Latin

[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.

[conservativecatholic]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 20 2005, 12:21 PM'] What language did Pope Benedict XVI give his first papal homily in?  Oh yeah.....LATIN.... [/quote]
Haha. So awesome!!! It was hilarious to hear the networks preparing for an Italian translation when in actuallity, Pope Benedict delieverd his first Papal Homily in the glorious and everlasting language of Latin... That shocked the media alright.

WE LOVE YOU BENDEDICT!

Edited April 20, 2005 by conservativecatholic

[Cam42]

ding ding ding ding ding ding....wake up....Latin is baaaaaacccckkkkk.....

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 21 2005, 01:25 AM'] ding ding ding ding ding ding....wake up....Latin is baaaaaacccckkkkk..... [/quote]

[urbo42]

Not only Latin, but Greek. Latin is difficult, but well worth it. Greek sheds so much light on the NT. I'm biased too, because I am a classics minor

[JP2Iloveyou]

As a seminarian, let me throw my two cents into the debate.

I have had a year of Latin and I really enjoyed it. I found it to be VERY dificult though. What I am about to say is not in the least meant to be boastful. It is only through the grace of God, but during my short time in seminary, I have maintained almost a perfect 4.0 GPA, including two A's in Latin. I had to work extremely hard to get those two A's. Many seminarians may not be able to grasp Latin right away and it might discourage them in their study. This is not a reason, in and of itself, to not study Latin, I'm just pointing out that it is very dificult.

Currently, college seminarians in the United States are required to obtain a college degree before pursuing major seminary. In addition to 10 philosophy classes, you must take other core classes in various subjects, most dioceses require a working knowledge of Spanish, and if there is a chance you might get sent to the North American College in Rome, you have to take Italian. Add to that a knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic for Biblical studies, all of the theology one must take in major sem, and any other courses the Church or a man's bishop may require, Latin might get squeezed out.

I do not think that it should, however. I personally am proficient in Latin. I can understand ecclesial Latin and a little Classical, though I find classical to be much more dificult. However, I wouldn't call even the best students of Latin at our seminary fluent in the language. They can read it and write it, but understanding it when spoken to them is an entirely different story.

For those who have never studied Latin, what makes it so dificult, IMO, is the sentence structure. Once you get passed the declensions, you can understand it, the problem is remembering which nominative goes with which verb and which accusative goes with which verb, and other rules of grammar.

I will need to take more Latin in the future. I'll probably study up over the Summer, but I just don't know if it is feasible to require a seminarian to be fluent. That would take probably eight semesters, at least, and there just isn't enough free space in our class schedules to accomodate.

[Cam42]

Did you have Dr. Smith????

He was a great teacher.

Cam

[JP2Iloveyou]

no, Dr. Killings, he was after you were there. I really liked him. I thought he was very good.

[argent_paladin]

[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]

Look at it again. The STUDY of latin is necessary, not the fluency of latin. A certain loevel of knowledge of latin is required. And how much? Enough to enable them to understand and make use of original sources. This doesn't require fluency. I would say that the same level of knowledge should be required for a seminarian in latin as a Ph.D. student in a research language, which is about 2-3 years, as I said before. And that would mean that they would be taking a language every semester: 3 years of latin, 1 of greek and 1 of hebrew. Perhaps our differences are in our definitions of fluency. I would say that even after 4 years of college level latin one isn't truly fluent.

[Q the Ninja]

They better because just to get a Licentiate (about the same as a Masters) in theology I have to know enough Latin [i]and[/i] Greek to read it well (along with two other languages).

[popestpiusx]

You cannot seriously study theology without knowing latin. Yes it should be required. I'm not saying one should be fluent, but at least proficient at reading. It is, after all, the language of the Church.