I know it may sound strange to begin my second post with such a title, but a little squabble recently with a seminarian has proven to me (again) that, contrary to the express admonitions of the current Code of Canon Law, most bishops do not want their priests to know Latin. But first let us consider what the Church specifically dictates regarding the matter:
Can. 249 - Institutionis sacerdotalis Ratione provideatur ut alumni non tantum accurate linguam patriam edoceantur, sed etiam linguam Latinam bene calleant necnon congruam habeant cognitionem alienarum linguarum, quarum scientia ad eorum formationem aut ad ministerium pastorale exercendum necessaria aut utilis videatur.
My translation: In the program of priestly formation let provision be made that the students [i.e. seminarians] not only be carefully and thoroughly taught their native language, but also know well and by experience the Latin language; let them also have a suitable knowledge of those foreign languages, knowledge of which seems necessary or useful for their formation or for carrying out the pastoral ministry.
A few remarks regarding the precise wording of this canon are in order. The first thing to notice is that the Holy See envisions three kinds of language studies for seminarians: their native language, Latin, and other foreign languages necessary or useful for the priestly ministry. Because any language might theoretically be deemed “useful or necessary” for priests, there really is no limit to what a seminarian (or priest) might ask to study. More importantly, we can reasonably understand the Church to be stressing language study in a particular order. The top priority for future priests is their native language, then Latin, and then other foreign languages.
Now let us consider how universally ignored this canon is by the empowered. Do priests in the U.S. even know their native tongue? Given the low quality of sermons in most places with which one is regularly bombarded, we can tend towards the negative. Who learns the proper use of who and whom anymore? Dare I even mention the classical distinction between will and shall? Does anyone realize that the expression It’s me is grammatically incorrect? Perhaps the clergy should be more pitied than berated in this regard, for the translations of the Missal, Breviary, and Bible forced upon them for the past forty years have done nothing but vulgarize the speech of us all.
Returning to the details of Canon 249, we must note that seminaries ought to lay greater stress on Latin than on any other foreign language in the intellectual formation of seminarians. We now encounter the real lunacy of the post-conciliar Church, for who can imagine a bishop in the twenty-first century actually expecting his English speaking priests to know Latin better than any other foreign language, including Spanish? Not even the Jesuits know Latin that well anymore. (Pro dolor!) The chasm between the letter of the law and our daily lives widens when we consider the verb used to describe the sort of attention seminarians owe to the language that built Western civilization, callere. The verb originally meant to be callused with something and then came to mean to be skillful or versed in that something. By using this word, Canon 249 should give us the mental image of nineteen and twenty year old adolescent men in cassocks and Roman collars callusing their knees by genuflecting on massive tombs of Cicero while doing long-term damage to their eyes as they try to read the fine print of Lewis and Short under insufficient candlelight. Alas! As the current liturgical crisis has all too well taught us, said Canon takes 249th place on every bishop’s list of 100 things to do.
But why have things gotten to be as they are? The most obvious and superficial reason is that the priests of the Roman Rite no longer need Latin to go about their daily routine. If the Church never forces them to use an ancient and (mostly) non-spoken language, why should they bother learning it? Or rather, how could they when every opportunity has been denied them? At a deeper and more insidious level, however, is the grim reality that bishops do not want their priests to know Latin. In fact, the majority of bishops appointed before April 2005 probably hate it. This deep-seated desire to keep their priests ignorant has a two-fold cause to be discussed below:
A) “No Latin, no Latin Mass:” This one should be fairly straightforward. Young priests will not bring the traditional liturgy back into parishes if they cannot read and understand the text.
B) “Know Latin, Know too Much:” This is the real heart of the matter. Priests who have gone through the toil (Latin: labor) to make the Church’s language their own usually emerge with a thoroughly sharpened mind that enables them to read between the lines of the constant dribble of post-conciliar blah-blah-blah and episcobabble and reject it. Not only does a thorough knowledge of Latin predispose priests to reject what most of the bishops are saying now, it makes them impenetrable to claims and fallacies based on the “sprit of Vatican II” (not the Spirit of God), for they can actually read for themselves the texts of the Council. Make no mistake about it, those who can read the Council for themselves in its original language know it better, hands down, than anyone who can read it solely in translation. And that’s not all they know. They also have first hand access to a majority of the texts that have formed the Church’s magisterium for two millennia, and they know that those texts cannot be easily reconciled with the doctrinal novelties of the Council, especially those of Dignitatis Humanae. “Indeed,” assert our enemies behind closed doors, “keep them ignorant of Latin and they will have no choice but to believe that the Council means whatever we tell them.”
