Another PCED response about seminarians and, this time, Latin requirements

You might recall that I posted a letter sent by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED) to a questioner asking about the rights of seminarians to be trained in the use of the 1962 Missale Romanum as well as, presumably, the Rituale Romanum

I just received a copy of another letter from the same PCED to someone making inquiries.

The response of the PCED Secretary, Msgr. Camille Perl, repeats what we knew from the other letter, namely, that seminarians have the right to be trained to use the older form and that seminaries should provide that training.

Then there is a third response:

3. There is no plan to implement a generalized Latin test for seminarians and priests who wish to celebrate Mass according to the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, but it is expected that those who celebrate should have a sufficient mastery of Latin to be bale to read, pronounce correctly and understand the sacred texts which they must recite or sing.

We expect that these matters will soon be treated in an instruction on the application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

I like the use of the word "soon" in relation to the "instruction on the application" of Summorum Pontificum

So, here we get a little direction about the concept behind idoneus.  The PCED says there will not be a test for Latin.  However, that does not mean there can’t be tests.  (That would, of course, open up the whole "double standard" issue again.)  The PCED speaks of "sufficient mastery" of a)  reading, pronouncing, and c) understanding texts.  There is no indication of what "sufficient mastery" is, but it is a start.  I think "to read" and "pronounce correctly" are pretty much the same thing, unless "to read" and "understand" are the same.  Either way, the letter does indicate that whatever the priest reads aloud must be pronounced properly. 

However, I can usually tell when the person reading Latin actually grasps what he is reading aloud… or not.  For example, I know a pastor of a large parish known for its Masses in Latin who clearly can pronounce Latin words.  However, he sings texts in such a way that it is clear he really doesn’t hear what the texts mean while he sings them.  I grant that texts can be read in different ways, to stress now one thing, now another.  But, when a guy doesn’t have a clue, you can tell. 

And then there are those who use speed to give the impression of expertise. 

But I digress…

There is always going to be a connection between the sound and the meaning.

In any event, this letter of the PCED is another indication that we will soon have more direction.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Another PCED response about seminarians and, this time, Latin requirements

  1. Well, let’s be blunt – there’s speak, read, and write bundled into understand – and like I maintain these are very different skills. I read and when push comes to shove can write (though nothing ciceronian!), but spoken language depends on a regular (daily) and varied community of speakers, and there are few places like that left. We know people who wrote their dissertations in Latin, we know people who wrote their dissertations in modern languages and translated them into Latin and we know people who wrote their dissertations in modern languages and paid to have them translated into Latin – and this was in the days when Latin was the invariable language of the Mass.

    I wish everyone would be a little more humble about what ought to be required!

  2. Christopher Sarsfield says:

    As long as understand does not mean be able to translate and explain the grammar, I have no problem with this. Heck, most people can not explain English grammar, that does not mean they do not understand. However, I am afraid that the “tests” of some bishops might mean just that – translate and explain grammar.

  3. Mark says:

    My high school age son takes Spanish in a school with a lot of Hispanic kids – native speakers. They take Spanish because they figure it’s an easy A, and a lot of them end up doing badly because they are surprised by the demands of analyzing grammar, etc in a formal way.

    But yeah, they can speak, read and understand just fine.

  4. Father, on “double standards”:

    This problem has been raised before and I am not sure it works in favor of less oversight for those celebrating the Extraordinary Form.

    I don’t know about the seminary that you attended, but at the priestly formation program I was trained in, and in all the seminaries I know, candidates have to complete a graded course on the rites for celebrating the sacraments in what is now called the Ordinary use. Such courses used to be called “Celebrational Style” and now are more commonly called “Sacramental Practicum.”

    In our case, this was a semester-long letter-graded course, involving written tests on theology and rubrics and videotaped and critiqued performance of each of the rites. This course was required for the M.Div., which was required for ordination.

    Any rubrical infraction made by the students in the class during their performances was critiqued by the instructor, a well known progressive, who remarked that “I don’t care if you follow them later, but to pass this class you will have to know the rubrics.” We also had to learn to sing collects and the preface. Whatever the cynical tone, it was expected that we know the liturgical books.

