Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on June 21, 2020, 04:15:46 PM
-
I found this guy via youtube a few months ago and I also found this article on his website.
https://truecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/2017/01/ (https://truecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/2017/01/)
What does cathinfo think of this article?
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/711014035662962698/724117731699589170/unknown.png)
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/711014035662962698/724117381429067786/unknown.png)
-
Never heard of daylight saving time being sinful before. I don't care for it, if the hours of light and darkness, as they normally occur, aren't satisfactory to modern life patterns, then just set the clock ahead 30 minutes and leave it there. Solar noon can vary from civil time noon by as much as an hour anyway. Following the reasoning of someone who would invoke the first chapter of Genesis, you could never have time zones --- every single location on the face of the earth would have its own time.
-
Never heard of daylight saving time being sinful before. I don't care for it, if the hours of light and darkness, as they normally occur, aren't satisfactory to modern life patterns, then just set the clock ahead 30 minutes and leave it there. Solar noon can vary from civil time noon by as much as an hour anyway. Following the reasoning of someone who would invoke the first chapter of Genesis, you could never have time zones --- every single location on the face of the earth would have its own time.
This was me. Didn't check the anonymity opt-out box.
-
Never heard of daylight saving time being sinful before. I don't care for it, if the hours of light and darkness, as they normally occur, aren't satisfactory to modern life patterns, then just set the clock ahead 30 minutes and leave it there. Solar noon can vary from civil time noon by as much as an hour anyway. Following the reasoning of someone who would invoke the first chapter of Genesis, you could never have time zones --- every single location on the face of the earth would have its own time.
I agree. The passages cited in the article make no reference to time at all, only that God created the light and the night and day. As far as I know, the 24 hour day is a man-made concept, and is not divine in origin. Indeed, prior to the invention of clocks, the best anyone could do for keeping track of time was to determine solar noon, and then sort of keep track of time with things like sundials, which of course varied from place to place and time of the year. To suggesting that observing daylight savings time is sinful is silly, and equating it with gαy marriage is downright ridiculous. And what exactly would the point be? When we make appointments, schedules, etc., only to show up an hour late to everything because everyone else is using daylight savings time?
-
Well it's rather obvious that Catholics cannot accept ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriages, so I'm guessing the OP posted the article because of its claim that 'accepting' daylight savings' time is heretical.
.
That's absurd. 'Heretical' is possibly the most abused word in Catholic vocabulary today. It isn't something that you can just substitute in for any adjective descriptive of dislike. Canon law itself deals with time reckoning, and it frequently 'accepts' the various conventions of time zones and the like.
-
Imagine thinking you were a good Catholic and then being damned for observing daylight savings time.
-
Also, if you read the full article by following the link, you will quickly realize it is run be a crackpot, and a dangerous crackpot at that. What make it dangerous is that there are some good ideas (praying the rosary daily), mixed with some bad ideas (Catholics are forbidden from going on any kind of vacation, if you need rest from work stay home; families must follow a strict daily schedule of meals and prayers (no deviating from the schedule!); you cannot cook on holy days, etc.). I found number 4 very amusing - the article states that Catholics are forbidden from reading anything that does not have an imprimatur from before 1958; does the author of the article realize that, if this were true, it would forbid the reading of the article itself?
Stay away from this dangerous nonsense.