FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Why the Bishops hate Latin
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
(04-19-2010, 07:51 PM)glgas Wrote: [ -> ]I believe the reason is much easier: most seminarians are old, over 30 years old, and they have enough problem to learn in their native language, instead of learning other languages.

I remember from my seminary days, how much slower the older guys learned, than we in our late ten or early 20 age.

Latin used to be taught in high school and altar boys learned it from the very beginning.

When I was in hihgh school most college-bound students, including non-Catholics, had to take Latin.  That included Virgil and the Roman writers, non-liturgical Latin.
(04-19-2010, 01:45 PM)Petertherock Wrote: [ -> ]...Now you can't even get priests to go and give people the sacrament of Extreme Unction.
This canard is really getting very old. My priests, liberal and/or not liberal do go and give Extreme Unction to people. Recently our parish priest drive an hour and a half one way to give a dying man the sacrament, and then drove back for the funeral.

A lot of priests these days are very overstretched. They are pastors of parishes which used to have 2 or 3 priests, and in the South, their parishes cover counties, not just a few blocks in the city, and yet they work very hard to get the sacraments to people.
(04-19-2010, 10:55 AM)littlerose Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I think the Novus Ordo bishops are just trying to keep the future papal pool very small and stocked with their own fish, besides the fact that they are intellectually lazy.

I agree. They shouldn't have taken out Latin from the Catholic school curriculum in the first place. That way, if an individual feels they have a calling to a priestly vocation, they at least have some background in Latin from school.
Yes there are many people latin averse, the bishops though seem to have noo qualms about learning and speaking spanish.  which is newflash a language derived from latin.  I think the problem lays in the two generations of people of the vatican 2 era they forgot their latin from school and they are soo old they dont want to relearn it, or the more insidious one that they were pervaded by the liberalistic tendancys of the 60s and 70s and and try to fight tooth and nail toe keep themselves in power and try to keep one from teaching the kids some latin enough to be able to respond at an ewtn style novas ordo where the responses are in latin. 

I WILL FIGHT TO TEACH THE KIDS OF THE OLD WAYS TO KEEP THE TORCH GOING, and I will likly outlive the 70 year old people that hold power now that wish to keep the latin out or refuse to even give it the time of day.

Our time will come and it is already here, just wait in the trenches if you have to, or teach the kids quietly as they say in the song silent running, by mike and the mechanics. 

signed Jeremy
(04-19-2010, 08:27 PM)littlerose Wrote: [ -> ]Latin used to be taught in high school and altar boys learned it from the very beginning.

When I was in hihgh school most college-bound students, including non-Catholics, had to take Latin.  That included Virgil and the Roman writers, non-liturgical Latin.

I did not learned Latin in the High School, and except for the few responses no one required me to lo learn Latin as an altar server (in the forties).  I learned 8 years of Russian in Middle and High school (4-4-4 system) with zero result of real knowledge of Russian. We learned grammar, and a few words unusable even to shop on the street, or ask for direction. My son learned six years of Spanish over here in the Middle and High school, also with zero result.

When I get to the seminary our class was 12 students, about half of them learned Latin for 4 years in Church high schools, the other half did not. After a year there was no difference on the knowledge related to the previous experience with Latin, but there was significant age related difference.

I personally believe that high school should teach Latin, not for the language itself, but to teach the disciplined grammar, which unfortunately is missing for the English. As for the priests, the Latin is necessary for the elite, who will be teachers, and need higher knowledge; for the rest it is better not put unbearable weight on them. It is better to concentrate on the Philosophy, Biblical studies, Dogmatics and Moraltheology than on the language.
(04-19-2010, 05:14 PM)Credo Wrote: [ -> ]Do bishops hate Latin?

Petertherock Wrote:But the point is priests back in the "good old days" didn't have days off, they didn't go on vacations, they were priests all the time and they were there for their flock.

Are you saying priests should not have time off? For heaven's sakes, man, they're not God. Men need a break.

No I am not saying that. I am saying they should go back to doing what is important, that is being shepherds to their flocks. When you can't find any priests to give a dying person the sacrament of Extreme Unction, that's a problem. Especially when the same priests won't miss their Wednesday afternoon tee off.

