Fr. Z sees red and does black deeds against Bishop Williamson
#21
Gerard,

I agree totally with your parsing of Fr. Z's parsing of Bp. Williamson's piece.  Two things he said really raised my eyebrows. 

One was the attempt to say Bp. Williamson is against the discussions happening in Rome.  That's proof enough, Fr. Z isn't sufficiently familiar with Williamson to comment on his opinions.  Williamson would say the discussions could easily fail to achieve a victory for Tradition.  Little else.  Obviously Fr. Z views Williamson as the possible headman of the rumored "wacko fringe" clerics in the ranks of the SSPX who will "stop at nothing to prevent re-union with Rome" (which is view of conservative Catholics composed of a mix of stereotyping and misrepresentation of everything the SSPX has stood for in the Church since it was founded)  Again, Fr. Z has apparently never heard Williamson's opinions about sedevacantism among many other things.

The other was that he actually said something about the quote commonly attributed to Augustine!  That's just petty.

I did notice, however, that he didn't have as much to comment on in Bp. Williamson's words than he does when he parses some liberal.  There's not really that much in Williamsons for a real Catholic to disagree with IMHAO.

I used to read Fr Z's blog religiously.  The reason?  Quite simple.  I thought he was right about the Church.  Then I read Open Letter to Confused Catholics and some other small books that Angelus Press puts out about the SSPX and the Church.  Then I started reading SSPX.org and SSPXAsia.org.

Fr. Z's opinions started looking absurdly simplistic.  The modern liturgical reform is not the primary cause of the present crisis.  It is far deeper than that.

The traditional Mass is probably Satan's greatest obstacle to dominating the hearts of men.  It had to be removed from history.  Can you believe how close he came to do doing it?!

Fr. Z probably wouldn't say it like that, but he would agree for the most part with it.

What he would NEVER do is "accuse the Council" or justify Archbishop Lefebvre's violations of Canon Law.

He's too conservative for that.

That's why I don't read him anymore.  There are serious chunks of reality missing from his perception.
Reply
#22
(12-16-2009, 12:45 PM)Zakhur Wrote: Gerard,

I agree totally with your parsing of Fr. Z's parsing of Bp. Williamson's piece.  Two things he said really raised my eyebrows. 

One was the attempt to say Bp. Williamson is against the discussions happening in Rome.  That's proof enough, Fr. Z isn't sufficiently familiar with Williamson to comment on his opinions.  Williamson would say the discussions could easily fail to achieve a victory for Tradition.  Little else.  Obviously Fr. Z views Williamson as the possible headman of the rumored "wacko fringe" clerics in the ranks of the SSPX who will "stop at nothing to prevent re-union with Rome" (which is view of conservative Catholics composed of a mix of stereotyping and misrepresentation of everything the SSPX has stood for in the Church since it was founded)  Again, Fr. Z has apparently never heard Williamson's opinions about sedevacantism among many other things.

The other was that he actually said something about the quote commonly attributed to Augustine!  That's just petty.

I did notice, however, that he didn't have as much to comment on in Bp. Williamson's words than he does when he parses some liberal.  There's not really that much in Williamsons for a real Catholic to disagree with IMHAO.

I used to read Fr Z's blog religiously.  The reason?  Quite simple.  I thought he was right about the Church.  Then I read Open Letter to Confused Catholics and some other small books that Angelus Press puts out about the SSPX and the Church.  Then I started reading SSPX.org and SSPXAsia.org.

Fr. Z's opinions started looking absurdly simplistic.  The modern liturgical reform is not the primary cause of the present crisis.  It is far deeper than that.

The traditional Mass is probably Satan's greatest obstacle to dominating the hearts of men.  It had to be removed from history.  Can you believe how close he came to do doing it?!

Fr. Z probably wouldn't say it like that, but he would agree for the most part with it.

What he would NEVER do is "accuse the Council" or justify Archbishop Lefebvre's violations of Canon Law.

