Latin

[Myles Domini]

I heard whilst watching the cardinals enter the Sistine Chapel on EWTN that the election for the new Universalis Papae was going to be conducted completely in Latin. However, whilst that announcement was being made Fr John Neuhaus made the point that that would be unfeasible since the standard of Latin amongst Catholic clergy wasnt good enough. In light of this do you think to make things like this easier in future that the Seminaries need to invest more time on teaching good Latin?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

As a Latinist, I may be biased, but I do think that it would be nice if there were more Latin classes. The emphasis is now on Spanish in the US. I see no reason why they can't learn both.

[aloha918]

both spanish and latin are important.....but if it comes down to learning more latin compared to more theology......i would pick theology

[Paphnutius]

I think it depends on what the focus the seminarian wants his ministry to take, and well what the bishop wants his ministry to take. I have taken latin and find it enjoayble, and I also believe that all seminarians should have a year of latin because it helps to explain a lot of the background of liturgy and what not.

That being said, if a seminarian wants more of a pastoral priesthood and what not, perhaps spanish or pastoral counciling should be their focus. If they wish to puruse a more academic or scholarly ministry, then latin would be needed. It depends on the need of the diocese and the ability of the student. Not every seminarian or priest is called to translate documents or text, but to minsiter to the people of God where the people are. Some are called to be theologians and philosophers, others are not.

Edited April 18, 2005 by Paphnutius

[bamthor]

Latin is the universal language of the Church. At least all priests should know Latin. While Spanish may be more important in this country and probably should be made a priority Latin has been the universal language of the Church for years and is of utmost importance. Then what a marvelous union the priests would be in if they all speak the same universal language of the Church. Latin adds much richness to our wonderful Church. It is the most singable and beautiful language. Also if you know Latin any Romance Language such as Spanish or Italian will come much easier.

[bamthor]

Latin is the universal language of the Church. At least all priests should know Latin. While Spanish may be more important in this country and probably should be made a priority Latin has been the universal language of the Church for years and is of utmost importance. Then what a marvelous union the priests would be in if they all speak the same universal language of the Church. Latin adds much richness to our wonderful Church. It is the most singable and beautiful language. Also if you know Latin any Romance Language such as Spanish or Italian will come much easier.

[Cam42]

If Sacrosanctum Concilium is to be believed:
[quote]Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. (SC 36 #1)[/quote]; then we should expect a level of expertise of the language, no?

Cam

[Paphnutius]

That does not mean that everyone has to be fluent in it, or be have a level of expertise in it. To be preserved does not mandate that all ordained minsiters within the Latin rite must be profecient in it. It means that it should still be used when appropriate (encyclicals, councils, Liturgical purposes).

Is being profecient in Latin going to help a pastor of a country parish with 50 families in it to be a better pastor or bridge to Christ? Possibly, but I believe that what a priest studies should be relevent to their ministry. I am not saying that Latin is not useful in minstry, but there should be more of an emphasis on the pastoral aspect of the priesthood then the scholarly. I do remeber saying that I think all seminarians should take a year of Latin for practical purposes.

[dspen2005]

Latin is the official language of the Church. We should want our priests to be highly educated, thinking men.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Apr 18 2005, 05:00 PM'] That does not mean that everyone has to be fluent in it, or be have a level of expertise in it. To be preserved does not mandate that all ordained minsiters within the Latin rite must be profecient in it. It means that it should still be used when appropriate (encyclicals, councils, Liturgical purposes).

Is being profecient in Latin going to help a pastor of a country parish with 50 families in it to be a better pastor or bridge to Christ? Possibly, but I believe that what a priest studies should be relevent to their ministry. I am not saying that Latin is not useful in minstry, but there should be more of an emphasis on the pastoral aspect of the priesthood then the scholarly. I do remeber saying that I think all seminarians should take a year of Latin for practical purposes. [/quote]
Actually, it does. The Church teaches in Latin, first. We are commanded to know the responses as lay persons to the prayers in Latin. So, it would follow that the clergy should be proficient.