Of course, we must judge our shepherds mercifully. Why, after all, would they want classically trained presbyterates regularly spewing off quotations from Cicero and Pope Innocent III to the consternation and incomprehension of post-modern, pro-choice, we-just-want-to-sing-a-new-church-into-being, blah-blah-blah-loving Americanist congregations running around in Catholic drag? Can you imagine the toil and calluses to be suffered by a bishop in a diocese staffed by 150 Fr. Zuhlsdorfs? What about 150 Fr. Reginald Fosters? The solution, clearly, is to ordain only easily controllable men to the priesthood who know next to nothing and think they have some vague idea of the as yet unspecified, unculturally conditioned, post-modern meaning of O Salutaris Hostia from seminary Latin class. Let’s just hope that these men will one day learn enough Latin to mumble the Words of Consecration in more than just gibberish.
41 comments:
The Latin Mass will bring "unity" back into the Catholic Church and the modernists don't want that to happen. Only Our Lady can help us and that's why "The Fatima Challenge" Conference is so important. Join us at
http://www.fatimachallenge.com
Knowledge is Truth. Where'd I hear that? What's so important about knowledge/Truth anyway?
Across the street from an abortion clinic last weekend, the second of two standing granite slabs listing the ten commandments had fallen over in front of a Christian church. Maybe they were being dropped due to relativism? I kidded. Being able to more fully understand all of the Church's writings/teachings - would that ever be a bad thing for the individual priest let alone his flock?
How many Catholics have read Christopher Dawson? Fifty years ago he was known even by non-Catholics. How many Catholic historians today know enough Latin and Greek to unlock the classical canon that defines our civilization.
Thank you cousin, Schuh. Christopher Dawson is truly one of the great Catholic historians, and Latin used to be the foundation of a public man's education. I've often felt resentment when I've run across seminal texts, long out of my school days, which used to be required reading for students 150 years ago.
You feel like you've been done a disservice. Rather than reading Camus, we should have been reading Seneca and Cicero...
I'm enjoying my study of Latin very much. It's difficult going, granted, and I haven't really anyone with whom I might converse, but I view it as a mental discipline ... and a kind of penance!
To suggest some kind of conspiracy as the reason for the current dearth of Latin studies seems rather far-fetched to me, to say nothing of uncharitable.
I'm reminded of the readings I've done where scholars denounced the lack of interest in the study of Hebrew and Ancient Greek. Cranky sort, weren't they?
That the Bishops are hostile to Latin isn't a suggestion, it's a fact easily obtainable by when you consider the state of Latin in Catholic Schools, that Latin is frequently removed as a subject of study in Catholic schools.
In any event, the hostility of the Bishops to the Latin Mass is well-established.
Tancred, I am an advocate for Latin being taught in American schools. I endorse the study of logic as well. I know you are not really trying to prove a specific point, but your statements above lack support.
Lack support? I didn't write this piece, but to say that the Bishops don't like Latin and that Latin makes you a better educated person with a larger stake in the patrimony of the West, or at least make you more difficult to control are well supported by the examples provided. Both Fathers Z and Reg Foster are (and have been) huge thorns in the side of Bishops.
tancred, I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. I was referring to your seeming argument that the dearth of Latin studies in our schools is an act of the bishops. If there is a reason for our neglect of Latin studies, I would lay it more on parents than bishops. Schools, at least here in Wisconsin, are pretty responsive to parents' wishes.
As for "the bishops" being hostile to the "Latin Mass," you show no proof. (Forgive me if this blog takes that assertion as "gospel" truth. I'm new here.)
Whatever do you mean by "more difficult to control"? That one is new to me. Do you really think that translations are all that bad? Or perhaps you're suggesting that we're just not reading the Church Fathers. Looking forward to your reply.
Parents don't really decide much in the way of curricula, but the Bishops do make those decisions.
The fact that the Catholic Church has been under attack for the last 100 years is certainly an understatement and it is well-established that the Church has been infiltrated by Her enemies, most notably Communists.
This attack has taken many forms, to included especially education, which has been dominated especially since Land O' Lakes by Gramscian Socialists.
