![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Newday wants all its readers to know that they've redesigned the paper. Not that we'd be likely to miss it, but today's paper included several pages describing the changes and stating some of the reasons for them. I'm not sure yet how I feel about the whole thing, but I'm glad that they discussed and named the fonts they're now using, as well as mentioning explicitly that they aren't changing the point size for body text.
The new format for the feature section still works as something to read while exercising, and then scribble numbers on. They had a feature article on the new Mel Gibson movie, including a discussion of some of the thoroughly non-Biblical sources for its content (gory medieval depictions of the Crucifixion, and the visions of an 18th-century nun), and the history of outbreaks of vicious anti-Semitism after earlier passion plays that blamed Jews for Jesus' death. And then an article elsewhere in the paper saying that movies don't cause anti-Semitism, whose argument seemed to boil down to "it already exists" and ignored that nobody is claiming that Gibson invented it out of whole cloth. Rather, the concern is that his movie will increase prejudice, and inflame people who are already prejudiced. (That writer went for the "his father is crazy" angle on Gibson pater's claim that the Holocaust never happened.)
It also occurred to me that he's routinely described as a "traditionalist Catholic who rejects Vatican II". Do Catholics get to do that and still be counted as Catholic, or is this like saying "He's a traditionalist Catholic who rejects the Council of Nicaea" or "…who follows Arius"? If so, I wonder why nobody is writing to the papers to point out that he's (depending on your viewpoint) a heresiarch (a movie with this much behind it is the difference between heretic and heresiarch, I think) or schismatic, and does not represent the Catholic viewpoint.
I had a good workout, skipping the leg press because my knees were kvetching at random when I did should-be-simple things like bending down for my water bottle, but I did plenty of work with weight machines, including lower-body work. Then I went down to Chinatown, lunched at the usual place on Lafayette, and walked up to Grand Street. It turns out that while Elizabeth Street south of Canal is one block, of no particular interest unless you need to talk to a police officer, Elizabeth north of Canal is full of interesting shops. I came home with cookies and frozen dumplings from a grocery there, and ginger, tangerines, and grape tomatoes from two different shops on Grand Street. Then home via the D train, now running out to Brooklyn the way it's supposed to. I have the new subway map, and the brochure introducing all the changes, but all I need to note is "W for Whitehall" because the rest of it is a return to the routes I learned when I was in high school, 20 years ago, before they started the seemingly-endless construction on the Manhattan Bridge. Now that there's no need to change for a shuttle train, I may try going straight to Grand Street after exercising and looking for a noodle shop over there.
Cardio, 33 minutes, top heart rate 147
Calf machine, 70 pounds, 12; 65 pounds, 15, 14 (I seem to be routinely taking this until a calf muscle cramps, which is not good)
Bench press, 60 pounds, 12, 12, 8+2
Seated leg curl, 95 pounds, 2 sets of 13 (I was using my lower back muscles for the last two reps on that second set, and not getting my legs all the way down); 90 pounds, 13
Tricep pulldown, 50 pounds, 15, 9; 45 pounds, 6 (to finish that set), 15
Wrist curls, 30 pounds, 3 sets of 15
Crunches, 4 sets of 20
Back arches, 2 sets of 17
Back lift with physio ball, 2 sets of 15
Tree, 4 sets of {2 on each leg}
Adjustable row, 100 pounds, 3 sets of 15
Biceps curl, 40 pounds, 3 sets of 15
Lateral raise, just to side and down again, 7.5 pounds each hand, 15; full (to center) 7.5 pounds/hand, 10; 5 pounds per hand, 15
Hip adduction, 120 pounds, 2 sets of 11; 115 pounds, 10
Hip abduction, 100 pounds, 13, 10
Stretches
The new format for the feature section still works as something to read while exercising, and then scribble numbers on. They had a feature article on the new Mel Gibson movie, including a discussion of some of the thoroughly non-Biblical sources for its content (gory medieval depictions of the Crucifixion, and the visions of an 18th-century nun), and the history of outbreaks of vicious anti-Semitism after earlier passion plays that blamed Jews for Jesus' death. And then an article elsewhere in the paper saying that movies don't cause anti-Semitism, whose argument seemed to boil down to "it already exists" and ignored that nobody is claiming that Gibson invented it out of whole cloth. Rather, the concern is that his movie will increase prejudice, and inflame people who are already prejudiced. (That writer went for the "his father is crazy" angle on Gibson pater's claim that the Holocaust never happened.)
It also occurred to me that he's routinely described as a "traditionalist Catholic who rejects Vatican II". Do Catholics get to do that and still be counted as Catholic, or is this like saying "He's a traditionalist Catholic who rejects the Council of Nicaea" or "…who follows Arius"? If so, I wonder why nobody is writing to the papers to point out that he's (depending on your viewpoint) a heresiarch (a movie with this much behind it is the difference between heretic and heresiarch, I think) or schismatic, and does not represent the Catholic viewpoint.