(04-20-2010, 11:24 AM)Petertherock Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2010, 05:14 PM)Credo Wrote: [ -> ]Do bishops hate Latin?

Petertherock Wrote:But the point is priests back in the "good old days" didn't have days off, they didn't go on vacations, they were priests all the time and they were there for their flock.

Are you saying priests should not have time off? For heaven's sakes, man, they're not God. Men need a break.

No I am not saying that. I am saying they should go back to doing what is important, that is being shepherds to their flocks. When you can't find any priests to give a dying person the sacrament of Extreme Unction, that's a problem. Especially when the same priests won't miss their Wednesday afternoon tee off.

I think this is part of what went wrong after V-II. The point of increased role of the laity was supposed to free the priests for more availablity for the sacraments, but instead of sticking to the social concerns as laity, some got focussed on usurping  the priests' role, and so the priests became weaker in their own resolve.
Bishops and Priests today dont believe that everyone on this planet are headed to HELL unless the priest gets them to convert to Catholicism and get them to recieve the Sacraments JESUS gave his church for the Salvation of Souls. Until this spirit is revived, a spirit which can be read about in books on the missionaries and what they went through to get the faith and sacraments to people. They lost limbs as well as their lives because the church taught is was important to save souls. What do we have today excuse makers, people who seem to know who GOD will accept by their desire or natural goodness. Lets not forget HEAVEN is a SUPERNATURAL state which natural goodness cant obtain (though it can lead to grace being given to a person to be directed to the Church and Sacraments) Only a SUPERNATURAL PERSON (JESUS THE CHRIST) and his SACRAMENTS can give us that state when our natural life ends here on earth.
(04-20-2010, 06:40 AM)glgas Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2010, 08:27 PM)littlerose Wrote: [ -> ]Latin used to be taught in high school and altar boys learned it from the very beginning.

When I was in hihgh school most college-bound students, including non-Catholics, had to take Latin.  That included Virgil and the Roman writers, non-liturgical Latin.

I did not learned Latin in the High School, and except for the few responses no one required me to lo learn Latin as an altar server (in the forties).  I learned 8 years of Russian in Middle and High school (4-4-4 system) with zero result of real knowledge of Russian. We learned grammar, and a few words unusable even to shop on the street, or ask for direction. My son learned six years of Spanish over here in the Middle and High school, also with zero result.

When I get to the seminary our class was 12 students, about half of them learned Latin for 4 years in Church high schools, the other half did not. After a year there was no difference on the knowledge related to the previous experience with Latin, but there was significant age related difference.

I personally believe that high school should teach Latin, not for the language itself, but to teach the disciplined grammar, which unfortunately is missing for the English. As for the priests, the Latin is necessary for the elite, who will be teachers, and need higher knowledge; for the rest it is better not put unbearable weight on them. It is better to concentrate on the Philosophy, Biblical studies, Dogmatics and Moraltheology than on the language.

But the crucial point you hit is the age.  We need to  keep Latin in the younger years, at least one or two semesters of it. Then in the older years the ones who need it can more easily pick it up from what they already learned..
As a recent convert from protestantism, I had absolutely no exposure to Latin during my younger years - I even went to a Catholic High School (Novus Ordo) and never heard  Latin there either.

I converted to the Catholic Church through an indult parish and I picked up Latin within a year.  After serving at the altar for the past three years I can honestly say I know exactly what's being said throughout most of the TLM (I'm still working on the Epistles, Gospels, Tracts, etc.).
Latin is not hard especially if you're exposed to it on a weekly basis and make an effort to follow along in your missal.  There are many lay people I've seen who go to Mass and make no concerted effort to follow along.  They're like zombies fulfilling their minimum obligation of attending Mass, just watching the pretty ceremony and have no clue as to what's going on.  Perhaps they think they'll pick it up through ossmosis or something.

The key is being exposed to the language.  If the laity and the clergy are never exposed to Latin then it will be intimidating, foreign and will make no sense to them of what's being said or what's going on.  Why in the world would they want to say (or hear) Mass in Latin when a vernacular option is offered?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6