Green Chile Corn Cheese Dip
2 slabs of cream cheese
8 oz. slab of pepperjack cheese
6 oz. package of cojita Mexican cheese
1 small can roasted green chiles, hot or mild to your taste (or about half a jar of 505 Hatch Green Chile sauce).
1 poblano (also called pasilla) pepper, finely diced
1/2 jalapeno (more or less to your heat tolerance) finely diced
2 ears of corn
1/2 bunch of cilantro finely chopped
1 tablespoon Tajin spice mix
1/4 onion finely diced
Lightly oil, salt and roast the corn at 450 until it looks "roasted" (even better do it on a grill). Put the chopped poblano, jalapeno and onion in a pan and roast it until tender in the same oven (it'll take less time than the corn). If you don't have fresh corn, you can probably use canned or frozen corn, drain the liquid and spread the corn on an oiled baking sheet, salt it and roast it.
Meanwhile, put the cream cheese, pepper jack and cojita in a 9"x9" pan, roughly break it up and spread it around in the bottom, sprinkle it with the Tajin, cilantro and canned chiles.
When the peppers and corn are done, strip the corn off the cob, sprinkle it and the roasted peppers/onions on top of the cheese mix. Cover with foil, bake in a 325 oven for about 45 minutes until the cheese is melted and you can stir it all together.
Serve with tortilla chips.
2 slabs of cream cheese
8 oz. slab of pepperjack cheese
6 oz. package of cojita Mexican cheese
1 small can roasted green chiles, hot or mild to your taste (or about half a jar of 505 Hatch Green Chile sauce).
1 poblano (also called pasilla) pepper, finely diced
1/2 jalapeno (more or less to your heat tolerance) finely diced
2 ears of corn
1/2 bunch of cilantro finely chopped
1 tablespoon Tajin spice mix
1/4 onion finely diced
Lightly oil, salt and roast the corn at 450 until it looks "roasted" (even better do it on a grill). Put the chopped poblano, jalapeno and onion in a pan and roast it until tender in the same oven (it'll take less time than the corn). If you don't have fresh corn, you can probably use canned or frozen corn, drain the liquid and spread the corn on an oiled baking sheet, salt it and roast it.
Meanwhile, put the cream cheese, pepper jack and cojita in a 9"x9" pan, roughly break it up and spread it around in the bottom, sprinkle it with the Tajin, cilantro and canned chiles.
When the peppers and corn are done, strip the corn off the cob, sprinkle it and the roasted peppers/onions on top of the cheese mix. Cover with foil, bake in a 325 oven for about 45 minutes until the cheese is melted and you can stir it all together.
Serve with tortilla chips.
Council of Chalcedon Canon 21: "Clergymen and laymen bringing charges against bishops or clergymen are not to be received loosely and without examination, as accusers, but their own character shall first be investigated."
Let no one do anything that has to do with the church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist which is under the authority of the bishop (or whomever he himself designates) is to be considered valid. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the congregation be, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church. It is not permissible either to baptize or to hold a love feast without the bishop. But whatever he approves is also pleasing to God, in order that everything you do may be trustworthy and valid (To the Smyrnaeans 8:1b -2, from "The Apostolic Fathers," 2nd edition, trans. J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, ed Michael W. Holmes, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989) p. 112f).
-St. Ignatius of Antioch
-St. Ignatius of Antioch
Ordinary Magisterium is the perennial teaching of the Pope and the Bishops in union with him around the world. To capriciously say that only extraordinary Magisterium dogmas are infallible is false and heretical. Lumen Gentium n.25, Humani Generis n.21,
Something the debate over Dignitas Infinita has so far oddly neglected to call much attention to is that it seems that it has now been conclusively demonstrated that a pope can teach error when not speaking ex cathedra. For the new DDF document (issued with the pope’s approval) says:
The death penalty… violates the inalienable dignity of every person, regardless of the circumstances… The firm rejection of the death penalty shows to what extent it is possible to recognize the inalienable dignity of every human being and to accept that he or she has a place in this universe. If I do not deny that dignity to the worst of criminals, I will not deny it to anyone.
By contrast, in Evangelium Vitae, even Pope John Paul II taught only:
Punishment… ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
And the original version of the Catechism promulgated by John Paul II stated:
The traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of the legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.