That might not be mentioned in the essay, but it's a well-attested fact that the Catholic Bishops have played a significant role in destroying Catholic education, and that means removing Latin from the curricula of would-be Catholic schools, many of which are Catholic in name only.
Tancred, I don't mean to be impolite, but you didn't answer all my questions.
(And are you suggesting that some of our bishops are Communists?)
As for our parish school's course offerings, the principal and faculty are very responsive to our parents.
Yes, Bishops I'm sure you're familiar with are very Communist, like Archbishop Weakland. You also may have noticed their support for socialized medicine, abortion, pro-homosexual agendas and non-Catholic teachings recently as well as the Bishop's wholesale treatment of Catholic education.
But don't take my word for it, Bella Dodd testified as a former Communist in charge of recruiting Communists to the Seminary, that she was very busy indeed.
The one thing we lack is a list of names. I wouldn't be surprised to find names like Weakland on that list.
Catholic education is not responsive to parents who want Catholicism taught to their children, indeed, many parents opt simply to remove their children from Catholic education for that reason.
Just to restate, many Catholic Bishops are indeed Communist or at least fellow travelers. Just take a look at what the USCCB promotes: Nuclear disarmament, Socialized Medicine and more recently, "Immigration Reform".
If they were as worried about saving souls as they were about getting into the government till to the tune of 33% of their budget, they'd probably have the USA converted to Catholicism by now.
Trancred, you still haven't answered my questions about Latin and its translations. Perhaps you're not one to listen to the other fellow, I don't know.
So that we understand one another, and have a base upon which we can discuss matters, do you accept the Cathechism of the Church as it was recently presented? If not, please tell me to what you object. I'm a rather traditional Catholic who still has great confidence in our leadership. Frankly, I worry that you are assuming too much of a "command" of Catholic positions, but I suppose we can hash that out over time.
I don't have much confidence in the leadership of the American Church, particularly its Bishops' conference which is often an organ for error and dissent from Church teachings, whether outlined in the Catechism or not.
I've given you a broad brush summary for why I think that.
We do take it for granted around here that the Bishops are problematic. Perhaps you're too young to remember the things they allowed to happen in the name of "the spirit of Vatican II" and how much Catholic education has sunk into an almost irredeemable rot of heresy and indifferentism.
Haven't you been following the Marquette story? The faculty objects to the Jesuits not hiring a lesbian. Rather than asking us if we accept the Catechism, perhaps you should ask them instead?
I don't mean to be abrupt or insulting to you in any way, but I am trying to explain to you something of my disbelief that you would question the fact that the Bishops would be hostile to the liturgical and linguistic patrimony of the Church. It seems self-evident to us, and if we've failed in explaining that, we're sorry, and we'll try harder to be more clear and concise.
Trancred, it's a busy morning and I'm off to Mass soon, but I want to remind you of the questions I asked that you have not answered.
They were poised here: "Whatever do you mean by "more difficult to control"? That one is new to me. Do you really think that translations are all that bad? Or perhaps you're suggesting that we're just not reading the Church Fathers. Looking forward to your reply."
As for the other issues, I'll enjoy returning to them when I can find time this afternoon. I been following the Marquette 'fiasco' and will look forward to discussing it if you would like.
Tancred, I had hoped that you'd be interested in continuing our discussion about the teaching of Latin and other matters. It seems you are not.
I had hoped, also, to make sense of this interesting blog. I don't share in the enjoyment of sarcasm that seems to mark many of the posts, but I would have appreciated learning more about the perspective that is offered here.
God bless you.
I addressed your questions. You asked if the statement about the Bishops was supportable. I don't know, you're part of the school system, maybe you're incapable of seeing the forest for the trees?
The Bishops hate Latin, yes they do. It's been getting thrown out of the curricula since the unfortunate Council, which has witnessed a steady and almost unabated decline in vocations and religious life for 40 years.
Perhaps you should restrict yourself to blogs that are more interested in instilling animal attachments and sentimentalism in its readership?
Tancred, are you trying to be rude to me?
The questions you have not answered are here: "Whatever do you mean by "more difficult to control"? That one is new to me. Do you really think that translations are all that bad? Or perhaps you're suggesting that we're just not reading the Church Fathers. Looking forward to your reply." This is the third time I've posed them to you.
If you don't wish to answer them, please just say so.
As for your apparent reluctance to address my question regarding the Church's Cathechism, perhaps that's just beyond the scope of this blog, or your desire to be forthright. I can say simply enough: I have no objections to the Cathechism as it was recently presented.