He's too conservative for that.

That's why I don't read him anymore.  There are serious chunks of reality missing from his perception.

If I were less than charitable, I'd suggest that there were reasons for the chinks beyond merely providing a coherent and easily comprehensible picture for a large number of people not well-informed.

It seems to me thathis interests in TLM, Catholicism, Catholic Culture and Intelectual life might be thinly disguised Renaissance fair fare.
Reply
#23
I really wish those of you taking swipes at his bird feeder, cooking, internet guerilla tactics while teetering like booger-eating, overstimulated adolescents about your recycled wit would knock it off.

It's not as bad as Fr. Z's Ren-Fest version of the Church, or the lame swipes he takes at a man who's far more intelligent and bettter read than he is, but it detracts from people who actually have substantial points about Fr. Z's presence on the internet for good or bad.

I for one am glad he's doing what he's doing, although the sheer ubiquity of his production is bound to produce some howlers, he has far more in common with "Trads" than not.  But most importantly, he's a Catholic priest in good standing with the Diocese of Rome and helps out when he can.  Please pray for him; he's not a Fr. McBrien or a Joan Chittister after all.
Reply
#24
While I think a light jab here and there about the well-funded hobbies of Fr. Z can be overdone, I think it's valuable that people take it into account when he calls Bishop Williamson names and insults the man's intelligence and ideas.

As far as Fr. Z goes, and his contribution, I have mixed thoughts on  it.  On one hand, you can get in clear English what the "Vatican Line" is for the current issues.  The downside of that is that his very usefulness reflects a deliberate murkiness on the part of Rome, a place where "yes" should mean "yes" and "no" mean "no."  So in that sense, he points to a symptom of what is wrong in Rome.

On the other hand, his unwillingness to admit the realities of the modernist infiltration all the way up to and including the Popes shows he's not going to be accurate when it comes to placing the blame at the root of the problem.  A penchent for pre-conciliar vestments and liturgical preferences doesn't purge a person of modernistic tendencies.  Fr. Rahner and Fr. Kung probably said the Old Mass beautifully as far as the externals go. 

I'd rather deal with a McBrien or Chittester and not have them dress and behave like Catholics while spreading their nonsense.

And the worst part is the dishonesty of it all.  Bishop Williamson is "irrelevant" and "old news" one day, but when Fr. Z has to defend his posting of the rumors that Bishop W was near death.  It was his responsibility to report on "such a pivotal figure."  Well, which is it?  Or does the story and needs of the day determine the characterization? 

Listen to Bernard Janzen's audio interviews with Bishop Williamson from the early 80's to today, before and after the consecrations, the only thing that changes is the timbre of Bishop W's voice as he got older, not the content. 

Williamson says what he says, to persuade people that he is right when he believes he is right,  because the Truth is of God. 

Fr. Z says what he says to manipulate people to believe what he wants them to believe for the purpose of control and being right is incidental.

Otherwise he wouldn't misrepresent Williamson, he wouldn't stack the decks in the comments boxes by deleting the strongest arguments in favor of Williamson's position and leaving slurs from alleged "self-admitted fans" of Williamson in order "to show people the kind of followers Williamson has." 

No. The man is a dishonest scourge of the truth and if he doesn't repent, he will burn in hell for all eternity for the crimes he's committed against a good man.  It's not Williamson he's offending first and foremost, it's God who is offended by the lies, distortions and attacks, veiled or overt. 
Reply
#25
(12-16-2009, 10:13 AM)BrevisVir55 Wrote:
(12-16-2009, 10:07 AM)AlanF Wrote:
(12-16-2009, 01:48 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote: I also feel a little uncomfortable when he posts pictures of expensive three course dinners and wine constantly. I don't particularly think it's appropriate for a priest to dine like that regularly let alone publicize the fact.

He did that in Lent once! There's people trying to fast and he's showing this massive meal to them!

