CE or AD

  • Thread starter Thread starter LaSalle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LaSalle

Guest
I was at an RCIA session today when the nun who was presenting a lesson on Mary had the dates of the 4 dogmas written with a CE rather than AD.

I had thought that CE Current Era/Common Era was a way the atheist could omit ‘in the year of Our Lord’. When I asked her why she used CE instead of AD, she said that this was recommended by Rome for ecumenical reasons.

REALLY?!
 
LaSalle said:
I was at an RCIA session today when the nun who was presenting a lesson on Mary had the dates of the 4 dogmas written with a CE rather than AD.

I had thought that CE Current Era/Common Era was a way the atheist could omit ‘in the year of Our Lord’. When I asked her why she used CE instead of AD, she said that this was recommended by Rome for ecumenical reasons.

REALLY?!
Click to expand...
I don’t think so!!! Ask her for the source document.
 
LaSalle said:
I was at an RCIA session today when the nun who was presenting a lesson on Mary had the dates of the 4 dogmas written with a CE rather than AD.

I had thought that CE Current Era/Common Era was a way the atheist could omit ‘in the year of Our Lord’. When I asked her why she used CE instead of AD, she said that this was recommended by Rome for ecumenical reasons.

REALLY?!
Click to expand...
**That is not true. And why would a Christian omit AD? It means “Anno Domini” - “In the year of the Lord” which has specific theological and Faith connotations. Ask the good sister what source she may have for this. Methinks she just wants to be “with it”, but she doesn’t “get it”, unfortunately.

But I did find this article with regard to what is going on in Britain:

Year of Our Lord under threatBritish proposal to ditch “AD”

Britain could soon completely sever all links with its Christian heritage if ministers succeed in scrapping the letters AD from the date.

Years have been labelled AD (Anno Domini, the Year of Our Lord) or BC (Before Christ) for at least 400 years. But ministers say the labels are inappropriate in a multi-faith country and are launching a consultation with a view to using the more politically correct CE (Common Era) and BCE (Before Common Era).

Under the new scheme, this year would be CE 2000 instead of AD 2000. The Romans would have invaded Britain in BCE 55 and the American War of Independence would have ended in CE 1781. But there is already growing pressure from churchmen for the scheme to be abandoned.

John Broadhurst, the Anglican Bishop of Fulham, told The Sunday Times: “It would be pathetic to try to bury the birth of Christ in some fashionable change.” Father Danny McLoughlin, a spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland, said it was “absolutely absurd.”

“I suppose next year we will have to count the years from when Prime Minister Blair came into office, as they do in some countries after a revolution,” he told the Daily Record. “This year we celebrate the birth of our Lord and Saviour. If the Government has missed that, it has a big problem.”

Catholic World News**
 
peary said:
**That is not true. And why would a Christian omit AD? It means “Anno Domini” - “In the year of the Lord” which has specific theological and Faith connotations. Ask the good sister what source she may have for this. Methinks she just wants to be “with it”, but she doesn’t “get it”, unfortunately.

But I did find this article with regard to what is going on in Britain:

Year of Our Lord under threat**British proposal to ditch “AD”

Britain could soon completely sever all links with its Christian heritage if ministers succeed in scrapping the letters AD from the date.

Years have been labelled AD (Anno Domini, the Year of Our Lord) or BC (Before Christ) for at least 400 years. But ministers say the labels are inappropriate in a multi-faith country and are launching a consultation with a view to using the more politically correct CE (Common Era) and BCE (Before Common Era).

Under the new scheme, this year would be CE 2000 instead of AD 2000. The Romans would have invaded Britain in BCE 55 and the American War of Independence would have ended in CE 1781. But there is already growing pressure from churchmen for the scheme to be abandoned.

John Broadhurst, the Anglican Bishop of Fulham, told The Sunday Times: “It would be pathetic to try to bury the birth of Christ in some fashionable change.” Father Danny McLoughlin, a spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland, said it was “absolutely absurd.”

“I suppose next year we will have to count the years from when Prime Minister Blair came into office, as they do in some countries after a revolution,” he told the Daily Record. “This year we celebrate the birth of our Lord and Saviour. If the Government has missed that, it has a big problem.”

Catholic World News
Click to expand...
If this is the case, the months named after Roman gods should changed to secular names!! Sauce for the goose.

Jon
 
While this is sad, it truly doesn’t bother me. The dates are still based off of a very important date, regardless of whether they try to minimilize it with these new secular names.
 
I’ve been trying to find articles either supporting or rejecting this notion … but have come up with zip.

Anybody can find anything from Rome … or from our own CA apologists?
 
Holy_Crucifix said:
While this is sad, it truly doesn’t bother me. The dates are still based off of a very important date, regardless of whether they try to minimilize it with these new secular names.
Click to expand...
It should bother you very much. You chip a little here and a little there, not a big thing huh? Keep on chipping and soon the pillar is gone. Stand up for what is right even if it may be a little chip to you.
 
LaSalle said:
I was at an RCIA session today when the nun who was presenting a lesson on Mary had the dates of the 4 dogmas written with a CE rather than AD.

I had thought that CE Current Era/Common Era was a way the atheist could omit ‘in the year of Our Lord’. When I asked her why she used CE instead of AD, she said that this was recommended by Rome for ecumenical reasons.

REALLY?!
Click to expand...

I find it very hard to believe that “Rome” - which might mean anything 😉 - would bother with so small a detail 🙂​

That said, I think the use of “CE” is a good way of avoiding being explicit about one’s own religious beliefs, or lack of them; sometimes this is appropriate, therefore polite. It also means that non-Christians don’t have to convert dates from the Christian reckoning into their own. It’s often used in academic environments: and academia is not - or not usually - an appropriate envoronment in which to be explicit about one’s religious convictions anyway; that’s not its purpose.

ISTM that both have their place.
 
LaSalle said:
I was at an RCIA session today when the nun who was presenting a lesson on Mary had the dates of the 4 dogmas written with a CE rather than AD.

I had thought that CE Current Era/Common Era was a way the atheist could omit ‘in the year of Our Lord’. When I asked her why she used CE instead of AD, she said that this was recommended by Rome for ecumenical reasons.

REALLY?!
Click to expand...
Just think of CE as meaning Christian Era!
 
ricko said:
It should bother you very much. You chip a little here and a little there, not a big thing huh? Keep on chipping and soon the pillar is gone. Stand up for what is right even if it may be a little chip to you.
Click to expand...
I think you missed the point.:coffeeread:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top