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.
The US bishops have obviously the right to elect whomever they want as head of committees. But it is clear since 2013 that a majority of them sees the message of Francis’ pontificate, esp. on life and marriage, as not adequate for the Catholic Church in the USA.
— Massimo Faggioli (@MassimoFaggioli) November 14, 2017
Difference between “Vatican II Catholics” and “neo-trad Catholics”: the latter care about bishops’ conferences, elections, structures etc. – only when they win. When they lose, they know the intra-ecclesial battle is going to be played on another field.
— Massimo Faggioli (@MassimoFaggioli) November 14, 2017
Loading ...
Faselus Maximus Acescens
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.
And if the trial is a success, may we expect the recipe, or at least a link to it?
Dear Mr. Faggioli,
Can you please wrap your head around this concept? It’s not about loyalty, it’s about FIDELITY.
Thank you.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.