[quote]Is being profecient in Latin going to help a pastor of a country parish with 50 families in it to be a better pastor or bridge to Christ?[/quote]

I know that it is more rhetorical...but I will offer this....Yes, because it will give the inaestimable and timelessness of the Liturgy properly celebrated to the faithful. Also, the nuances of the Latin teaching is not always conveyed in translation. I know this, because I have studied it....Raphael knows it, for the same reason. Incidentally, isn't being pastoral also being able to teach in a proper and intelligent manner?

A great example: The Church teaches that we should actively participate in the Mass, agreed. Is the Church talking about participatio activa or participatio actuosa? The English translation is active participation.

See the reason for knowing and understanding Latin?

Cam

[journeyman]

it would certainly speed up my understanding of these discussions if I spoke Latin

activa
activ.a ADJ 1 1 NOM S F POS
activ.a ADJ 1 1 ABL S F POS
activ.a ADJ 1 1 NOM P N POS
activ.a ADJ 1 1 ACC P N POS
activus, activa, activum ADJ uncommon
active; practical; active (mood) (gram.);
*


actuosa
actuos.a ADJ 1 1 NOM S F POS
actuos.a ADJ 1 1 ABL S F POS
actuos.a ADJ 1 1 NOM P N POS
actuos.a ADJ 1 1 ACC P N POS
actuosus, actuosa, actuosum ADJ
active, busy, energetic, full of life; acting with extravagant gesture;
*

These words were actually used in an article [url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0540.html"]The Mass of Vatican II by Rev. Joseph Fessio[/url]

also appear in this article
[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/ArticleText/Index/2/SubIndex/16/ArticleIndex/35"]Participation by Msgr. Richard Schuler (From Sacred Music)[/url]

what word (or words) was (were) used in the Latin text of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) . . . ok, I'm impatient, I can't find the document in Latin in under 20 minutes - and ten of those were at the Vatican website

[Cam42]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Apr 18 2005, 07:25 PM'] it would certainly speed up my understanding of these discussions if I spoke Latin

activa
activ.a              ADJ    1 1 NOM S F POS           
activ.a              ADJ    1 1 ABL S F POS           
activ.a              ADJ    1 1 NOM P N POS           
activ.a              ADJ    1 1 ACC P N POS           
activus, activa, activum  ADJ    uncommon
active; practical; active (mood) (gram.);
*


actuosa
actuos.a            ADJ    1 1 NOM S F POS           
actuos.a            ADJ    1 1 ABL S F POS           
actuos.a            ADJ    1 1 NOM P N POS           
actuos.a            ADJ    1 1 ACC P N POS           
actuosus, actuosa, actuosum  ADJ 
active, busy, energetic, full of life; acting with extravagant gesture;
*

These words were actually used in an article [url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0540.html"]The Mass of Vatican II by Rev. Joseph Fessio[/url]

also appear in this article
[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/ArticleText/Index/2/SubIndex/16/ArticleIndex/35"]Participation by Msgr. Richard Schuler (From Sacred Music)[/url]

what word (or words) was (were) used in the Latin text of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) . . . ok, I'm impatient, I can't find the document in Latin in under 20 minutes - and ten of those were at the Vatican website [/quote]
It sure would. And that is why priests should know Latin....so they can teach us the difference.

Msgr. Schuler's article speaks to it the best. However, here is the jist of it.

Participatio activa is the outward actions, kneeling, standing, sitting, singing, etc...

Participatio actuosa is the full active and conscious participation....ie. the inward and outward participation.

[quote]Granting then the absolute necessity of baptism, it still is imperative for the Christian to take part in the liturgy actively by a variety of actions. This means that the internal actuosa participatio, which the baptismal mark empowers, must be aided by those external actions that he is capable of. He should do those things that the Church sets out for him according to his role in the liturgy and the various conditions that age, social position and cultural background dictate. He must join participatio activa to his participatio actuosa which he exercises as a baptismal person.

