This Fr. Z post made my "fraud radar" go off Fr. Z manipulates the Pope
#1
Perhaps people will disagree but when checking Fr. Z's posts today.  I saw a blog entry of his that looked to much like an attempt to manipulate trads.

The tone and some of the details brought out the skeptic in me. 

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/03/rumor-abo.../#comments


Some things to notice: 

1) Fr. Z is spreading rumors and naming the names of the Cardinals involved in undermining the Holy Father and the TLM (Canizares & Levada.)  Fr. Z went out of his way not to name Fr. Corapi when discussing his public statements but naming Cardinals in rumors is somehow okay. That struck me as fishy as if the whole thing is a trial balloon. I suspect Canizares & Levada are playing "heavies" to trads but they are not really in eyes of the Pope or the rest of the heirarchy.  Canizares is known as "little Ratzinger" "I learned a lot in the years I worked by his side as member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is a gift of God to have worked for him and a gift of God to feel so profoundly linked to Peter in the figure of Benedict XVI.--Canizares Zenit interview 3/1/06

2) Fr. Z "friend of true trads" who love Vatican II (as it really is )and refuse to acknowledge St. Thomas' teaching on true obedience is in essence, "the connection" he's the man behind the man pulling the strings of the Pope.  Fr. Malachi Martin never even came close to making this kind of grandiose claim and he was attacked as "weird" by Fr. Z.

3) Fr. Z strangely asks for "prayers for the Holy Father" and "confusion" (not conversion) for his enemies. Not a big deal but strange, "confusion" would not have come to mind as my first intention concerning enemies.   

4) Those enemies by the way, are the very Cardinals (Levada) that the Holy Father elevated to positions where they could undermine him.

5) I've reproduced the whole entry and interestingly look at the comments in particular of "Centristian" who is rather savagely attacked for either questioning the veracity of the rumors and disagreeing with the necessity of the rumored document.   I'm copying the first of his comments with Fr. Z's editorializing and frankly browbeating for study and posterity.  There is something unconvincing about the conflict that I'm suspicious of.

6) And in Fr. Z's further intrusions into people's comments, there is a vague, hint of that familiar gnostic-teasing about "the Holy Father's ultimate plan" about the Liturgy. Anyone who heard the endless refrain of "Just wait, JPII is going to roll heads soon." over the past decades will be familiar with this tired old tactic.   

But in general, the pattern is still the predictable one.  The Pope is perfect, it's everyone else at fault (his hand-picked appointments) and it's up to you, trads and a handful of faithful, loyal and "obedient" (not like those nasty wasty SSPXers who hold the Popes responsible for the Church) who the Pope is counting on. Not to ridicule this too much but I couldn't help but think, "Get your WDTPRS Decoder Ring and set it to B-16."


Quote: Rumor about the upcoming Instruction on Summorum Pontificum.
Posted on 28 March 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
A reader sent a link to a story about the upcoming Instruction on Summorum Pontificum. Actually, he sent two links, one to a French site Golias, not exactly conservative that, and to the Italian site Messa in Latino, which from its name you can guess is more conservative.

The bottom line is this.   The claim was made that after the Instruction was drafted by the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei“, the President of the same who is also Cardinal Prefect of the CDF, Card. Levada, perhaps with the aid of Card. Canizares of the CDW, made it far more restrictive.

The Instruction went to the Pope for his approval.

In the meantime, various people intervened.

The Pope has, if the claims are correct, caused the previous, favorable draft, to be adopted. It will favor, rather than restrict, the provisions of Summorum Pontificum.

Though this is all at the level of rumor, it is nonetheless plausible.

Not long ago I had a chat with a well-known German author much in favor of the older form of Mass.  I shared what I had heard about the Instruction with him and he told me what he knew.  I suggested that he write a personal note to the Holy Father with a single request: only to read carefully whatever Instruction they brought for his approval.   This he said he would do.  The goal was simple.  Of course the Holy Father was going to read something concerning Summorum Pontificum.   But the Pope has a lot to do.  The suggestion, coming from that source, that he should read it carefully – without additional editorializing – was designed to raise a tiny alarm bell in his mind as soon as he saw it on his desk.  I am sure that many others were able to express their concerns to His Holiness.

