Wednesday, 25 February 2015

We excommunicate him...


The Catholic Church, having long known of the monstrous deeds and heresies of John Zuhlsdorf, has endeavoured by divers exhortations, commands and canonical warnings to turn him from his evil ways. This man, this crass Sybarite, having miserably abandoned the promises he made at baptism, has not ceased to oppress the poor Church of God; he has grown fat on the pretence of apostolic travail; his blog is less an apostolate in a just cause as a business for gratuitous self-aggrandisement; he begs without shame; he habitually fails to adhere to clerical discipline in respect of the holy Sacrifice, divine offices and fasting; he treats the holy father, pope Francis gloriously reigning, with open and shameful contempt; he promotes the liturgical books of 1962; he compulsively manipulates the populist fears, prejudices and ignorance of his cult following; he has ostensibly committed himself to various causes of questionable propriety, schismatic groups and extremists, and he has demonstrated hubris and denial of clerical sex abuse cases.

Having failed to make Zuhlsdorf do penance and publicly abjure his iniquitous celebrity status by fatherly admonition, the which he despised and, on the contrary, daily receiving more and more serious information about his abominable and impious works, and seeing that, with a heart hardened by the Devil, he perseveres in his evil; we are resolved, in fear of the LORD, that the said John Zuhlsdorf should be excommunicated and expelled from Christ's Church. Let him be wiped out of the book of the living and not be written among the righteous, Ps.69:28.

Therefore, with the fullness of apostolic authority committed to us and with the consent of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, and by solemn undertaking to the whole Catholic Church, we excommunicate, expel, curse and damn John Zuhlsdorf to the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels. We excommunicate him with the judgement with which Joshua threw down Jericho; we declare him ANATHEMA and deprived henceforth of all the Sacraments. We declare him expelled from the society of all Christians and from the bosom and protection of Christ's Church. Cursed be he at the rising of the Sun and cursed be he at the going down. Cursed be he at his waking and cursed be he at his repose. Cursed be he at his going out and cursed be he at his coming in. The LORD will not spare him and His Judgement shall pursue him to the ends of the earth. For as long as he will not burst the fetters of the Devil, amend himself and do penance, we deliver him to the Devil for the perdition of his flesh that God might deliver his soul on the Day of Judgement. But you, faithful members of Christ, we order not to communicate with him, in writing or in person; we order that you shew him no mercy or favour, or stay with him under the same roof, or eat with him; and we order that you do not read anything written by him, lest his pestilential and pestiferous disease corrupt you and make you children of hell, even as he. The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the people that forget God, Ps. 9:17.

Let it be so, in the Name of God.

Ah, and as the canons cast down their candles to cries of Anathema, Anathema, let him be Anathema, God's wrath and indignation comes swiftly.

19 comments:

  1. I am ashamed to say that in my youth I was somewhat taken in by the Zuhlsdorf cult. Several years spent as a convert to the Romish church (I was, "received" as they are pleased to call it, in 2011 at 23), having run the gamut of Pauline Rite, 'Reform of the Reform', the books of 62' to having the scales fall and beholding what a hollow sham the whole crumbling edifice is, caused me to thoroughly disavow her & all her works.
    Zuhlsdorf is, like all American's, a vulgarian, but he is also a chancer and a charlatan.
    I sincerely doubt that, even were he truly possessed of the cura animarum he would deign to look up from his drink-soaked jollies to succor a single wanting soul.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Six years ago I remember I said something on my old blog like: "Fr Z knows as much about liturgy as a pig," and my then parish priest, part of the cult, asked me to take it down - which, stupidly, I did.

      I agree with your view of the fat man himself. As my mother would say, "there is no religion about him at all."

      Delete
  2. In former times a small amount of his output was passable reading, some of his collect translations and so forth merited a little worth perhaps. However these days he seems more interested in plugging the US Republican party (a body which strikes me as about as conservative as our own Cameronite "Conservative" party) and hawking some tawdry tat or other at every opportunity.
    "Are you in the USA - Buy Now!", "Set up a monthly donation!" and Zed 'swag' in "the wild" are not phrases I associate with goodly Christian use of the Internet, or of one's (seemingly abundant) free time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have never personally understood the attraction of Zuhlsdorf, even when I was myself a traditionalist. I don't know, maybe I'm just prejudiced against Americans (and I am), but to me he is no different from the likes of John Hagee, or even Fred Phelps. He's fat enough so all he needs now is a microphone and a 5000 capacity stadium in which to preach to an audience of saps and sycophants. "Give it a shout! Glory, hallelujah! And don't forget to subscribe or make a donation! You won't see heaven unless you cough up the cash!"

