Interview for Pre-Conciliar Catholics

[ProVobis]

Latin wasn’t taught where you went to school! Not only did we have years of formal instruction in Latin, we also memorized the Mass as well as recited many of the classic Latin literary works in class.

Latin was taught but in doing translations mostly. And if you weak in English grammar it didn’t help. Not the ideal method IMO.

 

[zab]

Latin wasn’t taught where you went to school! Not only did we have years of formal instruction in Latin, we also memorized the Mass as well as recited many of the classic Latin literary works in class.

Those of us who lived out in the rural areas did not have a Catholic High School to attend and I think that is where the Latin courses were mostly taught. Those of us in the choir, or altar servers did get a mini course in pronounciation of Latin words. But for the most part the extent of our learning Latin was memorized prayers and hymns with the translations in our English/Latin missals.

 

[OraLabora]

Those of us who lived out in the rural areas did not have a Catholic High School to attend and I think that is where the Latin courses were mostly taught. Those of us in the choir, or altar servers did get a mini course in pronounciation of Latin words. But for the most part the extent of our learning Latin was memorized prayers and hymns with the translations in our English/Latin missals.

I started high school in 1971-72 and I was in the first class that no longer had Latin as a compulsory subject. I was heavily in to math and the sciences at that time and not so much into the classics so I never took it. By the time I graduated from HS in '76, it was no longer even offered. What Latin I do know, comes from learning to read it for our Gregorian schola and to follow the parts of the liturgy in Latin at the local abbey. Fortunately my mother tongue is French, so Latin isn’t too huge an obstacle for me, and I can understand a fair bit of it in addition to being able to read it aloud fluently (that is: pronounce the words, without having 100% understanding of what I’m saying).

 

[otjm]

Pew research and statistics say that only 15% of Catholics today believe in the Real Presence. We understood it from our First Communion in 2nd grade - it was critical to our formation as Catholics. It was not something that we even thought to question.

Pew research is likely extremely biased, or you may be reading the results wrong. Other research has found much higher belief.

Part of the problem is how the question is asked, and part of the problem is what people were taught.

Prior to the Baltimore Catechism being thrown out, people learned (I use the term advisedly) the meaning of the term “transubstantiation”. A whole lot of catechesis subsequent to that decision did not use or teach the term. They were taught that Christ was present in the Eucharist; but if the question asked uses transubstantiation as part of the query, results are going to be terrible.

However, it is a false assumption that if people cannot identify the term, they do not believe Christ is present. Other research shows that a quite high number of people, in a survey including Protestants, believe Christ is present. This is not provided to throw this discussion off track - I am well aware of what the Church teaches, both as to the Eucharist, and as to communion celebrations in Protestant denominations. It is rather to point out that Pew shows one thing, and it gets interpreted as something else.

Nor do I suggest that Catholics should not be properly trained; only that Pew asked the question in a way guaranteed to muddy waters when it is referred to.