    I suspect this was and is typical of such classes. It also shows that even graded classes do not guarentee that the students produced by them “do the red and say the black”–what they see other priests doing is probably much more important.

    Better than tests, perhaps bishops should require a certificate of attendence at a workshop on the Extraordinary Form for those celebrating it in public. But if priests are cannot get such formal training, it is hard for me to see what is wrong with vetting their pronunciation and, I dare say, their ability to get at least the general sense of way the Latin rubrics require and what texts they read say mean.

  5. Proof read before posting.

    That last sentence should read: “and, I dare say it, their ability to get at least the general sense of what the Latin rubrics require and what the texts they read mean.”

  6. david andrew says:

    My understanding is that there is, and always has been, a requirement in all seminaries that Latin as a language (whether ecclesiastical or classical) be taught. It is, after all, the language of the Church. I have mentioned before here that one of our parochial vicars told me that our seminary does not require a single class in Latin, not even for ritual use (thus enabling priests to read the Latin texts of the Mass, LOTH, and the like). There is, however, a requirement that all seminarians take a semester of conversational Spanish.

    It seems that the derestriction has been similar to lifting a rock after a rain storm. Discovering that Latin rite priests aren’t being taught Latin in seminary, contrary to mandates from the Holy See as found in the conciliar documents, is not unlike one of those strange bugs one might find.

    I do agree with Fr. Z that this is a good start. I’m not so sure that I agree with him that PCED has made things any clearer. ISTM that “read”, “pronounce correctly” and “understand” aren’t the same thing. Does understand mean one is simply capable of recognizing the cognates (as many of us, especially in liturgical music, are)? Or does there need to be an understanding of sentence structure, grammar and multivalent meanings and nuances that can be present in words depending on context?

    Other questions that may seem provocative, but perhaps need to be asked: if a diocese, under the direction of the recognized territorial authority, does not teach structured, graded courses in Latin (of the “say the black, do the red” variety) in the seminary under it’s jurisdiction, do they then have the right to place onerous local restrictions on the use of the EF? And, what of the priests who celebrate the OF in Latin? Are they or should they be held to the same scrutiny?

  7. david andrew says:

    My understanding is that there is, and always has been, a requirement in all seminaries that Latin as a language (whether ecclesiastical or classical) be taught. It is, after all, the language of the Church. I have mentioned before here that one of our parochial vicars told me that our seminary does not require a single class in Latin, not even for ritual use (thus enabling priests to read the Latin texts of the Mass, LOTH, and the like). There is, however, a requirement that all seminarians take a semester of conversational Spanish.

    It seems that the derestriction has been similar to lifting a rock after a rain storm. Discovering that Latin rite priests aren\’t being taught Latin in seminary, contrary to mandates from the Holy See as found in the conciliar documents, is not unlike discovering one of those strange bugs under the rock.

    I do agree with Fr. Z that this is a good start. I\’m not so sure that I agree with him that PCED has made things any clearer. ISTM that \”read\”, \”pronounce correctly\” and \”understand\” aren\’t the same thing. Does understand mean one is simply capable of recognizing the cognates (as many of us, especially in liturgical music, are)? Or does there need to be an understanding of sentence structure, grammar and multivalent meanings and nuances that can be present in words depending on context?

    Other questions that may seem provocative, but perhaps need to be asked: if a diocese, under the direction of the recognized territorial authority, does not teach structured, graded courses in Latin (of the \”say the black, do the red\” variety) in the seminary under it\’s jurisdiction, do they then have the right to place onerous local restrictions on the use of the EF? And, what of the priests who celebrate the OF in Latin? Are they or should they be held to the same scrutiny?

  8. david andrew says:

    Sorry for the double-post. Not sure how it happened. The second version is the one I wanted to post, not the first.

  9. Transitional Deacon says:

    The requirement for all seminarians to learn Latin may be found in Canon 249.

    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.

    Someone might look at the “Program for Priestly Formation” of the USCCB and find out what the provision for Latin is, in response to this canon from the universal law of the Church…

    The “other languages” today would obviously include, above all, Spanish. Most places are pretty good about teaching that. But Latin is still not an absolute requirement in many places. It might be in the course catalog as a requirement, but it is sometimes waived entirely for guys studying Spanish or even for other courses.

