Once it was proclaimed, it was obvious! The theologians might have needed it stated, but, as your quotation states, the 'belief...never wavered among the truly faithful'.
I've been reading a great book on "grace". As far as the Immaculate Conception goes, I believe there really was nothing new there. Eve, before the fall, was full of grace, ie no sin at all. Then came the fall from grace. When the Angel Gabriel greeted Mary, he said: Luke 1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. So, like Eve before the fall, Mary too was sinless. It took awhile to get there, but I don't see anything new....
My two cents into “new” dogmas John 16 12-14 12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.”
I remember a priest in the Archdiocese of Washington, DC, not too many years ago. He was approached before the beginning of Holy Mass by a woman and her partner. It was obvious from what they shared that the two were in a sinful relationship with each other. When the two came up at the time of Holy Communion he declined to let them receive our Lord. Well, they went and complained to the Chancery demanding "justice" and the priest had his faculties removed! Standing up for righteousness can cost you! Lord have Mercy!
I remember this incident, but I had not heard that the priest had his faculties removed. The incident took place at the funeral of one of the family members. I wish I could remember more. You are right that a conversation took place before Mass.
From the 2nd century, Church Fathers have called Mary the New Eve. Now, in the highlight above, Luke used the perfect past tense of Greek, kecharitomene, indicating that at a certain past point in Mary's life she was perfectly filled with grace going forward. The question remained, "At what point did this occur?" The 1854 dogmatic declaration of the Immaculate Conception resolved all debate and questioning in that regard.
Like you, HH, I first learned about the incident. It wasn't until later that I learned his faculties had been removed. I don't know what his current status is. May he be a priest in good standing!
I did a little web sleuthing. He is a priest in the Diocese of Moscow, Russia at the present. (Of all places on the face of the Earth) He was only a visiting priest in the Archdiocese of Washington at the time of the incident. He apparently had his faculties removed after that for the Diocese. There is more to it, of course. The lady in question received Communion from the EMHC after the priest denied her. The policy of the Diocese uses wording to mean that the behaviors should be persistent and of course, probably that counseling should take place. I’m unable to link right now, but perhaps tomorrow.
In a statement Feb. 28, the archdiocese said it was investigating the incident. "When questions arise about whether or not an individual should present themselves for Communion, it is not the policy of the Archdiocese of Washington to publicly reprimand the person," the statement reads. "Any issues regarding the suitability of an individual to receive Communion should be addressed by the priest with that person in a private, pastoral setting." Following the announcement of Guarnizo's suspension, Johnson's family said in an email, "The Johnson family continues to pray for the Archdiocese of Washington, Father Guarnizo, and all Catholics during this time of upheaval. While we understand this letter does not pertain to the events that occurred at our mother's funeral, we are hopeful that Bishop Knestout's decision will ensure that no others will have to undergo the traumatic experiences brought upon our family. We urge all Catholics to put aside political points of view, and pray that our church will remain in Christ's love." https://www.ncronline.org/news/peop...sbian-woman-communion-suspended-other-reasons
Brian, until quite recently I would have sat nodding my head at everything Dr. Mazza said. My first thought, now, is that Dr. Mazza and others, however well intentioned, are not helping strengthen people's faith in these troubled times. It seems to me (and I stress that it's just my own uneasy feeling) that they are undermining the papacy by casting doubt on the legitimacy of the reigning Pope. There are great changes coming to the world. Two sets of powers are at war for total control. Neither side is good. Hard times are ahead for faithful Catholics irrespective of which world power prevails. We will need the security that comes with being united to the Vicar of Christ. And that's Pope Francis. I don't believe that there are sufficient grounds for accusing Pope Francis of heresy. Even the Abu Dhabi document can have an orthodox interpretation (a bit of a stretch but it's not outright heretical). In fact, as time goes on, I'm more inclined to be suspicious of his high profile detractors than of Francis.. So, short of real proof that Pope Francis is an anti-Pope, imposter, or heretic, it seems to me that our best option is to accept Pope Francis, take the good of what's reported about him and leave the rest for the Bishops to deal with in this life and God to judge in the next. If we take it upon ourselves to decide that the Pope is a heretic based on news reports or third party discussions on YouTube, I shudder to think what would be the eternal consequences for us if we were wrong. We Catholics need to unite behind our visible head on earth, trusting that God won't leave us orphaned. If that means sucking it up when the Pope sneers at us for being bead counters, etc., then we'll just have to put up with it for the sake of future generations of Catholics who will most likely be subjected to great hardship and trials long after we've departed this world.
