Latin

[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.

[IamCatholic]

I think we learned about the middle way in my history class. That is with Buddhism, right? But, oh yeah, about Latin, wouldn't "well versed" include being fluent (thats not the right word) enought to do a Mass in Latin and do prayers in Latin and stuff like that. Maybe a blessing or something. Also, the Cardinals communicated in Latin if I am correct, so dont they need to have that much knowledge (able to discuss stuff in Latin and talk in Latin a little). Is that right?

[Cam42]

[quote name='IamCatholic' date='Apr 19 2005, 05:11 PM'] I think we learned about the middle way in my history class. That is with Buddhism, right? But, oh yeah, about Latin, wouldn't "well versed" include being fluent (thats not the right word) enought to do a Mass in Latin and do prayers in Latin and stuff like that. Maybe a blessing or something. Also, the Cardinals communicated in Latin if I am correct, so dont they need to have that much knowledge (able to discuss stuff in Latin and talk in Latin a little). Is that right? [/quote]
fluent is the right word.....

[PedroX]

In what part of the 5 year (soon to be 6 year) curriculum for diocesean priests would you add Latin? How do you make the argument to a bishop who has seen the percentange of Spanish speaking residents increase by 200 to 1000 percent over the past 10 years?

I would be in favor of more latin requirements, but something has got to give. The curriculum is packed as it is. We could give up a class in homiletics, and I would know latin but give boring meaningless homilies. Or, we could give up a class in sacremental theology and I could give blessings in Latin, but not really understand the sacraments well.

Again, I'm all for latin, but we have to have some give and take here. I just want to bring Jesus to the people, and its already going to take me half a decade to be prepared to do that.

peace...

[argent_paladin]

This is a great article on the problems in the formation of seminarians:
[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1095"]http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1095[/url]

And this is from DECREE ON PRIESTLY TRAINING OPTATAM TOTIUS (Vatican II):

[quote]3. Before beginning specifically ecclesiastical subjects, seminarians should be equipped with that humanistic and scientific training which young men in their own countries are wont to have as a foundation for higher studies. Moreover [i] they are to acquire a knowledge of Latin which will enable them to understand and make use of the sources of so many sciences and of the documents of the Church. The study of the liturgical language proper to each rite should be considered necessary; [/i] a suitable knowledge of the languages of the Bible and of Tradition should be greatly encouraged.[/quote]

I do disagree with Cam about the level of knowledge. I don't think that fluency is required (most cardinals wouldn't pass that test). I would say that latin should be learned well enough for liturgical and academic use. I think that would require about three years of college level latin. And I think that 6 semesters of Latin would be about the most any seminary could require. And, though I am a latinist, I am also a former seminarian. It is a matter of priorities. The vast majority of priests will never use latin to read the fathers in the original and they will probably never use it sacramentally. Most will never use it again. But I think that there is more to learning latin than pure utility. It disciplines the mind, as fasting disciplines the body. It joins a priest to the universal church geographically and temporally.
And one never knows if it might be useful in a conclave...

[Cam42]

Your statement argent, seems to be directly contrary to what OPTATAM TOTIUS has to say:
[quote]Moreover they are to acquire a knowledge of Latin which will enable them to understand and make use of the sources of so many sciences and of the documents of the Church. The study of the liturgical language proper to each rite should be considered necessary; a suitable knowledge of the languages of the Bible and of Tradition should be greatly encouraged. (OT no. 13)[/quote]

And then you say:
[quote]It is a matter of priorities. The vast majority of priests will never use latin to read the fathers in the original and they will probably never use it sacramentally.[/quote]

That seems not to jive very well with what the Church teaches. As you have seen from me, I use Latin quite a bit. While I do make grammatical errors (my sig is an example....I gotta fix that), knowledge of Latin is intregal to the proper understanding of the documents. As it is, I would have had a very hard time writing my undergrad thesis without knowing Latin.

Also, if the faithful are commanded to know the responses to the prayers in Latin, shouldn't the clergy be more versed, dare I say, fluent, in Latin, as to be able to effectively teach it?

Since most major seminaries are 4-6 years, I would agree that Latin should be part of the course of study for all years of formation. While that may not gain one fluency, it will give them a working knowledge that with continuing education, can lead and make fluency an easy finish......

Understanding and schooling of the priest doesn't stop with ordination, therefore, I would assert, neither should Latin. Again, if we are to accept the spirit of Vatican II, then I would assert that this is part of it.

Cam

N.B. [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_optatam-totius_en.html"]OPTATAM TOTIUS[/url]

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 20 2005, 05:32 AM'] While I do make grammatical errors (my sig is an example....I gotta fix that), [/quote]
Good...I thought it was nemo not namo.

[Cam42]

What language did Pope Benedict XVI give his first papal homily in? Oh yeah.....LATIN....

[Paphnutius]

So all Catholics should know latin then to understand him? I understand your point, and I thought we had come to an understanding, why are you beating a dead horse?

[Cam42]

No, but the clergy should. Why would he preach in Latin if it weren't meant to be understood?

Cam

[Paphnutius]

Sorry. I was being a little sarcastic with that. Curse the barrier of a computer screen. I was just giving you a hard time.