I've only met John Cardinal O'Connor and Bishop Dolan, now of New York. I can't believe you would judge them in any way but favorably. They were (are) holy men.
You should be able to infer from what I've said about the American Bishops the answers to your questions.
Bishop Dolan isn't perfect, no... and Cardinal O'Connor left a priest who was exposing Bishop Hubbard of Albany and his homosexual network out to dry...
Goodness, Tancred, I asked you if the English translations of the Church fathers are poorly done. However am I to read your mind?
It may be impracticable for us to turn back time and insist of everyone's reading Latin, but certainly we can endorse the reading of translations. Can't we? Aquinas, Gregory, Augustine et al. have much to teach us.
Since the Church Fathers wrote mostly in Greek, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Have a nice day.
Trancred, now I know you're being perverse. The authors I specifically mentioned wrote in Latin, for the most part. We might quibble about Doctors of the Church being Fathers of the Church, but my point still stands. (And I'm seriously interested. You've acted as though I've offended you in some way.)
I'm asking if we can protect the traditions of the Church even if we haven't facility in Latin. (I don't think I'll ever be that good with it.) Do you fault the translations?
For that matter, if your assertion that the Church Fathers wrote principally in Greek is correct, shouldn't you be arguing for the study of Ancient Greek?
Really, Trancred, I wish you would be civil. I'm trying to learn.
I've answered your questions, have a nice day.
For someone with strong beliefs, Tancred, you don't seem to go out of your way to help a student find answers. Why is that those 'liberal' Catholics with whom I have conversed seem more affable and accomodating? Their beliefs may be misguided, but they are at least charitable, as I would expect from a Christian.
I really must say I am disappointed in your unwillingness to assist me. I assume you post to help others understand your point of view. Can you at the very least point me to a blog or two where I can learn more about 'traditionalist' beliefs?
Like you, I have limited resources, cognition and patience. I detect insincerity and sarcasm to my earnest replies, I see no reason to continue this.
Go talk to your liberal friends, then you will set yourself on the road to Hell.
To the contrary, Tancred. I think you have assumed too much. I am a rather traditional Catholic who is curious about and, to a certain extent, receptive to some of the positions I have found here.
I asked specifically about the Catechism so that we might know from the start if there was anything of substance that separated us. (I'm still unsure why you are uncomfortable answering this question.)
As for Latin studies, I am particularly interested if you feel that Latin has a special 'grace.' I have an acquaintance who asked that a mutual friend receive 'last rites' in Latin. He felt that this language had more 'power.' I didn't dispute him, as the priest I was helping care for was elderly--92--and Latin may very well have been more comfortable for him. I was bequeathed his two sets of the Liturgy of the Hours and it was interesting to me to see that his older, Latin version was the one that was far more read.)
It was interesting to me also to note that the young priest who once annointed Father annointed his hands as one might a layperson. I suppose the old practice was developed to edified the faithful--God certainly wouldn't see anything amiss--but I was a bit 'nostalgiac' for the older distinction between ordained and layperson.
I hope we can begin again, Tancred. If you won't answer direct questions, however, I suppose there is no point.
God bless you.
No traditionalist Catholic, at least not one who wanted to be heard here would use inclusive language.
I didn't answer your question about the catechism, not because I'm uncomfortable, but felt it was largely answered by the discussion on Bishops.
Of course, Cardinal Schoenborn was the editor of that publication.
I always steer people away from the CCC and refer them instead to the Trent Catechism. Its language is much better and doesn't contain the unfortunate ambiguities to which the modern Catechism is prone.
Thank you for directing me to the Trent Catechism. I'll have a look and make a quick study of it, at least as a start.
I appreciate your help.
I don't suppose I belong here if I have to watch my language along ideological lines.
If you wouldn't mind, would you do me one last favor? Would you point me, please, to a Traditionalist Catholic blog or Web site that is interested in dialogue with someone who hasn't a background in such perspectives?
Best to you. God bless.
"I don't suppose I belong here if I have to watch my language along ideological lines."
See, you've got a chip on your shoulder. I only commented on your usage because of the claim you made to be a "fairly traditional Catholic", among other claims, seems specious.
See, assuming that you're from Milwaukee, you should already know about you your ordinary lied under oath and was so accommodating the Archbishop Weakland.
Tancred, I don't know how to take you. You caution me that not everyone is 'heard' here, so I politely asked for help. (I gather that I am not welcome here. My feelings aren't hurt, not to worry.)