This is true, if, If, IF Francis is not an antipope. This is now a real, legitimate question, one made more legitimate by every additional heretical word or act or pro death and/ or pro sodomy promotion of this Vatican regime. As such, the issue of whether we may be dealing with an antipope far outweighs the concerns you appropriately raise, IMO.
This is truly horrible, the poor man was Crucified. The Gospel of Nice. Where or where in Scripture or the Teachings of the Fathers are we taught about having to be nice to people? I have grown to hate that word. It is a Mortal Sin to offend. The only sin, apparently. NICE. UGH.
I told the people at work this morning that my personal pronouns are, 'Thingy' ,and 'It' and that I would report anyone not referring to me this way to HR. I don't care anymore, I will be leaving soon. Anyway it's Hallow'een.
I can honestly say I’ve NEVER seen a single episode of The Simpsons and I avoid horror movies completely, because life is scary enough as it is. But I was at friends for dinner last week and they watched this episode of the Simpsons and it was pretty funny: https://www.denofgeek.com/tv/the-simpsons-clowns-around-with-stephen-king-in-not-it/ The Simpsons Clowns Around with Stephen King in “Not It” A very special Treehouse of Horror installment takes on Stephen King’s It, as The Simpsons season 34 calls “Not It.” October 23, 2022 Photo: 20th Television This The Simpsons review contains spoilers. The Simpsons Season 34 Episode 5 Pennywise doesn’t do kids’ parties, soThe Simpsons called on a local clown so desperate for laughs he’ll play any house. Krusto the Clown only gets bookings every 27 years. That’s just a slightly better average than Krusty the Clown, who was lucky to get cast by “Treehouse of Horror” for its tag team production of Stephen King’s It. “Not It,” the title claims, but there are no backsies. “The Shinning” from season 6’s “Treehouse of Horror V,” an almost shot-for-shot parody of Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of The Shining, is a gold standard for “Treehouse of Horror” movie parodies. But it only had one setting, the hotel, and took up one segment. “Not It” benefits from the extended play, but is not up to the non-Treehouse full-episode parody episodes “Das Bus,” a spoof of Lord of the Flies, or last season’s two-parter, “A Serious Flanders,” which drew on Fargo. Neither of these, however, were exact replications. “Not It” follows the beats of the original, right down to how scary It is. The opening scene with young Barney only has two real laugh lines, one by his mother, and then it’s chomp chomp chomp. But The Simpsons really bites down on Stephen King himself. Springfield is renamed Kingfield, “a great place to bury your kids,” and every store, restaurant, bar, and I believe a dry cleaner, pays him the horrific honor of being turned into New England clam chowder you can spit through your nose giggling at. It is truly a loving kiss of death. Barney’s lone laugh line is actually an important foreshadowing of the events to follow, because the jokes are frightening, but few in the midst of the eerie atmosphere. The backgrounds are another story, visual gags run amok over King’s entire literary output. The highlight of the episode is the diversity of the clownish killings. From hanky-chains to drowning in seltzer spray, every fate perfectly matches the universal fear of clowns. Even the Kingfield Clown Archives’ motto is the imposing “E Pluribus Unicycle.” (“Burn that bike,” Krusty demanded in season 6’s “Homie the Clown,” after Homer parked his not baggy enough pants on one.) The sad clown laughing on the outside has his most fun with the innards. The episode opens in the past, mirroring King’s novel, as does the rivaling gang of bullies, led by “super-intense-kid” Chalmers and the future generation of town educators; and the school outsiders – Moe “the scuzz,” sci-fi paperback fanboy Carl, Comic Book Nerd, and tomboy Marge, collectively known