catholicism until the mid1980s. He would need to have been the beneficiary of extraördinary gifts of divine grace to understand Catholicism as it was before Vatican II, because his conversion did not occur until 2 decades of conciliar modernism had transformed the mainstream "Catholic Church". He would need extraördinary grace to recognize that the predominately self-referential docuмents that've been issued "in the spirit of Vatican II" are persistent efforts by the Vatican modernists to apply "literature cleansing" to scuttle Catholic tradition.

Should it be any real surprise that as a cradle Protestant, Zuhlsdorf would bond more strongly with the Protestantized Novus Ordo religion, as taught by its seminaries? And that as an American, he would share his native culture's modern obsession with celebrities, leading him into public papolatry and magisterialism

?

-------
Note +: At least Karol Wotyla was a traditionally valid bishop: Becoming auxiliary bishop-elect of Kraków in July 1958 (Pope Pius XII); consecrated in Wawel Cathedral (named for the hill on which it's situated in Kraków) in Sep. 1958 (Abp. Baziak, Bp. Kominek, Bp. Jop); and elevated to Archbishop of Krakow in Dec. 1963 (Paul VI). Too bad for Zuhlsdorf that Paul VI's New Ordinal would've been in exclusive use for 2 decades when his "ordination" was performed in 1991.

Note *: The pair of terms as defined in <http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/faq06.txt>

Matto · « **Reply #9 on:** October 31, 2014, 01:58:39 PM »

I used to read his blog when I was a Neo-cath attending the Novus Ordo or sometimes the indult. When I became traditional and started attending an SSPX chapel I stopped reading his blog because at that point we were in different worlds. I think it's great that he says the traditional Mass and prefers it to the Novus Ordo, but he also says the Novus Ordo and he has no problem with Vatican II, only the super-liberal interpretations of extreme modernists.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #10 on:** October 31, 2014, 03:15:12 PM »

Fr Z is bright, knowledgeable and articulate. He is well-read, well-educated and a fairly sophisticated guy.

Having said all that, as far as Catholicism goes, he tows the post-Vatican II party line and seems to cater to indult-trad's who are novus ordites in all regards except they go to the indult mass.

Fr Z is either a holy soul trying his best to lead others to salvation or he's a party man being paid to do party man things.

claudel · « **Reply #11 on:** November 03, 2014, 07:28:05 AM »

Quote from: AlligatorDicax

But really, what should any of "Father" Z.'s readers expect? … Should it be any real surprise that as a cradle Protestant, Zuhlsdorf would bond more strongly with the Protestantized Novus Ordo religion, as taught by its seminaries? And that as an American, he would share his native culture's modern obsession with celebrities, leading him into public papolatry and magisterialism?

Interesting comments, as usual. Since I never cared a fig for Z nor knew that he was a convert to the conciliar brand of religion, that bit of news comes like a floodlight on a dark path. I now see quite a striking parallel between him and the late Richard John Neuhaus, whose conversion to conciliarism came from Anglicanism, of course.

I wonder whether Z's dreams include becoming a darling of the same neocon establishment that made Neuhaus a star. I wouldn't put it past the man.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #12 on:** November 03, 2014, 07:39:15 AM »

Yes, having read what Alligator wrote make a whole lot of sense. Was his conversion around the time of the former Fr. Corapi's rise to fame?

Thurifer · « **Reply #13 on:** November 03, 2014, 09:38:39 AM »

Quote from: claudel

Quote from: AlligatorDicax
But really, what should any of "Father" Z.'s readers expect? … Should it be any real surprise that as a cradle Protestant, Zuhlsdorf would bond more strongly with the Protestantized Novus Ordo religion, as taught by its seminaries? And that as an American, he would share his native culture's modern obsession with celebrities, leading him into public papolatry and magisterialism?

Interesting comments, as usual. Since I never cared a fig for Z nor knew that he was a convert to the conciliar brand of religion, that bit of news comes like a floodlight on a dark path. I now see quite a striking parallel between him and the late Richard John Neuhaus, whose conversion to conciliarism came from Anglicanism, of course.

I wonder whether Z's dreams include becoming a darling of the same neocon establishment that made Neuhaus a star. I wouldn't put it past the man.

I thought Neuhaus was a Lutheran minister. Oh well, that is really neither here nor there. I also had no idea that Father Z was a convert. And yes, I agree with you 100% in that he shares many characteristics with the gang of neo-cons over at First Things.

He is a supporter of Father Sirico and the Acton Institute. Which of course means he can't be far from supporting the other usual suspects like Michael Novak, Robbie George, and gasp, Georgie Weigel.

claudel · « **Reply #14 on:** November 04, 2014, 09:49:35 AM »

Quote from: Thurifer

I thought Neuhaus was a Lutheran minister. …

You are quite right; my apologies for misspeaking. I probably mixed Neuhaus up in my mind with Father George Rutler, who did indeed come from the C of E. I would not wish, however, to tar Fr. Rutler with the same brush of neocon deception and worldliness. I consider him an admirable man and an excellent preacher.* I pray that he will cross the street from conciliarism to Traditionalism before much longer. I'd like to think that the great gift that Humble Frank might end up giving the Church is awakening its remaining Tradition-inclined souls to the corruption of institutional Rome, whose poison he embodies.
_________

*I've heard Fr. Rutler preach only at Mass, incidentally, and that was mostly in the nineties, when he was at Saint Agnes Church and I was still edging away from conciliarism. I've been told he's one of the song-and-dance men on EWTN, but since nothing on earth could persuade me to watch that channel, I wouldn't know.