In short, John Paul II (like noscripture, and like every previous pope who spoke on the matter) held that some circumstances can justify capital punishment, whereas Pope Francis teaches that no circumstances can ever justify capital punishment.
You can say that Pope Francis is right, but then you are committed to saying that John Paul II and every previous pope who spoke on the matter erred. Or you can say that all previous popes were right and that Francis has erred. Either way, you are logically committed to holding that some pope or other erred.
This does not contradict the doctrine of papal infallibility, because the new DDF document is not an ex cathedra definition, as Cardinal Fernandez has confirmed. What it does refute is the view of those who argue that all papal teaching on faith and morals is infallible, and the view of those who hold that, even if not all such teaching is infallible, no pope has actually taught error.
Again, this latest development shows that some pope certainly taught error, whether you think that is Francis or his predecessors. Feel free to stomp your feet, shout “dissenter” and “bloodthirsty,” and otherwise blame the messenger all you like. The contradiction is not going away, and neither are the problems that follow from it. Pope Francis has guaranteed his place in the history books.
Edward Feser
The death penalty… violates the inalienable dignity of every person, regardless of the circumstances… The firm rejection of the death penalty shows to what extent it is possible to recognize the inalienable dignity of every human being and to accept that he or she has a place in this universe. If I do not deny that dignity to the worst of criminals, I will not deny it to anyone.
By contrast, in Evangelium Vitae, even Pope John Paul II taught only:
Punishment… ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
And the original version of the Catechism promulgated by John Paul II stated:
The traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of the legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.
In short, John Paul II (like noscripture, and like every previous pope who spoke on the matter) held that some circumstances can justify capital punishment, whereas Pope Francis teaches that no circumstances can ever justify capital punishment.
You can say that Pope Francis is right, but then you are committed to saying that John Paul II and every previous pope who spoke on the matter erred. Or you can say that all previous popes were right and that Francis has erred. Either way, you are logically committed to holding that some pope or other erred.
This does not contradict the doctrine of papal infallibility, because the new DDF document is not an ex cathedra definition, as Cardinal Fernandez has confirmed. What it does refute is the view of those who argue that all papal teaching on faith and morals is infallible, and the view of those who hold that, even if not all such teaching is infallible, no pope has actually taught error.
Again, this latest development shows that some pope certainly taught error, whether you think that is Francis or his predecessors. Feel free to stomp your feet, shout “dissenter” and “bloodthirsty,” and otherwise blame the messenger all you like. The contradiction is not going away, and neither are the problems that follow from it. Pope Francis has guaranteed his place in the history books.
Edward Feser
"Modesty, History, Veils And Head-Coverings"
-by His Grace, the Right Reverend +ALEXEI, Bishop of Sitka and Alaska (OCA)
"Humility, chastity, and modesty are virtues that especially adorn the most Pure Virgin Mother of our God. Modesty is itself one of the fruits of the Spirit enumerated by Saint Paul. Modesty is a kindness towards one’s neighbor, a humble goodness that provokes neither envy nor desire, and love that thinks more of others than of self. When we pray in Church, we are especially called to modesty, which enables us to approach God with that humble and contrite heart that He will not despise. Our Lord Himself was modest, modest about His miracles, modest in His speech, modest in His example, modest in the washing His disciples' feet.
Head-coverings are meant to help women cultivate modesty, humility, and love for their brethren during prayer. Early Christian writers viewed the veil or head-covering as a spiritual armor protecting women not only from the gaze of men, but also as a defense against scandal, suspicion, and envy. They were also seen as expressions of obedience, which is why monastics who are men are also required to wear a veil in the Church. Thus, the head-covering is a visible way of saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.”
In the Orthodox Church, the act of placing something under or behind a veil sets it apart as special, as something to be revered and respected, similar to the role played by the temple veil of the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem. Thus, there is a connection between a woman’s veil with covering and revering that which is precious, such as the chalice that contains the wine that will become the Most-pure blood of Christ. And those coverings themselves also become holy. We can see this in the account of the Byzantine Empress Eudokia who donated her personal veil/head-covering to a monastery for use as an altar cloth. Of all articles of clothing, only a woman’s head-covering could become a vestment for the holy altar, for it is already a kind of vestment.