What are those actions that make for true active participation in the liturgy? These must be both internal and external in quality, since man is a rational creature with body and soul. The external actions must be intelligent and understood, sincere and pious internally. The Church proposes many bodily positions: kneeling, standing, walking, sitting, etc. It likewise proposes many human actions: singing, speaking, listening and above all else, the reception of the Holy Eucharist. They demand internal attention as well as external execution.  (Msgr. Richard Schuler)[/quote]

Big difference....but the English translation is the same.....now we see the need for the understanding of Latin by those in authority.

You remember reading that Msgr. Schuler is my mentor right? That is why I used the example of the "actives."

Cam

N.B. Article 14 of Sacrosanctum Concilium.....
[quote]Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and [b]active participation in liturgical celebrations[/b] which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and [b]active participation[/b] by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.

Yet it would be futile to entertain any hopes of realizing this unless the pastors themselves, in the first place, become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and undertake to give instruction about it. A prime need, therefore, is that attention be directed, first of all, to the liturgical instruction of the clergy. (SC 14)[/quote]

[quote]Valde cupit Mater Ecclesia ut fideles universi ad plenam illam, [b]consciam atque actuosam liturgicarum celebrationum participationem ducantur[/b], quae ab ipsius Liturgiae natura postulatur et ad quam populus christianus, "genus electum, regale sacerdotium, gens sancta, populus adquisitionis" (1 Petr. 2,9; cf. 2,4-5), vi Baptismatis ius habet et officium. Quae totius populi plena et [b]actuosa participatio[/b], in instauranda et fovenda sacra Liturgia, summopere est attendenda: est enim primus, isque necessarius fons, e quo spiritum vere christianum fideles hauriant; et ideo in tota actione pastorali, per debitam institutionem, ab animarum pastoribus est sedulo adpetenda.

Sed quia, ut hoc evenire possit, nulla spes effulget nisi prius ipsi animarum pastores spiritu et virtute Liturgiae penitus imbuantur in eaque efficiantur magistri, ideo pernecesse est ut institutioni liturgicae cleri apprime consulatur. Quapropter Sacrosanctum Concilium ea quae sequuntur statuere decrevit. (SC 14)[/quote]

[IamCatholic]

I have been learning Latin more and more now. I used to know practically nothing, but I have been improving. On this actual topic, Canon Law actually stipulates that priests have to know Latin well to be ordained. I don't think this would mean that they are not validly ordained or anything like that, but it might be illicit if it is against Canon Law. I might be wrong about that, but I know Canon Law says they have to know Latin well to be ordained. I will try to find the exact quote.

[IamCatholic]

I found that quote. The phrase used is "bene calleant". This is one translation I found, but I do not know if it signifies the phrase correctly. Someone else would probably know better than I would. Here is the Canon in English (then in Latin after):

Can. 249 The Charter of Priestly Formation is to provide that the students are not only taught their native language accurately, but are also well versed in latin, and have a suitable knowledge of other languages which would appear to be necessary or useful for their formation or for the exercise of their pastoral ministry.


Can. 249 - Institutionis sacerdotalis Ratione provideatur ut alumni non tantum accurate linguam patriam edoceantur, sed etiam linguam latinam bene calleant necnon congruam habeant cognitionem alienarum linguarum, quarum scientia ad eorum formationem aut ad ministerium pastorale exercendum necessaria vel utilis videatur.


If it says they have to know it "bene calleant" (which this one translates as "well versed", but I think it has a stronger meaning than that, depending how "well versed" is understood, but I could be wrong, someone else knows better, I'm sure), so if they are not able to function in it at all (and not even say Mass in the language), then what effect would that have on their ordinations? Is it a sin to go against the Canon Law? I doubt this would mean it is invalid or anything, but is it a sin/illicit if a priest does not know Latin; this seems like it is going against what the Church says in Canon Law. What exactly would this be? Is it a bad sin? I know priests who are not very good at Latin. Does this mean they are wrong?

