Sour Beans!

This morning I found two interesting recipes for Sour Beans.

The first involves beans and rice, garlic, ginger, onions, carrots and lean pork, and a couple of types of vinegar. I think I’ll try it this week.

The second involves the bishops of the USCCB election of a new head for their Pro-Life Committee.

Please share!

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Lighter fare and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Sour Beans!

  1. Andrew says:

    Faselus Maximus Acescens

  2. Benedict Joseph says:

    Anger addict assuaged only by argument.
    He should take up smoking.
    Of course prayer is the only authentic therapeutic for the condition but that might not figure into “his theology.”
    At least it wouldn’t appear so.
    But I could be wrong.

  3. Animadversor says:

    The first involves beans and rice, garlic, ginger, onions, carrots and lean pork, and a couple of types of vinegar. I think I’ll try it this week.

    And if the trial is a success, may we expect the recipe, or at least a link to it?

  4. LarryW2LJ says:

    Dear Mr. Faggioli,

    Can you please wrap your head around this concept? It’s not about loyalty, it’s about FIDELITY.

    Thank you.

  5. will99lang says:

    Funny, I have no ideas why, but Massimo Faggioli reminds me of Cauchon`s reply to the Dominican who was on Saint Joan of Arc side`s… You know when he gave her a good advice, and Cauchon reprimanded him by saying “Hold your tongue in the name of the devil.” (This is according to Manchon.)

  6. NBW says:

    I am grateful that Cupich was not elected. That would have been a disaster. Blessed Be God!!!! [We will probably never know.]

    Mr. Bean is definitely not happy about the election.

  7. mepoindexter says:

    Wow, these people need to let go and let God. If they spent half as much time worrying about living Catholic truth as they do Church politics we might actually get somewhere.

  8. iamlucky13 says:

    mepoindexter – you’re right. They aren’t discussing this like pastoral care. They are discussing it like politics – the partisanship, mudslinging, and imputations are all there.

  9. misternaser says:

    “Vatican II Catholics.” Please. I am in my mid-thirties; Catholics my age and younger (those of us still left) couldn’t care less about Vatican II. We want what the Church has offered for the past 2000 years, not what a handful of delusional people wish the Church had done 50 years ago, and it’s those same people who have denied us our heritage.

  10. amenamen says:

    There is an interesting article in the venerable Homiletic and Pastoral Review called “On Vulnerability and Self-Disclosure in Priestly Formation.” It is generally good, but it may have a little blind spot. It seems to envision a noble and flawless formation team is in place at the seminary. But try to imagine an imperfect formation team, at a hypothetical seminary, in a galaxy far away.

    Just suppose that Beans and Wile E. Coyote were on the formation team at the seminary. A humble, honest and orthodox seminarian might ask just how much “transparency” should characterize his “self-disclosure” to these superiors (as opposed to his spiritual director).

    I immediately thought of the scene from Braveheart, in which Longshanks invites his son’s … close friend … “Philip” to advise him on the present situation, near the window. “Tell me … what advice would you offer on the present situation?”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S7QARslq74

    Yet if this young “Philip” were actually a seminarian, the Monsignor Longshanks approach might be just what is needed, figuratively speaking.

Do you have a comment? Think BEFORE posting! Proof read. For special characters use Unicode.