Archbishop Sample - All priest's should learn Traditional Latin Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter MagdalenaRita
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tis_Bearself said:
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.

Edited to add, I found a past thread on CAF about this where a priest in formation said that in US, it is “strongly advised” that priests learn Latin, Greek and also Spanish, but there is no requirement that the priest learn Latin.
Click to expand...
FYI:
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.

I know a priest who went through the seminary in the late 80s here in the US. The seminarians petitioned for latin classes on the basis of this canon. The rector disagreed and so a group of them would meet together and study latin on their own so that they would be compliant with the law when they were ordained.
 
Yes, well, that canon is mentioned in the last three CAF threads I read on this (a couple of which I posted above) but it appears that a number of dioceses in the US are not enforcing it and are not using it as an ordination requirement.

Also “well versed in Latin” isn’t very clear as to exactly what level of skill that requires. I doubt it would mean “fluent” or they would have said “fluent”. To really enforce that provision there would have to be some sort of criteria like a proficiency test.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Also “well versed in Latin” isn’t very clear as to exactly what level of skill that requires. I doubt it would mean “fluent” or they would have said “fluent”. To really enforce that provision there would have to be some sort of criteria like a proficiency test
Click to expand...
No, that would be up to the Bishop and Rector. But it seems to me it could be treated like any other class the seminarians take, they study the subject, attend lectures, and have tests, etc that judge their aptitude. Canon 248 has to do with theology, are there profienciy tests in theology to enforce that?
 
The idea of gutting latin when the vast majority of church teaching is written in latin is…stupid is the kindest way I can state it.
 
I’m not stating whether it’s stupid or not. I actually have no opinion on whether priests need to know Latin or not. There will probably always be some priests who will learn it whether or not it’s required, and other priests who, even if it was required, would learn only what was required to pass and never use it again in their priestly careers.

The only reason I’m in this thread is that someone posted that priests have to be “fluent” in Latin in order to get ordained. This seems to be incorrect based on the material already posted in at least 2-3 past CAF threads where this topic came up, and on my own conversations with priests.

It seems clear that for whatever reason, that’s not happening in many dioceses and other places (such as priests being ordained via some orders).

If this is a violation of canon, then the canon isn’t being enforced in many places.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I have to agree. Think about studying the bible. How many times, in a bible study aid or even on this forum, is there not a clarification based on the original Greek or Hebrew text? We come across that all the time. Well, the official version of most Church documents are in Latin to this day, and have to be translated to various languages. It seems to me that any priest would need to be able to, at times, reference the latin to better understand a given position when there is a possible ambiguity in the translation.
 
There are no proficiency tests in Latin per se, etc. Just make sure you don’t receive a subpoena or make ad hominem comments.
 
I wasn’t commenting on your post. Just stating my opinion on the matter. Every priest should be able to read church documents without a translator even if he never will.
 
Since the presumption originally was that priests today celebrate the OF but that few have been trained for the EF unless they or their formation requested (many learning 'on their own), i really can’t see why you would ask the question. Since you DID, I believe that priests should be familiar with BOTH forms since both are legitimate rites of the Latin/Roman sector.
 
I typed Fluent and then when questioned reconsidered and typed exactly what was in the document on the Vatican site regarding priestly formation, “understand’. I really don’t know why people keep harping on that one early post which I subsequently clarified. I’ll see if I can kill the original and make giant 'Not fluent! Not Fluent” like carrying a leper bell or something, Just kidding.
 
That’s fine. Your post showed up as a reply to mine rather than a reply to the thread, so I wasn’t sure if you were directing it at me.
 
Not a problem. People just need to be aware that there are otherwise well-educated priests running around out there apparently without a lick of Latin. It was a surprise to me when I discovered it as I thought they all were required to at least have a basic working knowledge of it.
 
I concur! It would help the Latin Rite if priest in it could do Latin.
 
Oh…that’s because it was. I never think to go to the bottom to reply to the thread.
 
MiserereMeiDei said:
What would they need to learn? Which prayers to leave out and which ones to shorten?
Click to expand...
Celebrating the OF of the Mass is much more than just leaving out prayers or shortening prayers, just as celebrating the EF is much more than just adding prayers or lengthening prayers. Each has its own set of rubrics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top