The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: PaulJK on 24 Feb 2010 04:28 António Marques wrote: > Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 11:39): >> On 2010-02-23, Andrew Usher wrote: >> >> >>>>> The Catholic Church has stated, I believe more than once (it's linked >>>>> to somewhere in this thread) that fixing Easter to a particular week >>>>> would be acceptable. >> >> ("Catholic" is a commonly used but imprecise abbreviation of "Roman >> Catholic".) >> >>> Peter T. Daniels wrote: >> >>>> "The Catholic Church" (which refers to no specific organization) >>>> hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for nearly half a millennium. >>> >>> 'The Catholic Church' or simply 'The Church' refers to exactly one >>> organisation. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Also, it's been >>> longer than half a millennium if one includes the East. >> >> The "Roman Catholic Church", the "Old Catholic Church", and the >> "Polish National Catholic Church" are independent of each other. >> >> The "Eastern Catholic Churches" are under papal authority but I don't >> think they describe themselves as "Roman Catholic". > > Gad, not again! You're trolling, aren't you? > > "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE. I was just skimming through, but these screaming capitals stopped me dead in my tracks. I reached into my legal files and pulled out my "Geburts- und Taufschein / Rodný a křestní list", (Birth and Christening certificate). Under "Religion / Náboženství" is pre-printed "römisch-katholische / římsko-katolické". It's not in English but it is clearly stated in two different languages. What could be a clearer example of self-designation. pjk > In the tradition from which the Roman and the Greek Churches come, the > Church has no splitting qualifiers. It's just 'the Church'. 'Roman Church' > can only mean 'the Church in the city of Rome' or 'the Church, in communion > with Rome' (which is redundant). > > From the Church's point of view, there aren't multiple churches. There's > only one. To say that there is more than one church is heresy. It's not a > matter of wishing to be the only one, it's a religious matter. The > multiplicity of churches is anathema and downright sin. > > Now, historically, 'Catholic Church' has been used whenever one needs to > contrast the Church to some heretic/schismatic group. And that simply > because while the heretics/schismatics were glad to call themselves > 'church', if someone came to them asking for 'the catholic church', all of > them would point to the non-heretics/schismatics. For whatever reason, not > one heretic/schismatic body has ever called itself > simply-'Catholic'-without-more. Not in the ancient world, not after the E-W > schism, not after the Reformation. It's under the name 'Catholic' that > catholics were persecuted in northern Europe. When someone mentions > 'catholics', it's not to eastern orthodox, old or polish catholics that they > are refering to. > > 'Catholic' meaning 'universal' was also until recently an accurate > descriptor, since the Roman Church more than any other sought to be a > universal organisation, as opposed to the politically-splintered Protestants > and the ethnically-splintered various Orthodoxes. In more recent times, most > of those have boosted their universal aspirations (which always existed), of > course. > > The Roman Church usually calls itself 'the Church', but is fond of > 'Catholic' for a variety of reasons, so 'the Catholic Church' is often used > officially. In ecumenical context, if apporpriate, it doesn't object to also > being 'Roman', but that adjective is otherwise left out since it may be > interpreted as limiting (if not outright contradictory when juxtaposed to > 'catholic'). Courtesy also means the RC is willing to call the Orthodox > 'Orthodox', since it's the name the latter are fond of, not unlike the > catholics are fond of 'Catholic'. That doesn't mean the RC doesn't consider > itself orthodox, or that the EO don't consider themselves catholic. > > Officaly not being there a 'Roman Catholic Church', the question of whether > the 'Eastern Catholic Churches' are 'Catholic' but not 'Roman Catholic' > makes no sense. But if one applies Church terminology, then 'Roman Catholic > Church' can only mean 'The Catholic Church, in communion with Rome', which > the ECC certainly are. Now, you *may* wish to call the Roman Church 'the > Roman Catholic Church', but in that case you're not the best source of > information on the relationship of the ECC to the RC. > > People *not* into the church's organisation may think that 'Roman' refers to > the Roman Rite. It doesn't. The adjective that may go with 'Roman Rite' is > 'Latin', but even that is not very accurate. but it *is* accurate to say > that the ECC are 'non-Latin CC', even if it's somewhat unwieldy.