If nothing else, all these influences perhaps served to prevent something from being rammed through while the Pope concerns himself with many heavy cares.

I recommend that, if you are concerned about this upcoming Instruction, you remind dedicated in prayer for strength for the Holy Father and confusion for his enemies.


Interesting attack on Comment from "Centristian"

Quote:Centristian says:
28 March 2011 at 10:15 am
Boy, no good deed goes unpunished, huh? I’d love to know where all these rumors are coming from and in which circles they swirl about. [Why?]
Most Catholics (including priests) I know have never heard of (or at least have never read) Summorum Pontificum, much less are any aware of an upcoming instruction about it, less still an effort to sabotage that instruction. [So?]


If the pope is aware of any of this obsessing [?] about upcoming instructions he must be thinking to himself, [You have psychic powers?] “Holy Maloney, what is the matter with these people? I’ve gone and established the pre-Conciliar form of the Mass and the Sacraments as an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, giving Catholics nearly unfettered access to all things pre-Conciliar to the point where, conceivably, any priest in the world can now lead his flock in public worship in such a way as to imagine Vatican II never even happened [That is a characterization of the Pope's provisions with neither basis in fact, nor charity.] …and they’re still looking for the black helicopters? They still think the Vatican is out to get them? Man. We just can’t win.”

If the pope allows for regular celebrations of the extraordinary form of the Mass and Sacraments to a stable group of the faithful, I think that is clear enough. [You do? There it is, then.] Most sane people [?]would interpret that as a significantly numerous group within a parish who are committed to weekly attendance, and wouldn’t need it defined to an exact number, or foolishly imagine that it should be defined to something as absurd as “three” or “at least one family”. [Something as absurd as three? That is what some canonists would say.]

If there is an instruction on the way, it wasn’t written for the benefit of normal people, I think, who can read and interpret words and phrases correctly. It can only be for a handful of obsessives and paranoids who see nothing but the bogeyman lurking behind the pope’s generosity. [Even obsessives and paranoids have enemies. And they will accept your apology for an unworthy comment.]

We have a commenter who posts as if they are tired of coy games. And the crowd that Fr. Z is massaging are paranoid and obsessive. That undermines the trust that Fr. Z attempts to engender with his inside knowledge.  It also highlights the inconsistency of the Holy Father and the narrative about him that Fr. Z is selling.  Every time the Pope says something or releases a book, statement, letter etc. the assertions of "it's clear" or "Peter has spoken" or some other nonsensical rhetorical flourishes are trumpeted as if they are new revelations from Heaven. The commenter seems to want a more open admission of the liberal agenda in the hierarchy illustrated by a plain reading of the Pope's words and actions.

On its surface, it looks like a classic case of a liberal being impatient with the pace at which another liberal-conservative exerts pressures to force / influence change on trads. (See St. Pius X's encyclical "Pascendi" on the subject of evolution in the Church and the "species of compromise between progressive and conservative forces" to drive change in the Church.  He comes off as wanting Fr. Z and the heirarchy to drop the facade and about being "tradition-friendly" for the sake of aincoporating trads and eradicating the "traditional movement."


Reply
#2
Fr. Z was only reacting and summarizing very briefly the news the broke out on the Rorate Caeli blog.