as the “Losers Club” – who just want to be left alone. Homer’s best friend Barney is only one of many missing children of Kingfield, where competition to disappear must be harsh. Each of the “Loser’s Club” has seen an evil clown lurking somewhere, it besmirches Moe’s mother as a ventriloquist’s dummy and Comic Book Nerd’s memory will scare the daylight savings out of you, but Homer is the only one to call on it for help. This is probably one of the reasons Marge calls him a “thing.” The secret-admirer poem should have been a giveaway, because there really is only one chimp in town, and also because Comic Book Guy, at any age, is a horrible liar. It is a shame we don’t get to hear more of his unfiltered verbal takedowns. Even so, the internal struggles are well played, with one being particularly ill-timed. The young love at the center of King’s story has its heart ripped out when it provides an alternate future where Bart could be the smart kid. Maggie probably still won’t learn to talk. “Not It” condenses all the individual revelations about Krusto’s origin into one creepy group hug. The ever-so-slight warp of Kent Brockman’s beloved voice announcing “The Yuk-Yuk Hour with Krusto” sets nerves on edge, where they teeter between titter and terror until the clown utters a truly scary punchline about his 27-year-interval feeding habits. It works very well on both levels, itchy and scratchy. The scene captures a modicum of real peril because, as this is a “Treehouse of Horror” production, it doesn’t have to follow canon, and anyone can die. But the more frightening thing is how the trick to conquering the evil clown mirrors the real Krusty the Clown’s true nemesis: technical issues. On the way to the final first battle The Simpsons also encounter their own worst nightmare, besides football overtime: Fox Affiliates. The series loves to slap its broadcaster’s face now and then, and Moe’s unrelated facial lines about a new fetish are classic single-entendres. The Li’l Stinker cherry bomb trick goes back to Daffy Duck in the Looney Tunes cartoons, where Bugs Bunny is upstaged in a joke that can only be told once. Chapter II’s take teaches there is nothing scarier than an unfunny clown. But evil laughter is better than none, so Homer gathers the old gang together to suffer the worst tragedy of their adult lives, canned laughter. Only by aiming straight at the heart of the media can The Simpsons take on Stephen King, because Krusto is only the beginning. In the 27-year interim, Kingfield turned more Kinglike, with misspelled pet semetaries, and shops like Needless Crap Secondhand Store and Dr. Sleep’s Mattresses. Moe’s has become D’ohs, and Homer is the guy with the dirty rag pouring drinks. He did personalize it slightly, keeping pickled donuts rather than onions in the jar at the bar. Moe is a rockstar ventriloquist, Carl followed those science fiction tales into space, and Comic Book Guy and Marge never reveal their actual professions, but we can see a Gal Pal Hard Seltzer – “Drown yourself in fizz”- promotional ad behind her. The sign signifies how much each of the former losers have conquered their fears. “We ain’t exactly children no more,” Moe says. The adult anxieties make for a clever replacement until they get filibustered. The Simpsons’ “Treehouse of Horror” episodes are always season highlights, and the extra added clowning is a welcome treat (the official Treehouse of Horror: XXXIII is set to premiere next week). Written by Cesar Mazariegos, and directed by Steven Dean Moore, “Not It” is quite scary, at times, and every frame carries both thrills and spills. The clown motif provides a panorama of ways to make the audience choke on laugher, even before a school bully’s intestines get twisted into balloon animals. The parody works best because of the details, and some of the lines are individually hysterical. Not all, but it’s not It, which gives its clown all the last laughs, even when modified for a Gen Z audience.