I get bored of his food anyway and I get bored with his birds too so I don't read him anymore.

He is like an 80 year old woman. Spending all of his time cooking and watching birds...odd man.

Maybe if he were married, you'd shut the heck up.

;D





No, Fr. Z seems like a balanced man who has his hobbies. Those who make fun of the birds (which I personally find funny, just so everyone knows - but nonetheless am totally respectful towards him) is a stupid thing. Fr. Z isn't the only traditionally minded Catholic who realizes that Bishop Williamson says some untrue, unhelpful, and ignorant things. There is no Newchurch, and Fr. Z has merely exposed +Williamson's shallow understanding of reality (and therefore an insufficient or superficial comprehension of the truth). His understand is shallow, if I understand him correctly. The efforts of those who would set up this supposed Newchurch are nothing compared to the work of the Holy Spirit working through the elect.

In the end we must answer to God. For now we answer to the Magisterium, and those who speak along with her voice - yesterday's AND today's. Let's not pretend to be the John Calvins of the 21st Century Church, mixing legitimate concern and disagreement in with a skepticism about the powers of Holy Church that is tantamount to rejecting the power of the Holy Spirit.

It is disgusting what I've read here. Disgusting. Insulting a good priest. He's caused a scandal to the Catholic world, but the dumb words of an illicitly consecrated bishop haven't?

+Williamson, who has many virtues and insights (and is interested in sharing his thoughts on poetry, might I add!), needs a humility drip.

And if Fr. Z is guilty of slander, then he should repent. But to date I have not seem evidence of this.
Reply
#26
(12-16-2009, 02:20 PM)anthony Wrote: Fr. Z isn't the only traditionally minded Catholic who realizes that Bishop Williamson says some untrue, unhelpful, and ignorant things.

Now we move into the definition of what a "traditionally-minded" Catholic actually has in their mind.  I submit that Fr. Z is not a traditionalist.

Quote:There is no Newchurch,

Sure there is. 

Quote:  and Fr. Z has merely exposed +Williamson's shallow understanding of reality (and therefore an insufficient or superficial comprehension of the truth). His understand is shallow, if I understand him correctly.

What has Fr. Z actually "exposed" on Bishop Williamson?  Sounds more like Fr. Z doesnt' even know what Donatism is or what Bishop Williamson was stating.

Quote: The efforts of those who would set up this supposed Newchurch are nothing compared to the work of the Holy Spirit working through the elect.

Funny, those who set up the Newchurch are being defended by the hierarchy.  Could be the Holy Ghost was working through the Superior of the Holy Ghost fathers who was off in Africa doing mission work while the rest were being coopted by modernism. 

Quote:In the end we must answer to God.

We must answer to God for what we do now. 

Quote:  For now we answer to the Magisterium, and those who speak along with her voice - yesterday's AND today's.

The Magisterium is not God and it's not necessarily the current hierarchy if they don't invoke it.

Quote: Let's not pretend to be the John Calvins of the 21st Century Church, mixing legitimate concern and disagreement in with a skepticism about the powers of Holy Church that is tantamount to rejecting the power of the Holy Spirit.

Let's not become lax in an un-Catholic understanding of how the Church operates, and let's not underestimate the "sensus catholicus"

Quote: It is disgusting what I've read here. Disgusting. Insulting a good priest. He's caused a scandal to the Catholic world, but the dumb words of an illicitly consecrated bishop haven't?

That's the problem.  They keep calling the insightful and thoughtful words of Bishop W.  a series of insults as if that's a self-evident proof.

Quote: +Williamson, who has many virtues and insights (and is interested in sharing his thoughts on poetry, might I add!), needs a humility drip.

