Latin

[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.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='PedroX' date='Apr 20 2005, 12:34 AM'] 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... [/quote]
Where in the Curriculum? Right where it used to be before it was imprudently and brutally torn from the curriculum.

Spanish speaking Catholics are not exactly new to the Church. In fact, they have been around longer than English speakers. I'm not sure what relevance the increase of spanish speakers has? Or how is it different than any other missionary activity in history, during which Latin was part of the curriculum.

[Q the Ninja]

I would wager the Holy Father is fluent...you have to read his works, they're supposed to be incredibly well composed.

[son_of_angels]

I think it is worth noting that St. John Vianney, patron saint of parish priests, himself had trouble learning Latin. As the Bible says, "the servant is not greater than the master." That being said, perhaps Latin will always be a plague for priests just wanting to be good-hearted parsons to learn. However, I also have gone through a course in Latin, two college semesters and while it, and any other language, may be hard, it is not an impossible nor unreasonable feat.

Parish priests should learn it, love it, learn to love it, use it, love to use it, learn to love to use it, and love to learn to use it.

As for where it should be placed, I can see your point. However if it was one of your primary studies and all your Theology and Philosophy courses were taught in Latin, as they were in St. John Vianney's time, you would get over when to place it pretty quickly, as learning it would be YOUR priority.

[popestpiusx]

The traditional seminaries don't seem to have a problem finding a place for it. It can work. It does work.

[Happy_Catholic]

I really want Latin back in schools and in our Catholic communities. Instead of having children go off for half an hour at the beginning of the mass for "children's litergy" (we do that down here) instead of colouring in pictures of Jesus and fish, I think they should be getting a simple grounding in Latin.

With that said, I understand that some priests may have come from countries where education is not easily obtainable, but you'd think that if they were becoming priests, they'd have to have some education or ability to obtain it.

I'm so sick of hearing that Latin is a dead tongue, I want to see it reserected!