Yes, ultimately one catholic Church as the Creed states.
You would think that they would be required to learn Latin, but not always. The young priest who was the youth minister at our church for a couple of years while I was in high school admitted that he did not learn Latin. I was very disappointed by this-I was taking latin classes and liking them at the time.
I do not agree with that statement. The foundation of both forms is the last supper, the bread of life discourse and various events from antiquity. One form of the Roman rite does not rest upon the other. Instead we have to equal forms of the Roman Rite. A primary reason for the reform was a return to the sources and a shedding of that which is not essential… not a revised version of the EF.
Learning traditional ways of doing things is not “fanatical.” From woodworking to food preparation to textile work to sculpture and all of the arts–not to mention letters!–modern practitioners never fail to gain appreciation of what we do now by learning how things were done in the past. Who on earth chooses entire epochs of the past to ignore? No one who really wants to belong to the succession of those who went before, those before them who accepted from the past and handed forward to those who came after.
Archbishop Sample most certainly is not. I think he finds the idea of putting the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Mass in adversarial relationship to each other a source of sadness. It happens, but it should not be that way. There is no reason for that.
It’s a full FSSP parish with Mass and confessions seven days a week. Come on over. 24 miles is about the average drive for most parishioners. Doesn’t have to be regularly.
Do you have a source for this requirement? It’s my understanding that not all seminaries offer Latin and I recently met a US native born priest who didn’t know it at all. I said I thought priests were required to know Latin and he said that wasn’t the case, and that he knew several other languages (he named them off, I remember he spoke French and Greek and two more) but did not know Latin at all.
The link the friar posted appears to no longer point to the Code for Priestly Formation V. 5, but I found that at this URL. I am not sure to which section he was specifically referring as it seems to mention Latin in a bunch of places as “recommended” or “strongly advised” but I can’t find any provision stating it was required for ordination.
Sometimes the best way to evangelize is through the mass. Unfortunately, not everyone has an opportunity to experience the same type of Novus Ordo that others often speak about.
Learning the OF is a part of the standard curriculum of every seminary so far as I know.
FSSP and ICKSP seminaries too?
Their charisms specify that they only celebrate mass in the EF. As such, they would never have occasion to say an OF mass publicly. Nevertheless, I’d be shocked if an FSSP or ICKSP priest could not say an OF mass. It takes considerably less practice and instruction to say an OF mass vs an EF mass.mrsdizzyd:
FSSP and ICKSP seminaries too?
Just because many seminaries quit teaching latin does not make it not a requirement, it just says that rectors and bishops have not always followed the law.
The canon says a priest should be “well versed” in Latin. That would imply, to me, they would very much be capable of saying a mass in . latin I have seen priests from Latin America in this country who do not know English well enough to carry on a conversation, ie they are not fluent, but they are capable of saying mass in English, ie they can read and pronounce the words well enough to say mass. So you are correct, being fluent is not necessary to say mass.