Talk:John Zuhlsdorf

Coat of arms?

Just sort of wondering what is up with the "coat of arms." The image is linked to an Austrian monastery. Why would an American claim the coat of arms of an Austrian monastery? Fr. Zuhlsdorf is not a Cistercian as far as I can ascertain; he appears to be a dioscean priest. Is this a family coat of arms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.93.36.88 (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It's unusual, though not unheard of, for a priest to have a coat of arms. However, the achievement does have the proper ecclesial hat (galero & tassels) for a simple priest. Pylon (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

that looks like his coat of arms. In fact he has an embroidered version of it attached to some of his chasubles, like a nametag I guess. Seen it with my own eyes. As the other commenter said, the black galero is what priests have on their coat of arms. He can be seen at this link on his blog referring to "Zelo Domus Tuae" as his motto on his coat of arms. I know other regular priests who have a coat of arms. Anyone could get one. It requires is requesting an artist to design it for you according to your specifications. --Elizdelphi (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Article suggestion

The article at this point says "Zuhlsdorf's conversion to Catholicism thirty years ago". I think an editor familiar with the subject ought give a year of his conversion, rather than a years ago quantification, as articles can be neglected on updates with "years ago" type chronology becoming increasingly inaccurate. Tjc (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Status in the Church/Proposed Removal

1. John Zuhlsdorf is not in a canonically regular status. He holds no faculties in his Italian diocese and does not hold full faculties in the Diocese of Madison.

2. John Zuhlsdorf is not important, except in his own mind. Based on the above, I'm nominating this article for deletion. 201.141.36.98 (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

[citation needed] Elizium23 (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Exorcism

So as to not get into a re-vert war... what is presently written seems entirely balanced, citing sources, and appropriate given the subject. One may even disagree with the sources, but the letter of the Ordinary of Madison is very clear as I have even read it myself. The reversions by Romanus Natus and Elizium23 were entirely appropriate and consistent with the actual letter issued by Bishop Hying. MonasticScribe (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Elijah. The IP editor has a history of vandalism against this entry and is most likely a sock-puppet. I think it is important to not attribute causation to the exorcisms being the reason for the departure since the articles only present a correlation, at best. I do think that it may help with clarity to place the fact that Fr. Zuhlsdorf is the president of the Tridentine Mass Society of Madison either before the preceding paragraph or after the following one. However, its current location does prevent the implication that he was removed/left Madison as a result of the exorcisms which is not found in the statement of Bishop Hying. As such, I haven't made the edit but am curious as to what others think. Romanus Natus (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Your point is well taken...one could move the phrase either before or after the preceding paragraph. I would be more inclined to keep the phrase "Zuhlsdorf is president of the Tridentine Mass Society of Madison, Wisconsin" at that present location as it prevents one from drawing an incorrect implication as you wrote. The Society will be having an upcoming meeting where the issue of the presidency will need to be decided. As a result, it may well be the case that the phrase will need to be changed anyway to the past tense of "was the president" given Zuhlsdorf's move out of the diocese. MonasticScribe (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I could not find the details for that meeting on their website, Brian. Is it supposed to take place on Feb 16th? There is a "members only meeting" scheduled for that date and I inferred that is what you meant. In either case, I would be inclined to keep the statement where it is currently unless other documentation emerges that shows a causality and not a correlation between the exorcisms and his change in domicile. Romanus Natus (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)