From: PaulJK on 24 Feb 2010 04:43 Brian M. Scott wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:19:21 +1300, PaulJK > <paul.kriha(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in > <news:hlvvbr$50g$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> in > sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > >> Brian M. Scott wrote: > >>> R H Draney wrote: > >>> [...] > >>>> If you want a crank, find the person who came up with >>>> Daylight Saving Time.... > >>>> Then find his successor who decided that DST should apply >>>> for more of the year than "Standard" time....r > >>> I like DST; my only objection is that we don't have it all >>> year round. > >> I would prefer if every 24 hour day was made longer by one >> hour, i.e. 25 hours long. [...] > > I'm not sure that 25 hours would be quite long enough. I agree, it wouldn't. I just didn't want to sound like some kind of an extremist. 28 was mentioned by some other posters. That would do me rather well. Yes, 28, that would be perfect. pjk
From: benlizro on 24 Feb 2010 04:49 On Feb 24, 11:43 am, Mike Barnes <mikebar...(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: > Brian M. Scott <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu>: > > > > >On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:57:11 -0800, Skitt > ><skit...(a)comcast.net> wrote in > ><news:hm18ef$9gh$1(a)news.albasani.net> in > >sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > > >> Brian M. Scott wrote: > >>> Skitt wrote: > >>>> PaulJK wrote: > > >>>>> We invented DST to set clocks back one hour in summer > > >>>> forward > > >>> That's the usual terminology, at least in the U.S., but it > >>> does depends on one's point of view. > > >> Deciding whether a clock runs forward or backward, you mean? > > >No. When you push the time from (say) 10 to 11, you can see > >this as pushing it away from you, just as you might push an > >opponent back. When you let it go from 11 to 10, you're > >then letting it approach you, i.e., come forward. > > That's true only before the event. Afterwards, going from 11 to 10 is > receding. > > But I have some sympathy with your confusion. I get totally confused > when someone describes a time zone as being "ahead of" or "behind" > another. It can be either, depending on one's viewpoint. > > -- > Mike Barnes > Cheshire, England Discussion on sci.lang during the Beijing Olympics: Ross in New Zealand: > > We are 4 hours later than China. During the games we were getting live > > coverage from noon to 2am, i.e. 8am to 10pm Beijing time. Peter in NY: > I think you're earlier, because your 8:00 was 4 hours before their > 8:00. Ross: We are earlier in arriving at a given time, but on the other hand, if you ask "What time is it?", it is four hours later here than there. Peter: > Surely you can't say that NY is 12 hr earlier than China? We're > _behind_ them, you're _ahead_ of them. etc.
From: PaulJK on 24 Feb 2010 05:01 Skitt wrote: > PaulJK wrote: > >> We invented DST to set clocks back one hour in summer > > forward Good Lord, have I been doing this wrong all these years? :-) Our summer time over here downunder will soon be over and then I better get it right and wind my clocks back. pjk >> because in summer it's bright earlier. >> In summer kids go to school an hour earlier but in winter >> they go to school at the time they always used to go.
From: PaulJK on 24 Feb 2010 05:06
Trond Engen wrote: > Brian M. Scott skrev: > >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:41:20 -0800, Skitt >> <skitt99(a)comcast.net> wrote in >> <news:hm17gp$89l$1(a)news.albasani.net> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> >>> PaulJK wrote: >>> >>>> We invented DST to set clocks back one hour in summer >>> >>> forward >> >> That's the usual terminology, at least in the U.S., but it >> does depends on one's point of view. > > And everything is the other way around in New Zealand. Just try to remember exactly which way to wind your clock when its face is upside down and you are standing on your head. pjk |