| Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves

Correspondence with Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (www.wdtprs.com)

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf's blog: What Does The Prayer Really Say?
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf's blog: What Does The Prayer Really Say?

Table of contents

1) S. Jetchick (2011-December-13)
2) S. Jetchick (2018-March-14)
3) S. Jetchick (2018-Sept-09)
4) S. Jetchick (2019-Jan-10)

1) S. Jetchick (2011-December-13)

[Sent through the "Contact" form at 23h05 on 2011-Dec-13]

Good day Father Z,

I'm a loyal fan of yours. I enjoy your blog very much,
and I know of a few more anglos here in Quebec City who
appreciate it too. I generally find your jokes hilarious,
your rants well-deserved, and even your answers to
apparently silly questions instructive.

Quick "Quaeritur" for you:

	"Can A Catholic Obstinately Claim That The Catechism of
	the Catholic Church Contains Serious Doctrinal Errors?"

Make sure your answer is very diplomatic (if you send one),
because I've heard that my local Bishop disagrees
with my personal opinion on this topic, and I'll be posting
your answer on my web site!

In Christ,

Stefan Jetchick

2) S. Jetchick (2018-March-14)

Guns don't kill people, mortal sin kills people.

[Sent by his web site contact form, 2018-March-14 around 15h53]

Good day Father,

In your "Fr. Z Swag" store, do you have a T-shirt that says:

	"GUNS don't kill people, MORTAL SIN kills people"

I'd snap one up right away!


[usual contact info]

3) S. Jetchick (2018-Sept-09)

Father Z still ignores my e-mails, but at least this time he read a comment I left on his site!

  Stefan get's a Father Z Gold Star for the Day!

  Notre Dame du Clergé.

4) S. Jetchick (2019-Jan-10)

[Sent through the "Contact" form at 11h30 on 2019-Jan-10]

Good day Father,

Well, I've never had any success in contacting you, but
then you're one of the rare outspoken Priests left in
the USA, so you're overworked!

This time it's about your post of 2019-Jan-07 called:

	ASK FATHER: "I'm seriously considering adopting some form of sedevacantism"

I found the "Quaeritur" very interesting:

	Father, I'll get straight to the point: I'm having
	difficulty believing that [Bergoglio] is the head of the Church.
	I know that regarding the past heresies Popes were often
	negligent in carrying out their duty to oppose error, but it
	seems that recently Rome has been actively spreading error.
	This is most obvious under Francis, of course, although it's
	not a new phenomenon — Vatican II and the liturgical reforms,
	which resulted in a disastrous loss of Catholic faith and
	identity in so many countries, were all carried out at Rome's
	instigation and under her aegis. I know, too, that official
	teaching hasn't changed, but that frankly seems like an
	unsatisfactory response. When Our Lord promised that the
	Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, surely he
	meant more than that a core of esoteric doctrine,
	accessible only to people with enough theological training to
	parse the exact level of authority possessed by each papal
	communication, would remain, whilst the actual teaching organs
	of the Church were actively spreading error. I've read too much
	Church history to find Protestantism or Eastern Orthodoxy
	plausible options, but I'm seriously considering adopting
	some form of sedevacantism, if only to be rid of the
	cognitive dissonance involved in believing both that communion
	with the See of Rome is necessary for salvation, and also that
	being a good Catholic nowadays requires one to ignore 90% of
	what comes out of Rome.
	[I slightly modified Father Z's emphasis]

Apart from his little dig at Vatican II, I find myself surprizingly
well-represented by his question!

The other problem is that I find your answer to be, well, filled
with "the usual bromides".

First, you spend a lot of time repeating that the Pope
really is the visible Head of the Church. We all agree with that.
We have no doubts that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, etc.

(While we're at it, I also think the "sedevacantist" bucket is
not precise enough. I know some (very rare) people claim
that John Paul II (and others before Bergoglio) were not
real Popes. Except one of the strongest (it seems to me)
arguments against Bergoglio depends on John Paul II (and
others) being very real Popes. The strength of the 5 Dubia
requires the strength of Veritatis Splendor.)

Our doubts are: is this Bergoglio creature really the Pope?

You say:

	"Francis is jarring, out of the pattern."

What? "Out of the pattern"? Was Luther "out of the pattern"? Was
Marie-Paul Giguère "out of the pattern"? Have any of numerous
heretics in the History of the Church been only "out of the pattern"?

You also say:

	"However, one of the facts that sticks out for
	me is that the Cardinals who went into the
	conclave of 2013 haven't risen up against him.
	That means not nothing."

Have any of the aforementioned "cardinals" been particularly
vigorous about anything else? If Donald Trump was accused of the
same things Bergoglio is accused of, would those "cardinals"
have spoken out bravely against Trump? Of course! But they are
totally silent about Bergoglio. Does this prove the college of
"cardinals" to be reliable and un-biased?

You also say:

	"Go ahead and ignore 90% of what comes out of Rome".

I understand in what way you're saying that, but it's still a
bloody dangerous road to go down. As I was just writing to
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Bergoglio has gone way past non-binding
ex aeroplano statements.

Finally, you say:

	"We have a role to play in God's economy
	of salvation.  We have to trust that we are exactly when
	and where God wants us to be.  If we have been born into
	troubling times, then we are precisely where we are to play
	our role."

OK, so is our role to blindly believe Bergoglio is Pope, even
when our leg is caught in the bloody jaws of sufficient
evidence to reasonably doubt the contrary? Wouldn't God want
us to make bloody sure before opening the door to a stranger?

In Christ,


| Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves