<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Today&#8217;s word power</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2005/06/todays_word_power/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2005/06/todays_word_power/?source=rss</link>
	<description>current events, culture, faith, science and more</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:20:59 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Doug</title>
		<link>http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2005/06/todays_word_power/comment-page-1/#comment-10420</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:59:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intheagora.com/2005/06/todays_word_power.html#comment-10420</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t know that this answers the question, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04051d.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this entry&lt;/a&gt; from the Catholic Encyclopedia distinguishes &quot;clerks regular&quot; from friars and monks.
On the other hand &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12722c.htmf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this entry&lt;/a&gt; is directly addressed to the term &quot;regular&quot; and says, &quot;The observance of the Rule of St. Benedict procured for the monks at an early period the name of &quot;regulars&quot;.&quot; But, it says &quot;Sometimes also the name &quot;regulars&quot; was applied to the canons regular to distinguish them from monks.&quot;
So, I think you&#039;re right but I also see where my confusion may have come from when I originally saw a reference to regulars.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know that this answers the question, but <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04051d.htm" rel="nofollow">this entry</a> from the Catholic Encyclopedia distinguishes &#8220;clerks regular&#8221; from friars and monks.<br />
On the other hand <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12722c.htmf" rel="nofollow">this entry</a> is directly addressed to the term &#8220;regular&#8221; and says, &#8220;The observance of the Rule of St. Benedict procured for the monks at an early period the name of &#8220;regulars&#8221;.&#8221; But, it says &#8220;Sometimes also the name &#8220;regulars&#8221; was applied to the canons regular to distinguish them from monks.&#8221;<br />
So, I think you&#8217;re right but I also see where my confusion may have come from when I originally saw a reference to regulars.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joshua Claybourn</title>
		<link>http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2005/06/todays_word_power/comment-page-1/#comment-10419</link>
		<dc:creator>Joshua Claybourn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:55:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intheagora.com/2005/06/todays_word_power.html#comment-10419</guid>
		<description>Part of the point, which I was too lazy to write about further, is that priests, bishops and the pope were not generally considered monastic during that period. There was tension between the monastic community and the &quot;secular&quot; one.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Part of the point, which I was too lazy to write about further, is that priests, bishops and the pope were not generally considered monastic during that period. There was tension between the monastic community and the &#8220;secular&#8221; one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug</title>
		<link>http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2005/06/todays_word_power/comment-page-1/#comment-10418</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:48:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intheagora.com/2005/06/todays_word_power.html#comment-10418</guid>
		<description>Hmm. I thought I&#039;d just read &quot;regular&quot; as applying to the clergy consisting of parish priests and on up to the pope as distinguished from the monastic types. Maybe I just misread.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmm. I thought I&#8217;d just read &#8220;regular&#8221; as applying to the clergy consisting of parish priests and on up to the pope as distinguished from the monastic types. Maybe I just misread.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: philosopher</title>
		<link>http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2005/06/todays_word_power/comment-page-1/#comment-10417</link>
		<dc:creator>philosopher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:32:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intheagora.com/2005/06/todays_word_power.html#comment-10417</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s certainly correct about &quot;secular&quot; vs. &quot;regular&quot; with regard to clergy, but I don&#039;t think that that meaning is at the root of our current word &quot;secular&quot;.  Rather, both uses of &quot;secular&quot; trace back independently to &quot;&lt;i&gt;saeculum&lt;/i&gt;&quot;, meaning an age or a generation, by way of its adjectival form, &quot;&lt;i&gt;saecularis&lt;/i&gt;&quot;.  &quot;&lt;i&gt;Saecularis&lt;/i&gt;&quot; came to mean not just &quot;of an age&quot; but &quot;worldly/non-religious&quot; along the line of thought, I would conjecture, that spiritual matters are eternal, but the worldly comes and goes.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s certainly correct about &#8220;secular&#8221; vs. &#8220;regular&#8221; with regard to clergy, but I don&#8217;t think that that meaning is at the root of our current word &#8220;secular&#8221;.  Rather, both uses of &#8220;secular&#8221; trace back independently to &#8220;<i>saeculum</i>&#8220;, meaning an age or a generation, by way of its adjectival form, &#8220;<i>saecularis</i>&#8220;.  &#8220;<i>Saecularis</i>&#8221; came to mean not just &#8220;of an age&#8221; but &#8220;worldly/non-religious&#8221; along the line of thought, I would conjecture, that spiritual matters are eternal, but the worldly comes and goes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: richard</title>
		<link>http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2005/06/todays_word_power/comment-page-1/#comment-10416</link>
		<dc:creator>richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:30:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intheagora.com/2005/06/todays_word_power.html#comment-10416</guid>
		<description>Hey, why not call your blog &quot;in the [inaudible]?&quot;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, why not call your blog &#8220;in the [inaudible]?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: i'm sorry</title>
		<link>http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2005/06/todays_word_power/comment-page-1/#comment-10415</link>
		<dc:creator>i'm sorry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:37:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intheagora.com/2005/06/todays_word_power.html#comment-10415</guid>
		<description>Today the term &lt;i&gt;regular&lt;/i&gt; applies to those who observe the dietary rules regarding fiber.  In contrast &lt;i&gt;secular&lt;/i&gt; applies to those who disregard this rule, and thus are full of sh.....
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Today the term <i>regular</i> applies to those who observe the dietary rules regarding fiber.  In contrast <i>secular</i> applies to those who disregard this rule, and thus are full of sh&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