I had a good workout, skipping the leg press because my knees were kvetching at random when I did should-be-simple things like bending down for my water bottle, but I did plenty of work with weight machines, including lower-body work. Then I went down to Chinatown, lunched at the usual place on Lafayette, and walked up to Grand Street. It turns out that while Elizabeth Street south of Canal is one block, of no particular interest unless you need to talk to a police officer, Elizabeth north of Canal is full of interesting shops. I came home with cookies and frozen dumplings from a grocery there, and ginger, tangerines, and grape tomatoes from two different shops on Grand Street. Then home via the D train, now running out to Brooklyn the way it's supposed to. I have the new subway map, and the brochure introducing all the changes, but all I need to note is "W for Whitehall" because the rest of it is a return to the routes I learned when I was in high school, 20 years ago, before they started the seemingly-endless construction on the Manhattan Bridge. Now that there's no need to change for a shuttle train, I may try going straight to Grand Street after exercising and looking for a noodle shop over there.
Cardio, 33 minutes, top heart rate 147
Calf machine, 70 pounds, 12; 65 pounds, 15, 14 (I seem to be routinely taking this until a calf muscle cramps, which is not good)
Bench press, 60 pounds, 12, 12, 8+2
Seated leg curl, 95 pounds, 2 sets of 13 (I was using my lower back muscles for the last two reps on that second set, and not getting my legs all the way down); 90 pounds, 13
Tricep pulldown, 50 pounds, 15, 9; 45 pounds, 6 (to finish that set), 15
Wrist curls, 30 pounds, 3 sets of 15
Crunches, 4 sets of 20
Back arches, 2 sets of 17
Back lift with physio ball, 2 sets of 15
Tree, 4 sets of {2 on each leg}
Adjustable row, 100 pounds, 3 sets of 15
Biceps curl, 40 pounds, 3 sets of 15
Lateral raise, just to side and down again, 7.5 pounds each hand, 15; full (to center) 7.5 pounds/hand, 10; 5 pounds per hand, 15
Hip adduction, 120 pounds, 2 sets of 11; 115 pounds, 10
Hip abduction, 100 pounds, 13, 10
Stretches
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
There's no way a short answer can do this justice, but here goes anyway. In short, yes, Catholics do get to do that. It can be convincingly argued that Cardinal Ratzinger of the Vatican has done this for some time - i.e., rejected Vatican II (at the very least, the parts that have to do with the empowerment of the laity, for example.)
Catholics traditionally labeled as "conservative" love to accuse Catholics traditionally labeled as "liberal" of being "cafeteria Catholics" -- that is, they pick and choose the teachings they want to follow. But "conservative" Catholics are just as guilty of picking and choosing what they want to follow -- for example, enthusiastically affirming Church teachings on sexuality, but downplaying or dismissing Church teachings on social justice. If one wanted to, it would be very easy to accuse any person who considered themselves Catholic of not being Catholic based on which official Church teachings that person chooses to reject.
From what I know of it, I'm at the least wary of Mel Gibson's understanding of being Catholic. To pick another celebrity, I'm much more in line with Martin Sheen's understanding of being Catholic. And at it's best, the Church tries to allow a home for both drives - to "conserve" the tradition which unites us with Jesus and the apostles, and to "liberate" the tradition to be understood anew in each new time and place.
That's the answer which attempts to be "fair and balanced" and also concise. On the other hand, I also agree with your instinctual reaction -- it is a Church Council, it's documents representing among the highest levels of Church teachings. To reject it would be to try to go backward in time, which, nostalgic though one might wax, is not feasible nor desirable; one can only move forward.
From:
no subject
Vatican II opened in 1962 and closed in 1965. Mel Gibson was born in 1956 - in short, he's just old enough to remember pre-VII masses, and therefore (to my mind) it's still excusable for him to define himself as a non-VII Catholic. Eventually, just as the Church of England splinter group redefined themselves as "Anglo-Catholics" or "Episcopalians", the non-VII splinter group of Catholics are going to have to find a name for themselves. But things were still fairly murky in England in the decades after 1534, too: as far as Henry VIII was concerned, he was a devout Catholic... he just didn't accept the authority of the Pope.
From:
no subject
AFAIK, not according to the Church, they don't. But according to Gibson, it's the Church that's wrong. Yes, he is a schismatic, or, according to him, the current occupant of the Vatican is a schismatic.
Eventually...the non-VII splinter group of Catholics are going to have to find a name for themselves.
They do have a name: sedevacantists (http://www.sedevacantist.org). They maintain that John 23 was a heretic, and therefore ineligible to be pope, and so were all the subsequent popes. Thus, they believe that the seat of St Peter is vacant, and has been since the false election of John 23, in 1958.