  10. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Dear Fr. Z.:

    I am hoping for responses to my dubia soon. They were submitted in August. I am rather computer-clumsy. If they come, I wonder if there is some way you could render them in those little boxes and add comments to them. How would I send them to you? I have a scanner my brother gave me but I’m afraid to use it. I am very fast on the keyboard and could simply type them out for you.

    P.K.T.P.

  11. Ellen says:

    Fr. Thompson:

    I think the double standard referred to has more to do with Spanish (and other languages) for native English speaking priests than it does with training to perform sacraments.

    All over the country, native English speaking priests are being asked to celebrate sacraments in Spanish – some of them have had Spanish in seminary, some have not. They are not tested on their competency.

    All over the country, priests from Nigeria, Sri Lanka, India, Colombia and other countries are coming to the US (thank goodness). Perhaps some of them are being tested in the intricacies of their understanding and pronunciation of English, but I’ve not heard of it.

    I think that’s the suspected double standard at work here.

  12. Brian Jilka says:

    We can’t forget about the beautiful gem that Veterum Sapientia is either.

    By the way, I think i have an appointment with Mr. Wheelock now…

  13. PKTP: I have a scanner my brother gave me but I’m afraid to use it.

    Be not afraid!

    You can scan it and send it as an attachment on an e-mail. I would also appreciate the transcription.

    When I get both… raw images that people haven’t blanked stuff out on yet, and a transcription… I can make effective entries.

  14. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Dear Fr. Z.:

    I think that, if the P.C.E.D. meant by “read” the same thing as “pronounce”, it would have not used two verbs but would have just written “pronounce”. However, if ‘read’ means ‘understand’, it probably only means to understand the words of the text in order, presumably, to intend the sense of each prayer. Hence priests can be tested for their knowledge of the Latin of the Mass but not for any wider understanding of Latin. This would mean that tests in regard to Cicero, Catullus, and Seneca are out. Even tests in regard to the Office are out.

    Presumably, if the priest memorises the vernacular meaning of each prayer in the Ordinary, he is home free. In the case of the lections, he could read them in the vernacular after he reads them in the Latin (a practice I deplore but I defer to the priest’s point of view) in order to ensure that he understands the sense of the words. In the case of the other parts of the propers, they are short enough that any priest can undertake to learn them prior to any given Mass. That would be a reasonable exception. The application of law should be reasonable.

    My presumption here is that the purpose of the rule is to ensure that the intention of the priest is fairly close to that of the Church when he prays the Mass. Were that not the case, one would think that supporters of the old Mass could also be required to pass tests in Latin in order to attend. They have a reasonable opportunity to read a translation from a handmissal or a bulletin; the priest does not because he must pronounce the Latin aloud.

    Secondly, I should think that any priest who is denied on grounds of not knowing the Latin has a right to be trained in same at the expense of the diocese if he did not receive that training in seminary. The reason is that the Code guarantees that a priest be allowed to pray the Mass “in Latin or in some other language”. I would assert that priests have a fundamental right to offer Mass in their own lingua sacra. If this right implies a certain duty to know the Latin of the Mass, the bishop has a corresponding duty to ensure that they know it.

    P.K.T.P.

  15. PKTP: I think that, if the P.C.E.D. meant by “read” the same thing as “pronounce”, it would have not used two verbs but would have just written “pronounce”.

    And it might be that the writer needed an editor.

    We can over analyze.

  16. Fr W says:

    It seems that the concern over Latin will soon be taken care of. The new document ‘sing to the Lord’ declares that ’65. Seminarians should “receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate
    Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant.’

    In the new future therefore, new priests will be guaranteed by seminaries that they are certified to offer Holy Mass in Latin. If certified in N.O., then certified for sure in Trid.

  17. david andrew says:

    Fr. W,

    The teaching of Latin in seminaries was already guaranteed in legislative docs from the Holy See, along with the preservation of Gregorian chant, et al.

    SttL is non-binding, and as has been discussed on other blogs, full of equivocation. The very use of the word “should” in the referenced quote certainly seems to have the effect of weakening any such guarantee. If it read “must” I might be more optimistic. But, as this is both a non-binding set of guidelines and a relatively equivocal, self-referencing document, I’m being guarded in my optimism for now.