One of the special blessings for Orthodox Christian women is the privilege to follow in the footsteps of saintly women and the Mother of our God in wearing headcoverings as they did in a spirit of modesty and purity. In the Old Testament, we find Rebecca and Susanna putting on or already wearing head-coverings or veils in a spirit of modesty and purity, a practise that would be praised by the church fathers. The most-virgin Mother of God followed this practice and our Lord’s Apostles encouraged it among god-loving women. In fact, Saint Paul, who maintained that Christians are not required to follow Jewish dietary laws, did insist on the importance of continuing to follow the holy tradition of women covering their heads at prayer. And so, women would wear head-coverings in Church in humble, loving obedience to the counsel of Saint Paul who asked the faithful to “keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” He then writes, “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.” He also noted that women ought to have their heads covered “because of the angels," whose entire holy existence is one of obedience, order, and attention to the will of God.
For nearly 2,000 years, women accepted this word of Saint Paul with simplicity and made it a beautiful part of their spiritual lives. Bishops, priests, deacons, and monks were not the only ones to have special clothing for Church. Every Orthodox woman has that privilege as well. Until the fifties, the practice of wearing a head covering in Church was practiced in every Christian community. Roman Catholic and Protestant women alike would always wear a head-covering when going to Church to pray, honoring the Word of God and the practice of their mothers and grandmothers.
-by His Grace, the Right Reverend +ALEXEI, Bishop of Sitka and Alaska (OCA)
"Humility, chastity, and modesty are virtues that especially adorn the most Pure Virgin Mother of our God. Modesty is itself one of the fruits of the Spirit enumerated by Saint Paul. Modesty is a kindness towards one’s neighbor, a humble goodness that provokes neither envy nor desire, and love that thinks more of others than of self. When we pray in Church, we are especially called to modesty, which enables us to approach God with that humble and contrite heart that He will not despise. Our Lord Himself was modest, modest about His miracles, modest in His speech, modest in His example, modest in the washing His disciples' feet.
Head-coverings are meant to help women cultivate modesty, humility, and love for their brethren during prayer. Early Christian writers viewed the veil or head-covering as a spiritual armor protecting women not only from the gaze of men, but also as a defense against scandal, suspicion, and envy. They were also seen as expressions of obedience, which is why monastics who are men are also required to wear a veil in the Church. Thus, the head-covering is a visible way of saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.”
In the Orthodox Church, the act of placing something under or behind a veil sets it apart as special, as something to be revered and respected, similar to the role played by the temple veil of the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem. Thus, there is a connection between a woman’s veil with covering and revering that which is precious, such as the chalice that contains the wine that will become the Most-pure blood of Christ. And those coverings themselves also become holy. We can see this in the account of the Byzantine Empress Eudokia who donated her personal veil/head-covering to a monastery for use as an altar cloth. Of all articles of clothing, only a woman’s head-covering could become a vestment for the holy altar, for it is already a kind of vestment.
One of the special blessings for Orthodox Christian women is the privilege to follow in the footsteps of saintly women and the Mother of our God in wearing headcoverings as they did in a spirit of modesty and purity. In the Old Testament, we find Rebecca and Susanna putting on or already wearing head-coverings or veils in a spirit of modesty and purity, a practise that would be praised by the church fathers. The most-virgin Mother of God followed this practice and our Lord’s Apostles encouraged it among god-loving women. In fact, Saint Paul, who maintained that Christians are not required to follow Jewish dietary laws, did insist on the importance of continuing to follow the holy tradition of women covering their heads at prayer. And so, women would wear head-coverings in Church in humble, loving obedience to the counsel of Saint Paul who asked the faithful to “keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” He then writes, “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.” He also noted that women ought to have their heads covered “because of the angels," whose entire holy existence is one of obedience, order, and attention to the will of God.
For nearly 2,000 years, women accepted this word of Saint Paul with simplicity and made it a beautiful part of their spiritual lives. Bishops, priests, deacons, and monks were not the only ones to have special clothing for Church. Every Orthodox woman has that privilege as well. Until the fifties, the practice of wearing a head covering in Church was practiced in every Christian community. Roman Catholic and Protestant women alike would always wear a head-covering when going to Church to pray, honoring the Word of God and the practice of their mothers and grandmothers.