It was Rorate Caeli who had the big news and article about Cardinal Levada and Canizares undermining the instruction. There is a thread on FE about it:
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...846.0.html
Reply
#3
(03-29-2011, 12:42 AM)Gerard Wrote: 1) Fr. Z is spreading rumors and naming the names of the Cardinals involved in undermining the Holy Father and the TLM (Canizares & Levada.)  Fr. Z went out of his way not to name Fr. Corapi when discussing his public statements but naming Cardinals in rumors is somehow okay. That struck me as fishy as if the whole thing is a trial balloon. I suspect Canizares & Levada are playing "heavies" to trads but they are not really in eyes of the Pope or the rest of the heirarchy.  Canizares is known as "little Ratzinger" "I learned a lot in the years I worked by his side as member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is a gift of God to have worked for him and a gift of God to feel so profoundly linked to Peter in the figure of Benedict XVI.--Canizares Zenit interview 3/1/06
yeah this is totally inappropriate - dose Fr Z have psychic powers (as he questions in that other piece you linked)? He's always publicly gone after priests or others whom he felt deserved it, you're a liberal priest - trained to be like that in seminary (so its not totally the priest fault) - in blahblah doing your thing, instead of getting a stern call from your bishop to correct yourself you instead get flooded by emails, mail, and phone calls being called a heathen heretic and repent or burn originating from some internet blog. But I think he views himself as a "journalist" so whatev

(03-29-2011, 12:42 AM)Gerard Wrote: 3) Fr. Z strangely asks for "prayers for the Holy Father" and "confusion" (not conversion) for his enemies. Not a big deal but strange, "confusion" would not have come to mind as my first intention concerning enemies.   

4) Those enemies by the way, are the very Cardinals (Levada) that the Holy Father elevated to positions where they could undermine him.
heh, reminds me how he once posted a Gulf War picture of the USS Iwoa(?) firing its main guns and praising it "educating" Iraqis by doing so


Reply
#4
Father Z and his merry band of "ditto-heads" are no friends of Tradition. They and all neo-cons, neo-trads, neo-whatever are part of the problem in prolonging this crisis.
Reply
#5
Praying to "confound" one's enemies is Davidic and biblical, so no problem there.

What is the easiest and fastest way to convince ppl that Fr Z has it all wrong, and what's the upshot of it all?
Reply
#6
(03-29-2011, 01:50 AM)SaintRafael Wrote: Fr. Z was only reacting and summarizing very briefly the news the broke out on the Rorate Caeli blog.

It was Rorate Caeli who had the big news and article about Cardinal Levada and Canizares undermining the instruction. There is a thread on FE about it:
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...846.0.html

But why the unwillingness to address Fr. Corapi's very public situation directly without naming him and name the names of Cardinals in a series of rumors?  Taking it on face value, it's at the very least detraction against the Cardinals. 

Fr. Z claims to have the information from a French site and an Italian site.

My point is, that the whole thing sounds like a trial balloon and an effort to play on the emotions of "trads." 

Fr. Z is the "hero" who drops the hint to the Pope to thwart the plans of the rascally Cardinals.  But these Cardinals are the hand-picked associates of the Holy Father whom Fr. Z trumpeted as people he knows how to work with. 
It doesn't make sense. 

Reply
#7
(03-29-2011, 08:35 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(03-29-2011, 01:50 AM)SaintRafael Wrote: Fr. Z was only reacting and summarizing very briefly the news the broke out on the Rorate Caeli blog.

It was Rorate Caeli who had the big news and article about Cardinal Levada and Canizares undermining the instruction. There is a thread on FE about it:
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...846.0.html

But why the unwillingness to address Fr. Corapi's very public situation directly without naming him and name the names of Cardinals in a series of rumors?  Taking it on face value, it's at the very least detraction against the Cardinals. 

Fr. Z claims to have the information from a French site and an Italian site.

My point is, that the whole thing sounds like a trial balloon and an effort to play on the emotions of "trads." 

Fr. Z is the "hero" who drops the hint to the Pope to thwart the plans of the rascally Cardinals.  But these Cardinals are the hand-picked associates of the Holy Father whom Fr. Z trumpeted as people he knows how to work with. 
It doesn't make sense. 

Take it for what it's worth.  This is what I heard and I believe it's true.  Seriously, Lavender Levada?