    As a full-time Catholic musician, having out of necessity read and studied in detail Sttl, I’ve noticed within it a consistent application of what could be considered “passive” or “inactive” language with respect to preservation and continued use of Latin and chant in the Mass, whereas very active and dynamic language is used when referring to music of other cultures and genres. See the section on “Diverse Cultures and Languages”, where we read in pertinent part, “. . .is to be remembered, cherished and used” (music of the Western European tradition) versus “must be recognized, fostered and celebrated” (music of other cultures). Hence my skepticism with respect to any guarantees of the teaching Latin in our seminaries. ISTM that far more ink is spilled in the document which provides ample wiggle room, guaranteeing Latin will NOT be taught with any kind of renewed vigor, as in section 61 we read: “The use of the vernacular is the norm in most liturgical celebrations . . .”

  18. David O'Rourke says:

    “However, he sings texts in such a way that it is clear he really doesn’t hear what the texts mean while he sings them. I grant that texts can be read in different ways, to stress now one thing, now another. But, when a guy doesn’t have a clue, you can tell.”

    I would be very interested to know how one can tell. The chants are sung either according to the notation provided in the missal or according to the puctuation which determines the metrum, punctum, flex and (in lessons) the interogative. If the chanter manages to convey his own understanding of the words being chanted he is doing something quite wrong. Even when the words are just spoken in the natural voice something roughly akin to a monotone should be used.

  19. Dear Ellen,

    No. And I ask Fr. Z. to correct me, but the question of “double standards” was about the training for celebration in the “Ordinary” and “Extraordinary” rites. And that is exactly what is as issue in the question of what priests should be able to do when they celebrate the Extraordinary Form.

    By the way, and I suspect this was typical of seminary education in my day and now, we were asked to read the ordinary of the Mass in Spanish and translate it before a native speaker. If we failed, we were required to take another course in Spanish.

    So I am not talking about Spanish proficiency.

  20. Mark M says:

    A small contribution to your digression, Father:

    Most Priests who say a “quick” Mass we would maybe think are being slightly irreverent. However I know a Priest who, despite saying the Latin quite quickly and therefore saying Low Mass in 30 minutes, is highly reverent! So it can work the other way too . :)

  21. Victor says:

    There comes to mind the story of a priest who regularly celebrated the Ordinary Form in Latin, without actually understanding Latin. He regularly misread the word “juniper” for “Jupiter” – and never realized his mistake! Well, he is the rector of a German seminary now…

  22. Christopher Sarsfield says:

    With regard to a quick Latin pace in the Mass: I remember a Franciscan priest trained in the TLM before the changes that insisted that the prayers were supposed to be said at a quick pace, and he would become quite irate when the congregation tried to slow down the prayers after Mass. I also noticed that when someone trained in the New Mass would say the TLM they would invariably have a much slower pace and attempt to put “feeling” in to the words as they were pronounced. Can any one comment on liturgical pace for saying prayers, and how it was taught before the changes?

  23. Prof. Basto says:

    Father,

    What about the canon law requirement that all priests in the Latin Rite must know Latin. Aren’t all priests of the Latin rite presumed to have received the necessary Latin instruction as a pre-requisite to ordination?

    Then, if its discovered that they don’t know Latin as per canon law they should, shouldn’t this mean also exclusion from ministry in the Ordinary Form (and perhaps, a healthy return to the academic benches of seminaries for continued eductation)?

    I mean, there are several seminaries out there simply faking Latin formation or ignoring the canonical requirement althogether, but that does not seem to stop any priests from ordaining the seminarians and granting them faculties for the Roman Rite.

    If that is so, why should the requirement only be checked when the priest is willing to say the Extraordinary Form?

    ****

    Furthermore, suppose a priest, putting a personal effort into it, and trying to mend his bad seminary formation, learns pronounciation, etc, to say the TLM correctly. He understands some Latin, but is not fluent. Then, he gets a translation of the rubrics of Mass (perhaps with the aid of a handmissal, and learn what they say precisely). Now, this priest isn’t fluent in Latin, but he can speak the Latin words of the Mass, he knows what they mean, because he memorized it with the aid of a translation, and he knows what the “red” tells him to do, because he knows some Latin, enough to understand most things, and because he got someone to translate for him the parts he didn’t understand at first, and memorized what to do. Wouldn’t that be enough?