Based on what?  He's been unjustly punished by Popes and Superiors, he only writes columns for those who request it.  He didn't ask Fr. Z to make his pointless points. 
Reply
#27
Indeed gerard
Anthony
What's with this bashing a Good and brave Bishop?
Bishop Williamson has shown courage while most the better part of all other bishops in the new church have whimpered and whined have sold out have traditore.
If u know ur history of the persecuions then u know what I'm saying.
Some here like toi mock bishop Williamson. Look in the mirror because those who mock him are the ones missing what the good bishop has
A backbone
Sip
Reply
#28
(12-16-2009, 02:20 PM)anthony Wrote: ...Fr. Z isn't the only traditionally minded Catholic who realizes that Bishop Williamson says some untrue, unhelpful, and ignorant things. There is no Newchurch, and Fr. Z has merely exposed +Williamson's shallow understanding of reality (and therefore an insufficient or superficial comprehension of the truth). His understand is shallow, if I understand him correctly. The efforts of those who would set up this supposed Newchurch are nothing compared to the work of the Holy Spirit working through the elect.

In the end we must answer to God. For now we answer to the Magisterium, and those who speak along with her voice - yesterday's AND today's. Let's not pretend to be the John Calvins of the 21st Century Church, mixing legitimate concern and disagreement in with a skepticism about the powers of Holy Church that is tantamount to rejecting the power of the Holy Spirit.

It is disgusting what I've read here. Disgusting. Insulting a good priest. He's caused a scandal to the Catholic world, but the dumb words of an illicitly consecrated bishop haven't?...

Fr. Z is not a Catholic who realizes that XYZ....he is a Catholic that thinks that XYZ...(and I'm not so sure he really believes what he is saying...he has a major dog in the fight...his own ordination I suspect, he is worried about being suspect...and he should worry about it...That said...if it can't be proven to be invalid it is given the benefit of the doubt....just the same he should err on the side of certainty and run off and ask +Williamson to conditionally reordain him...LOL

The idea that +Williamsom has a shallow understanding is self serving at best...I disagree with some personal opinion pieces he gives...especially as regards mores and etiquette...but he is never a shallow adversary...and were I to heed his advice on topics I don't see eye to eye with him on...I might actually find my way in this world more easily...certainly not any less pleasantly.

The idea of a newchurch has been around for a while...it is fairly solid despite complaint about it.  I trests mostly on Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi but it is not silly and shallow...it is a perfectly plausible outcome...in fact one could claim, as many do, that we get to see it daily...certainly were you to frequent so called Catholic Churches that teach heterodoxy...it must be so...New belief system to go with new prayer system

Fr. Z can't expose +Williamsom...he does not have the skill set....this was apparent in this latest post where he attempts to change the bishops views of the new rite of ordination for his own (Fr, Zs) purposes...This was EXPOSED by the OP


The only Calvins are the Modernists...who +Williamson is fighting...and too bad if you think folks calling Fr. Z out on something like altering +Williamson's views for his own purposes is disgusting....the truth hurt at times...especially for the invested.


PS...no one here but modernists thinks the Holy GHOST is not performing his task with full power....trads see, all the trad groups and know that no matter what happens....we win
Reply
#29
As for the idea of a New Church,

Novus Ordo Catholics are always talking about new this and new that in the Church.  I hear it all the time!

And I cannot say this enough:  at my parish I hear a completely orthodox sermon, on average, about once per year (it could be longer).

The NORM in the New Church is heterodoxy.  Everyone in the New Church system who tries to be a good Catholic knows it.  Since I come from a family of Marian Movement of Priests/EWTN Catholics, I can speak with certainty here.  All of our friends (including priests) know that the norm is heterodoxy.

Orthodoxy is frowned upon or tolerated at best.  I guess it's getting better under Pope Benedict XVI, but it is very slow.
Reply
#30
(12-16-2009, 02:20 PM)anthony Wrote:   There is no Newchurch,

Sure there is the Post Conciliar Church is not the same Church as that of pre 1965 in doctrine and liturgy it a whole new protestant denomination.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)