Not too many bishops or cardinals are speaking out. Most support him in his endeavours. Leaves us ordinary punters between a rock and a hard place.
If they support an heretical person occupying the See of Peter THEY are already in schism with the Church according to many Saints and theologians. In which case the real peril is blindly following him/ them.
Once upon a time, I used to like to read dictionaries. Your post reminded me of this and so, being curious, came across this: What Does 'Nice' Mean, Anyway? 'Nice' has a shocking number of meanings. Is that why it seems so meaningless? There is a reason why dictionaries tend to split definitions up into different senses. If we didn’t split them, and just listed all the things that a word might mean, you might look up a common word and see the following definition: Lewd, wanton, dissolute; coy, modest, diffident, reticent; fastidious; marked by refinement; requiring meticulous choice; requiring or marked by delicate discrimination; lacking vigor or endurance; trivial; pleasing and satisfying; enjoyable, attractive, or delightful; well-intentioned; mild, pleasing, clement (of weather); well or appropriately dressed; most inappropriate (used ironically); unpleasant, unattractive, mean; virtuous, chaste; not profane, indecent, or obscene. What madness is this? What unholy and devilishly complex word could contain such a multitude of meaning? The word is nice. Though 'nice' is used to mean "pleasant," it historically meant "wanton or dissolute." The word's other meanings include both "appropriate" and "inappropriate"—and in "Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch," authors Gaiman & Pratchett note that 'nice' can also mean "exact." Nice is a splendid example of a word that is highly polysemous, which means that it has multiple meanings. It would be nice if polysemous itself also had multiple meanings, such as “of or relating to slugs,” and “reminiscent of one’s first major disappointment in life,” but alas, this is not the case. However, nice more than picks up the slack. Nice comes from the Latin word nescius (“ignorant”), which is also the origin of a lesser-known English word, nescience (“ignorance”). The word took a trip from Latin through Old French and Middle English before ending up in Modern English. It is a bit difficult to say with much certainty what the earliest meaning of nice was in Modern English, since by the end of the 14th century there were already a number of different senses of the word. Nice has meant "dissolute": May we not this day read our sin in our punishment? O what nice and wanton appetites, what curious and itching ears, had thy people in the dayes of plenty? —John Flavel, Husbandry Spiritualized, 1674 Nice has meant "chaste": “But Reddy Wheeler knew Daisy. We were properly introduced. It was quite all right!” “Yes, but nice girls don’t do this sort of thing, you know--unchaperoned, and so late at night, and all that.” —Fred Jackson, “Young Blood,” Munsey’s Magazine, 1917 It's easy to tell which sense is being used in which instance, in part because nice has not been much used to mean “dissolute” or “wanton” in the last several hundred years. But even with modern senses we generally are able to use context to distinguish between shades of meaning. For instance, one of the following uses of nice would be defined as “demanding or marked by great precision,” and one would be defined as “unpleasant - used ironically.” The difference is not enough to prove confusing, it is true, but it exists, and in nice measurements would have to be allowed for. —Electrical World, 16 Sept. 1911 “I give you my word they did not speak to each other during that dinner, nor would Louise stay to the cotillon. Charlie danced it with Frankie. Nice state of affairs, isn’t it?” I felt myself grow weak. —Lillian Lida Bell, The Love Affairs of an Old Maid, 1893 Oddly enough for a word that has so many possible meanings, and which carries such specificity in a number of its senses, nice is frequently banned by writing teachers. This is due to students' apparent overuse of the word in its “agreeable, pleasant” sense, particularly in situations where another word might be a better fit. "It was a sunny, mild day" is more specific than "It was a nice day," and "Our librarian is funny and patient" tells you more than "Our librarian is nice." Yet nice, like the overwhelming majority of words, is neither good nor evil in and of itself. If an instructor or editor is determined to remove nice from your writing, you can always claim that you're using it in one of these myriad other senses. That would be nice—in some sense of the word. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/nice-multiple-meanings