      Delete
    2. At one point, he was slightly more reasonable with his blog. Probably about ten years ago. He seems to have snapped during Benedict's papacy. I sent him a private email at that time about the matter. He never replied or blasted me on his blog. He did, however, block my home IP address. Apparently something I said rubbed him the wrong way. Oh well...

      Delete
    3. He's a fat little man who should be mugged in the street by a gang of blacks.

      Delete
  3. Funnily enough, Z has today excommunicated me - or blocked me from his site -for politely suggesting that, apart from the vulgarity of photographing one's food, a priest posting about indulgence like this in Lent was close to 'giving scandal'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why am I not surprised! It is scandalous. But Zuhlsdorf won't publish a comment that would potentially shew up his hypocrisy.

      I've never commented on his blog as it requires registration, and since comments are so strictly moderated I really see no point.

      Delete
    2. Many years ago I sent him an email with photographs of versus populum celebrations from the 1940s. Needless to say I did not even get an acknowledgement. In hindsight it is easy to see that truth and facts are of no interest to him whatsoever as they would interfere with the funding script.

      Delete
    3. Well, despite the evidence I'm sure he thinks that versus populum celebrations are a product of the Paul VI reforms. Or is he one of those disingenuous types, like Mr DiPippo on the NLM, who knows it's all a load of rubbish but cannot bring himself to divulge the facts to his sap audience.

      The latter is more likely. It would certainly substantiate the claim of my old parish priest who told me that Mr Zuhlsdorf is fully aware of the status of the 1962 books relative to what went before.

      Traddieland is just a gigantic fraud. The sooner they're all excommunicated by Rome, the better.

      Delete
  4. I'm terribly tempted to agree with you on almost all points, but for something that happened to me many years ago.

    There was a man with whom I had had a running disagreement over many months. I found him pompous, deceitful, manipulative, and filled with a false piety that would make a demon blush. One Sunday morning on the way to Mass, I found myself dwelling on a recent encounter with the gentleman in question. Annoyed with myself for allowing such a distraction, I dismissed him from my mind by wishing that he would "go to Hell".

    Two days later, he dropped dead of a heart attack. Now, I am not superstitious, but every now and then, in the darker moments of my reflections, I wonder whether something was listening to me on that morning, and chose to grant my prayer.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Patricius, if you loathe Fr. Z you will appreciate Fr. D!
    http://wdtprdad.blogspot.co.uk/
    Jim of olym

    ReplyDelete
  6. I had to stop reading him. I can't quite remember why, but I figure it was somewhat akin to realizing the conservative politicians in my country are just as offensive as the liberal ones- i.e. at least, if not more, responsible for the mess we are in. The same unfortunate behavior is in the Church, in no small part because the progressives have been successful in having it taught everywhere, and most clergy are too compromised with the secular government to point it out if they were aware of it. I think they are mostly not aware because most people are idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Father D's Platinum Maltese Cross for the Day

    http://wdtprdad.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. While Mr Z seems to be much involved with improper behavior, I think that makes him both an object of instruction (of what not to do and how not to do it) and an object of compassion and prayer. This discussion has wandered into a very uncharitable and un-Christian tenor. Also, the whole notion of excommunication, that one or more men can cast somebody out of the church is dubious despite its antiquity. I really think that "excommunication" would be a matter only God could determine, and, despite scriptural quotes concerning binding on earth and heaven, I do not believe that there is any man or group of men who can tell God what to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess that's why excommunication is a last resort.

      As for the tone of the discussion here, I see nothing remotely uncharitable about it. Critics may say otherwise ("Patricius doesn't like anyone" is something I read somewhere) but it takes a lot to make me actually hate a person; that could be years of personal abuse (my sister) or in this particular case an anti-evangelical cult personality surrounding a reprobate man who cannot conceal his disdain for tradition. Mr Zuhlsdorf really is a whore, and that's probably why so many people like him; and that is, incidentally, why he shouldn't be liked by anyone.

      If he were relying on me for "donations" he'd starve.

      Delete
  9. I remember this obnoxious man, who after pleading for money from his gullible American readership, then regaled them with pictures of himself quaffing very expensive wine at an upmarket Rome restaurant. The response from his readers: something like "Gee, thank you sooo much, Father, for sharing pictures of your vacation in Rome, Italy." Give me strength!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It says a lot about his audience, doesn't it. I was having this conversation with a dear friend of mine this very afternoon, and I said: "Zuhlsdorf and I could well argue exactly the same point. But we're in a position where his argument would carry considerably more weight than my own for the simple reason that he is a priest, and I am not."

      Never mind that he is gratuitously awful; he is a priest! What was it the "Cure of Ars" said about next to God himself the priest is the most important thing in creation...I'm tipsy from a very boozy lunch so I forget that reference.

      Delete