++Levada was promoted out of the way.  Most of the work is done by the Holy Father himself who works long days like an Enlightenment despot.
Reply
#8
My own theory: Fr. Z. is well connected, and he has learned some things that he is honour bound not to share. Being an honourable man, in orders, he obeys fully.  Now, he keeps his ear to the ground and knows when rumours get published.  He ignores 99% of them.  But when a rumour gets published that is 'spot on' correct (and he knows for sure, remember), he publishes that rumour and its public source.

In other words, I am speculating that the rumours Fr. Z. chooses to publish on his site are those he knows to be true.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a wdtprs member and like Fr. Z.  That said, we do not communicate directly at all.  The above comment is entirely speculative on my part. 
Reply
#9
(03-29-2011, 08:41 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote: Take it for what it's worth.  This is what I heard and I believe it's true.  Seriously, Lavender Levada?

++Levada was promoted out of the way.  Most of the work is done by the Holy Father himself who works long days like an Enlightenment despot.

The "promoted out of the way" is one of the all time whoppers of spin.  If only Paul VI had thought to "promote" Archibshop LeFebvre "out of the way" by making him head of the CDF. 

Levada is now "out of the way"  by supposedly intercepting and changing documents and Fr. Z whispers in the ears of a German who winks at the Pope to tell him to read something carefully so it doesn't get rammed through?  That's the Pope's master plan? 

No. I don't buy that.  I don't doubt the heterodoxy or the anti-traditionalist slant of Levada,  I'm just saying he's not at the opposite pole of the Holy Father as Fr. Z is trying to portray.  This is all a bit of rumor-theater in order to keep trads on edge, like I described, "gnostic-teasing." 

Without Snidely Whiplash Levada twirling his mustache, the Holy Father would look more like a blatant liberal.  This bit of "news" is coincidentally coming off the heels of several months of liberal pandering of the Holy Father.  It's his Hegelian two-step if you ask me and it's an abuse of the faithful by trying to influence them through PR instead of truth and evangelization. 
Reply
#10
(03-29-2011, 09:33 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(03-29-2011, 08:41 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote: Take it for what it's worth.  This is what I heard and I believe it's true.  Seriously, Lavender Levada?

++Levada was promoted out of the way.  Most of the work is done by the Holy Father himself who works long days like an Enlightenment despot.

The "promoted out of the way" is one of the all time whoppers of spin.  If only Paul VI had thought to "promote" Archibshop LeFebvre "out of the way" by making him head of the CDF. 
Quote:If only

Levada is now "out of the way"  by supposedly intercepting and changing documents and Fr. Z whispers in the ears of a German who winks at the Pope to tell him to read something carefully so it doesn't get rammed through?  That's the Pope's master plan? 
Quote:  I don't know if it's a master plan.  It's just a way of shifting dead weight around without harming the office.  Of course, he replaced LL with someone even worse.

No. I don't buy that.  I don't doubt the heterodoxy or the anti-traditionalist slant of Levada,  I'm just saying he's not at the opposite pole of the Holy Father as Fr. Z is trying to portray.   This is all a bit of rumor-theater in order to keep trads on edge, like I described, "gnostic-teasing." 
Quote:  ++Levada doesn't do much.  That's just it.  When was the last time you heard about him stepping in to resolve something?  And now he's being made to look like an incompetent secretary who has to have his boss step in and fix his mess.

Without Snidely Whiplash Levada twirling his mustache, the Holy Father would look more like a blatant liberal.  This bit of "news" is coincidentally coming off the heels of several months of liberal pandering of the Holy Father.  It's his Hegelian two-step if you ask me and it's an abuse of the faithful by trying to influence them through PR instead of truth and evangelization. 

MMm, but this sort of thing has been going on in the Vatican for centuries... unfortunately... and this is the way they do business now.  Archbishop Lefebvre was a curial outsider and was easily isolated and discredited.  ++Levada has been put out to pasture and doesn't say much.  What a contrast to the outspoken Cardinal Burke....
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)