  24. Prof. Basto says:

    Oops,

    In my e-mail above

    “…to stop any priests…” should be “…to stop any bishops…”.

  25. RBrown says:

    Any rubrical infraction made by the students in the class during their performances was critiqued by the instructor, a well known and well-fed progressive, who remarked that “I don’t care if you follow them later, but to pass this class you will have to know the rubrics.” We also had to learn to sing collects and the preface. Whatever the cynical tone, it was expected that we know the liturgical books.
    Comment by Fr. Augustine Thompson O.P.

    FYP

  26. Fr W says:

    I’m sorry if the ‘tongue-in-cheek’ tone of my post was not noticed. My point was that since it is stated in such progressive documents that seminarians should know Latin from their wonderful seminary education, one could hold this up as ‘proof’ that one can handle the Extraordinary form in Latin WITH NO NEED FOR TESTS. – or, are some bishops going to admit that their seminaries are not doing what their own documents expect? Hmmm?

  27. TerryC says:

    I must admit I’m a little confused about the line of responsibility when it comes to seminaries. I am I right to assume that the local bishop ultimately is responsible for the adherence of the seminary to the requirements of the Church? Since it is obvious that, on the ground, many (most) seminaries are not meeting these requirements in regard to the teaching of Latin, whose responsibility does it become to push the bishops to fix this situation?
    Must we hope that the Supreme Pontiff will personally send a letter to each recalcitrant bishop addressing this problem? Is there anyone of less authority in the Church that can force seminaries to address this by penalize them is some way, or is it all up to the local ordinary?

  28. Matt Callihan says:

    Some bishops seem to play the “Latin proficiency card” to prevent priests from saying the TLM. Their line of thinking would appear to be that “you (the priest) do not have the appropriate Latin skill and therefore cannot use the EF… Ever.” It would only seem logical that if a priest cannot demonstrate an ability with Latin to suit a bishop, the bishop would then have the responsibility of providing the resources to correct the situation.

  29. Christopher: With regard to a quick Latin pace in the Mass: I remember a Franciscan priest trained in the TLM before the changes that insisted that the prayers were supposed to be said at a quick pace, …

    Please understand that I don’t mean prayers should be very slow. I know yet another priest whose pace is so deliberate that as you get to the end of an oration it becomes a little difficult to recall how it started. Also, I was recently in Salisbury Cathedral and at a certain point someone over the sound system (maybe a recording) began a brief spiritual reflection ending in the Our Father. The pace was so slow that it was terribly distracting.

    We have to consider that public prayer is still speech: solemn and elevated, but speech nonetheless.

    Some people in one region will speak more quickly than those of other regions. There are many factors.

    What I was referring to was, for example, praying an oration at a speed that would not easily be recognized as “normal” under any circumstances, unless perhaps you were an auctioneer. I know a priest who says orations at a decent pace until he gets to the ending formula… the Per Dominum nostrum… part. Then it is off to the races! This creates a strange conceptual break in the force of the prayer, of course, and simply sounds strange. I suspect the reason for this is lack of comfort with the content of the Latin in the first part of the oration. Having something familiar at the end permits speed… and too much speed.

    There can be a great deal of variety in the way Latin prayers are read or sung, but we have to use common sense and avoid extremes that cause people to scratch their heads.

  30. Prof. Basto: 

    What about the canon law requirement that all priests in the Latin Rite must know Latin. Aren’t all priests of the Latin rite presumed to have received the necessary Latin instruction as a pre-requisite to ordination?

    De iure sure!  But de facto?  This is violated far more than it is upheld. 

    Then, if its discovered that they don’t know Latin as per canon law they should, shouldn’t this mean also exclusion from ministry in the Ordinary Form (and perhaps, a healthy return to the academic benches of seminaries for continued eductation)?

    Can we argue that a priest who doesn’t know Latin well enough to say Mass in the ordinary form perhaps should not be considered idoneus to say Mass at all?  Perhaps.  However, Canon Law says that Mass can be said in Latin or anothe approved language.  On the other hand, I suspect there are priests saying Mass in the vernacular who don’t really know what the vernacular means.  This might be the case for a priest saying Mass in some language other than his mother tongue, but it might also apply to those who are using their mother tongue as well.  Shall we test them to see?