Whatever does Bishop Listecki have to do with anything we've discussed?
Are you the only contributor here? Might someone direct me to someplace helpful to learn about Traditionalist Catholicism?
Peace.
The reason I said "heard" is just what it means. No sinister intentions as you presuppose.
It might be helpful to add that I am a tradition Catholic, not what I presume is a tradionalist Catholic. I have no complaints against the Holy Father; I follow the teachings of the Magisterium; I have worshiped at a Latin Mass many times at a Benedictine monastery while in Brazil and very much appreciated the experience, just as I have attended so-called folk Masses; I prefer to receive the Sacrament on the tongue; I prefer that our altar servers be male; I deplore the rampant anti-Catholic sentiment I find in mainstream American journalism; I try hard to be charitable; and I practice any number of traditional sacramentals of the Church (if 'practice' is the correct word); et cetera.
Whatever makes me so suspect?
"Cum tacent, clamant."
Tancred, I think you will enjoy this article. It argues for a return to a 'classical' education.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/a-classical-education-back-to-the-future/
Good comments about Latin. Another reason for the neglect of Latin is the older studies were a weeding process.With the crisis of vocations to the priesthood academics has taken a back seat.
I was at a talk by fr. Foster once, and whilel he sounded like a spectacular teacher, he also thinks the only use for latin is to read the classics. he said there was no reason for the church to use latin as its official document, no reason for for seminarians to learn latin, no reason for the mass to be in latin, etc. etc. i was surprised to see him mentioned here, for he is definitely not a friend of tradition; just a high school latin teacher, albeit a fanastic one. this talk was delivered at the notre dame law school about 3 years ago.
Mon Dieu
How about you guys stop beefing about Latin, traditionalism etc and just get into reading the Bible? Might bring some real Christian revelation to you all.
By the way last time I checked Jesus did not speak Latin nor was Roman nor Catholic.
Then real belief can grow.
God bless
Anonymous, you probably are not old enough to remember that the(American) public schools once taught Latin in part because it helped them master ENGLISH. Not only are a huge proportion of English words drawn from Latin, but a large number are French, which also derives from Latin. Furthermore the stately language of 18th and 19th century English, commonly called Augustan prose,which we find not only in Gibbon but in the founding documents of the United States, owed much of their structure to Latin. It provides a precision that is totally absent from much of todays journalism, even the better kind. What does this matter if one is going to just going to read the Bible? Helps to have a great mastery of one's own language, for translators are not always accommodate those used only to vulgar speech and still convey the meaning of the original.
Tancred,
I must caution you that, while I'm not the moderator, your comments..don't persuade me to view Latin or the traditional form of Mass with any kindness. If anything, your comments seem to me deliberately insulting towards those in our episcopate today; I should've thought you would've learned to pray for them instead.
As it is, you come across to me as..happily, sinfully arrogant.
I certainly will assume that you don't intend this, but I would ask you to provide reasonable examples to substantiate your views. Considering the number of abuses I've witnessed myself, I can't imagine that would be terribly difficult.
As to the state of education and Latin in school, bear in mind that the secular academy doesn't teach Latin much either. Methinks there're many academic "elites" who'd stand to lose quite a lot if their students could read various classics in the original tongue.
Our bishops have some responsibility in their own diocese, yes, but they're far from being alone in their discomfort with that famous "dead" language.
"Sacrosanctum Concilium" calls for Seminarians to be competent enough in Latin to say their breviaries in it. While this injunction is salutary, it's essentially toothless and safely ignored by the overwhelming majority of Bishops throughout the world, since it utters the phrase, "unless there are grave reasons...". I can't imagine what reasons are so grave that about ninety percent of the Seminarians trained today know neither Greek nor Latin. It's no wonder most priests are not only gutless, but brainless as well. They are poorly trained and that's the fault of the Bishops and perhaps the laity that give them a pass all too eagerly, people like you, I presume, John.
As one priest I know put it, "they just put syrup on their pancakes and send them out the door".
The world's Bishops are sinfully negligent of their duties to the Church and mankind. They enjoy tremendous privileges and material advantages and yet they follow neither the spirit nor the letter of the law.
Most Bishops are just professional churchmen. There's not much evidence of personal Faith or warmth, any spirit in them. They're just soulless bureaucrats who are presiding over the destruction of the Catholic Church, that's all.
Post a Comment