Fr. John Zuhlsdorf Versus William Of Ockham: Is John Zuhlsdorf A Validly Baptized Roman Catholic? Or Is Fr Z A Heretic Baptized In Jest?

Who's Your Daddy Now?

Here let Fr. Z tell you about his Baptism:

Keep in mind that I am a former Lutheran convert to the Catholic Church. I was validly baptized as a Lutheran. I rejected the Lutheran catechism and instruction when I was 7 years old because I couldn’t square their message about corruption with the beauty of the music of Mozart. After a vaguely Christian time and a pagan period I was brought into the Church formally in 1982 following private instruction lasting a couple years and involvement in the choir at St. Agnes in St. Paul. My longer story is elsewhere. I made my Profession of Faith according to the traditional, longer form, as found in the Rituale Romanum HERE, publicly during a Vespers service, kneeling in the sanctuary before the Blessed Sacrament exposed. I renewed my Profession of Faith before I was ordained to the diaconate and to the priesthood at the hands of St. John Paul II. Read More Here>>>>>

Sounds like John Zuhlsdorf never got validly baptized in the Roman Catholic Church - as a matter of fact it sounds as if John Zuhlsdorf was adamant that his Lutheran Baptism was legitimate, and was afraid to ask to be baptised in the Catholic Church - but he did have scruples about it - so much so that he over did his devotions as if it would make up for not being validly baptised:

• I made my Profession of Faith according to the traditional, longer form, as found in the Rituale Romanum, publicly during a Vespers service, kneeling in the sanctuary before the Blessed Sacrament exposed. 
• I renewed my Profession of Faith before I was ordained to the diaconate and to the priesthood at the hands of St. John Paul II.

Wow! John Zuhlsdorf just should have told the priest that he wanted to be baptized in the Roman Catholic Church instead of going through the above efforts that never will replace the Sacrament of Baptism. What a show he put on! Mother and Dad not there to Baptism their son as they should of so John Zuhlsdorf takes himself to the church to do his own 'baptism'.

aah...still you're not validly baptised.

As a matter of fact - if one take the Sacrament of Baptism seriously as one should then by all accounts John Zuhlsdorf is not even a priest!

This would explain a few things - John Zuhlsdorf  goes all out to become a TRADITIONALIST so as to make up for what is lacking in his life - which is - a valid baptism.

As if knowing Latin - saying the Latin Mass is gonna make up for not being validly baptised! LOL!

For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

John Zuhlsdorf dies in the state on not being validly baptised Jesus will say to him "I never Knew you" and that's that.

John Zuhlsdorf holds some strange non-catholic ways about him - guns for starters - his hatred for the SSPX etc. and this tells us that John Zuhlsdorf is a heretic - a heretic because the man in not validly baptised.

Funny thing is - only if John Zuhlsdorf asked to be baptised as a Roman Catholic when he first converted - he probably would never have gone the extra step into tradition because he would not have felt the need to make up for the lack of baptism.

Here is William of Ockham and his description of a heretic (oh yea & I know that you think Ockham is a heretic but John Zuhlsdorf is a righteous dude!)

DEFINITION (DESCRIPTION) OF A HERETIC

Disciple I see clearly several meanings of this word heretic, but in some of them it is seldom used, though heretics are often mentioned. Say, therefore, if you have heard or seen a description of this word heretic in the meaning in which it is more commonly used.

Master Perhaps you mean to speak of the heretic who is excommunicate, and, if he has been lawfully convicted and has not corrected himself according to the Church's form, should be handed over to a secular court.

Disciple Describe him, if you can.

Master Some describe [him] saying this: A heretic is someone seriously baptized, or behaving as someone baptized, who pertinaciously doubts or errs against Catholic truth.

Disciple Clarify the elements [of this description], and explain which persons they intend to include and which to exclude.

Master By the first element, when they say "seriously baptized", they exclude those baptized in jest who are considered as not baptized. And they include by the same element not only Christians baptized by Catholics, but also those baptized by heretics in the Church's form -- and outside the Church's form (who in no way receive the sacrament of baptism in respect of either grace or character). By the same element they exclude Jews, Saracens and pagans who have never been baptized and have not behaved as baptized persons, who should not at all be punished by the penalty of the heretics of whom you were speaking.

And by the second element, when it is said "behaving as someone baptized", they include those who think or pretend that they have been baptized and live among Christians as if baptized. If these withdraw from the faith they should be punished as if they had truly been baptized.

By the third element, when it is said, "who errs or doubts pertinaciously against Catholic truth", are excluded all those who either doubt or err against the faith from simplicity or ignorance alone, without any pertinacity. For such persons should not be considered heretics, but should be diligently informed about the faith, and if afterwards they doubt or err pertinaciously they should be condemned as heretics.

William of Ockham, Dialogus
part 1, book 3, chapters 1-5.

Text by John Kilcullen and John Scott,
Translation by John Kilcullen.