    Furthermore, suppose a priest, … understands some Latin, but is not fluent. Then, he gets a translation of the rubrics … he can speak the Latin words of the Mass, he knows what they mean, because he memorized it with the aid of a translation,… Wouldn’t that be enough?

    I think if we come right down to it, that is a description of most priests using the vernacular Novus Ordo.  We could dig into what historical and theological knowledge they have of what they are doing at Mass.  We might find priests who are just reading the texts with a basic sense of the meaning but no real depth of understanding.   

  31. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Dear Fr. Z.:

    I note, first of all, that this text in English shows the P.C.E.D.’s facility with the auxiliary ‘should’. I have noticed this before. What is lovely about ‘should’ is its ambiguity. In a stronger sense, it can, with the infinitive, express duty or obligation; in the weaker sense, it can express propriety, meaning, as it were ‘it is better that’ or ‘ought to’. I have noticed that there is a difference here in the usages of Americans and Canadians (oddly). Americans tend to use it more in the strong sense. For example, when the host of a party tells a drunken guest ‘You should leave now’, he is expressing an obligation but using this ambiguous form to soften the blow, to be more polite. Canadians, I think, use it much oftener in the weak sense of ‘ought to’, as in “You should go for a walk before finishing your reading”.

    Anyway, I merely note from this letter that the ‘should’ there might not express a strict obligation. Law can treat of advise as well as of duty; it can enjoin as well as forbid or command. The coming instruction might merely recommend that priests understand Latin and can read it. The real question is whether or not the Commission will accord the local bishops the right to set examinations. I find it hard to see how that can be so, because it seems to me that Latin in the sacred tongue of the Latin Church; hence, seminarians should have the right to be trained in it but, once ordained to the sacred priesthood, a cleric should have the right to celebrate the liturgy (both Mass and Office) in it. There might be restrictions on him doing so *publicly*, since the faithful also have a presumed right not to hear hopelessly garbled Latin. But that would seem to relate more to clear ennunciation of the text. Note how, in “Summorum Pontificum”, this entire question regarding the meaning of ‘idoneus’ relates only to Article 5 in regard to scheduled (‘public’) Masses. It is in a clause of Article 5 and can therefore not refer back to Articles 2 and 4 in regard to not-regularly scheduled (‘private’) Masses. As Bishop Rifan noted in July, the entire framework of S.P. gives a priest an opportunity to learn the Latin and rubrics in private Masses (with or without a few invited guests) so as to be able to offer regularly-scheduled parish Masses.

    I raise this not to over-analyse. On the contrary, we must wait for the Instruction. I raise it to forewarn readers about that ‘should’ and to look for the Latin text for it in the coming Instruction. If you see a ‘should’ in an official English translation, search the Latin text to see if it conveys strict obligation or only a strong recommendation.

    In one of my dubia, I have asked if the law of custom plus Canon 928 mean that Latin priests have a fundamental right to celebrate Mass [and the Office] in Latin. Once again, however, there is a difference between having the right to celebrate Mass and having the right to offer scheduled Mass in parishes.

    P.K.T.P.

  32. Le Renard says:

    There is no plan to implement a generalized Latin test for seminarians and priests who wish to celebrate Mass according to the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, but it is expected that those who celebrate should have a sufficient mastery of Latin to be bale to read, pronounce correctly and understand the sacred texts which they must recite or sing.

    It is quite sad that such an optimistic, positive interpretation is being given to this deficient response.

    Is it lost on everybody that without formal training for the seminarians, the tradition itself will have become lost?

    Already we are seeing the deficiencies in how the neophyte priests are celebrating the Latin Mass.

    Can anybody actually blame them?

    Once those expert in celebrating such Masses finally pass away, that tacit knowledge will have become lost.

    The only way to preserve this knowledge and ensure its preservation into the future is to take the practice of the Apostles who trained their successors and handed down such traditions to these individuals to ensure it continued to later generations.

  33. Mark M says:

    Le Renard: There are plenty young Priests learning, and learning the “tacit” knowledge too, from good teachers!