[jasJis]

I am not a big fan of the All Latin Mass. But that is due to the limited understanding that the general public has of Latin. The way to correct that is to have priests well versed in Latin and to incorporate certain prayers (limited) in Latin in all liturgies accross the world.
I am not fluent in Spainish, but I've attended enough Spainish Masses that I can follow along with a few prayers and responses in Spainish. It is possible for people to absorb Latin, given time and small doses.
Imagine having the Liturgy with only 1 or 2 versions of the Consecration Prayer said in Latin only, with the vernacular translation written underneath. Catholics could go anywhere and attend Mass said in the vernacualar that we may not understand, but we would recognize and understand the Consecration Prayer. How long would it take before we learned enough Latin to fully understood the Latin Consecration Prayer? 3 or 4 years?

[Paphnutius]

Yes. Notice that it ties in the knowledge of Latin in with pastoral purposes. As I mentioned above I stated the I think every seminarian should take at least a year of latin and it should be to benefit his pastoral ministry. I suppose it does depend on how stronlgy one translates bene calleant, that is something probably best left up to the USCCB.

I would just like to point out that I have looked up the requirements for ordination and for candidacy and knowing latin is not a requirement for orders. So the ordinations are both vali and licit. Can 249 deals primarily with seminaries and formation of clerics. I am not sure what the infraction would be rightly called, but it does make it quite clear that latin is to be a point that seminarians, and eventually clerics, ought to have at least some working knowledge in. My copy of the canon says "well skilled." The problem is that it is a qualifier so it is up to the USCCB to determine what skill level that is. Thanks for the input.

[Cam42]

Pap...

While I understand what you are saying and I agree that it doesn't invalidate or make illicit ordination, it does, in fact make it necessary.

[quote] The Charter of Priestly Formation is to provide that the students are not only taught their native language accurately, but are also well versed in Latin, and have a suitable knowledge of other languages which would appear to be necessary or useful for their formation or for the exercise of their pastoral ministry. (CIC Can. 249)[/quote]

As with everything, we can't pick and choose what is binding and what is not. We must adhere to the juridical, as well as other laws that govern us as Catholics.

The reason for needing to be well versed in Latin is summed up well in CIC 257:
[quote]The formation of students is to ensure that they are concerned not only for the particular Church in which they are incardinated, but also for the universal Church, and that they are ready to devote themselves to particular Churches which are beset by grave need. (CIC Can. 257 §1)[/quote]

So, let's assume for a moment that I am ordained.....let's assume that my bishop lends me to a nation in Europe, let's say the Czech Republic. I don't speak Czech, so I would need to be well versed in a universal language, Latin. (This is not far fetched....I know a priest who is in this situation right now.)

If Can. 249 is to be taken seriously, then the above scenario would be much easier to deal with....as it is, Can. 249 is often overlooked...because Latin is a dirty word to the liberals....

So, let's meld Sacrosanctum Concilium (and supporting documents) with the CIC and we will see that Latin is still to be an intregal part of our life in the Church.

Cam

[Paphnutius]

That is what I said:

[quote]but it does make it quite clear that latin is to be a point that seminarians, and eventually clerics, ought to have at least some working knowledge in.[/quote]

I was not saying that we should not adhere to it, I was saying that it is up to the USCCB on how skilled is well skilled. I am all for latin, I was just pointing out that it is for pastoral purposes and should be viewed in that light.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Apr 19 2005, 12:01 PM'] That is what I said:



I was not saying that we should not adhere to it, I was saying that it is up to the USCCB on how skilled is well skilled. I am all for latin, I was just pointing out that it is for pastoral purposes and should be viewed in that light. [/quote]
fair enuf....

[Paphnutius]

Glad we could agree. I think we mean the same thing to a certain degree. You would just have it stressed a little more in the education than I would, where as I think it is beneficial up to a certain point but should not dominate their study. I do not think that is what you are claiming, but we must have both sides presented to get a feel for each and to find the middle way.