The perpetual calendar
in [Math]
|
Prev: THE MIND OF MATHEMATICIANS PART 7 " SPATIAL MATHEMATICS , VALUE OF 1 and 3
Next: Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense- the basic mistake exposed!
From: John Atkinson on 23 Feb 2010 18:37 Androcles wrote: > > "Michael Stemper" <mstemper(a)walkabout.empros.com> wrote in message > news:hlufet$ida$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> In article <%GIfn.45264$lB6.23443(a)newsfe16.ams2>, "Androcles" >> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> writes: >>> "R H Draney" <dadoctah(a)spamcop.net> wrote >> >>>> >>>> One expects such a reaction from someone who inserts an apostrophe into >>>> possessive "its".... >>> >>> Oops... I forgot that is one possessive word that doesn't have an >>> apostophe. >> >> mine, yours, his, > > "Michael Stemper's blunder" is a contraction of "Michael Stemper, his > blunder". > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contraction > : a shortening of a word, syllable, or word group by omission of a > sound or letter; > Like most of what you write, this is false as it stands. The 'his' genitive did indeed have a short vogue in English around 1600, though probably only in writing and as a folk etymology, not in the spoken language. The apostrophe s spelling in place of etymological '-es' may indeed have originated from the false belief that 'his' was the original form; it would have then spread to the other genders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_genitive Constructions similar to the 'his' genitive do exist in many of the world's languages, including Norwegian and, I understand, some German varieties. In Afrikaans, it's the standard possessive construction. John.
From: António Marques on 23 Feb 2010 18:49 Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 20:02): > On 2010-02-23, António Marques wrote: > >> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE. > > Are you going to write to all the churches in the UK with "St ____'s > Roman Catholic Church" or "St ____'s R. C. Church" on their signs, > newsletters, websites, etc., to tell them that they are wrong? (I > think this is common in much of the USA too.) I doubt that that's their legal name where they have one. > In any case, the description is useful, since several church > organizations use 'Catholic' in their names, and 'Roman' clearly > refers to the one with the HQ in Rome. (We could revive the old BL > subject heading "Rome, Church of".) I didn't say it wasn't useful. I said it wasn't official, not technically sound concept that could have relevance towards what the ECC consider themselves to be. Why not 'Roman Church'? Isn't there any 'old catholic' church in Rome? In either case, all the other groups using 'catholic' in their names took care to qualify that 'catholic'. >> 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. > > Well, they would say that, wouldn't they... It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is universal and Christ did found one Church, or it isn't. To endorse the idea of multiple churches is like endorsing the idea of apartheid. Mainstream Protestants consider themselves part of the one Church, the Orthodox who are known for thinking everyone else is a heretic even agree (most of them) that any church is part of the one Church to the extent of its orthodox doctrine, and the RC holds a similar view. >> 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. > > Nor does it mean that other churches can't consider themselves > catholic too (typically they mean that they follow church traditions > such as the episcopate, the historic creeds, and some form of the Real > Presence). Some of them have "Catholic" in the name, some don't. > > (Note that the Old Catholic Church separated from Roman authority > because the Vatican wouldn't send new bishops to the Netherlands even > though the RC people there asked for them. The OCs didn't create the > schism.) That's not the whole story... the old catholics were always a small minority compared to even the dutch catholics. They decided to have their own hierarchy indenpendent from Rome. Rome had serious problems with keeping a hierarchy in the Netherlands due to persecution and Protestant-sponsored intrigue. Rome thought it better to just nominate a vicar and keep an underground church. The OC didn't think the same. The government rejoiced. It's a schism. Not heresy, a schism.
From: António Marques on 23 Feb 2010 18:53 Peter T. Daniels wrote (23-02-2010 20:35): > On Feb 23, 8:44 am, António Marques<antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: >> Peter T. Daniels wrote (23-02-2010 12:42): >>> On Feb 23, 7:04 am, Andrew Usher<k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> 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. >> >>>>> One doesn't "include the East." One has to wonder what knowledge you >>>>> have of the Eastern churches. >> >>>> The word 'Christendom', which you used, would normally be taken to >>>> include the Eastern Orthodox. One wonders why you wouldn't. >> >>> They are among the many churches for which the Roman Catholic Church >>> (which may have been what you meant by "the Catholic Church"?) does >>> not speak. >> >> It's just that that's what he was saying. That the CC "hasn't spoken for all >> of Christendom" for "longer than half a millennium". > > That was I that said that. Count chevrons very carefully when deleting > attributions. You said "hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for nearly half a millennium". Usher said "longer than half a millennium". >> You pretend not to know what "The Catholic Church" refers to, yet your >> answer is built on equating it with a certain church currently led by one >> Benedict XVI.- > > It is Usher who said "'The Church' refers to exactly one > organisation" (complete with the quaint British spelling). Well, I certainly wonder why he included that 'The Church' bit. Maybe he's one of those persons who have come to admire the RC while not necessarily believing a thing the RC says?
From: António Marques on 23 Feb 2010 18:57 Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 21:30): > On 2010-02-23, António Marques wrote: > >>>>>> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. >>>>>> ANYWHERE. > > As I said earlier, it's what the churches print on their own signs in > the UK and (I think) in much of the USA. > > >> I disagree. If anything, 'Catholic but not Roman Catholic' might more easily >> refer to the old catholics or polish national catholics. > > I certainly agree with you on that. Maybe I should clarify that my lack of capitalisation is not meant to disrespect or actually antyhing. It's just laziness combined with a quite high threshold for capitalising adjectives.
From: António Marques on 23 Feb 2010 19:07
Hatunen wrote (23-02-2010 22:47): > I believe that a great many of the churches which once split away > from the church of Rome considered themselves the true catholic > chuch. > > Certainly the Anglicans do. The Anglican covenant says, > > "(1.1.1) its communion in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic > Church, worshipping the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy > Spirit." Of course they do. But when it comes to self-identify, only one church on this planet consistenty refers to itself simply as 'the Catholic Church' (it also uses other names, namely 'the Church', and where pragmatism requires 'the Roman Catholic Church' - but the 'Roman' adds nothing, unlike 'Old' or 'Polish National' - the RC doesn't see any added value in Roman, it doesn't contribute to the meaning with anything that wasn't there before). Besides, until recently, no other church lived for a universal ('catholic') vocation. Sure, many of them did have one, but not as a central structuring element. Notice the RC was never 'the Italian Church' even when popes were italian for centuries long. |