I am currently reading a book on ecclesiology by Charles Cardinal Journet, entitled Theology of the Church, which is a shorter version of a two volume work the Cardinal wrote in the early 1940s. (The book I am reading was first published in the 1950s.) Even though this is a condensed version of the original work, it is still pretty intense reading, and is full of insightful passages.
I came across the following lines recently and thought I would add a few thoughts of my own. Cardinal Journet is writing here about the Apostles and their leadership of the Church in the First Century:
“As long as they [the Apostles] were living, the Church was, through them, ‘in the act of revealing’ and above the ‘revealed’ Sacred Scripture. But at the death of the Apostles, the Church lost this privilege: she ceased to be above Scripture.” [page 120, emphasis added]
Very often Catholics are accused of putting the Church in a position above the Bible. This is of course not what the Church teaches. The Catholic Church teaches that the Church’s Magisterium (her teaching office) is subordinate to Scripture, as the Catechism clearly states:
86 "…this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."
The Church is not above Sacred Scripture. Sacred Scripture is the divinely revealed Word of God. This revelation from God ceased after the death of the last Apostles. Nothing more will be revealed as pertains to the salvation of souls. The Church can only function as guardian and expositor of that which has already been revealed. And to do this she remains subordinate to God’s Word, only teaching that which has been handed on.
But, as the Cardinal points out, there was a time when the Church was in fact above Scared Scripture. When the Apostles were still alive and had not yet written down all that would be revealed, they had in their own minds all that they had witnessed and all that had been revealed to them through the Spirit. They were in a sense “walking Bibles” before the Bible was completely written.
Since the Bible was not yet finished, the only complete revelation was found in the Church herself, that is, in the Apostles who were members and leaders of the Church. So the Church was in a position above the Bible as she herself contained the source for complete revelation from God. As Cardinal Journet puts it, the Church was ‘in the act of revealing’ as long as the Apostles still lived.
So clearly the Church was the instrument by which we received the Word of God. And even after the death of the last Apostle, when the Church ceased its role as revealer of God’s Word and became the servant of God’s Word, the Church still had a vital role to play. The various books had to be collected together into one volume (which we now call the Bible). This took centuries and it required a divinely guided Church which could teach with real and binding authority so that we can be certain that we would receive the RIGHT books and not FALSE ones. Certainly, the Church ceased to be above the Bible, but the Church still had authority from God to gather the books together accurately and collect them into one volume.
This authoritative Church is the only reason that Protestants have their Bibles today. They may reject the Catholic Church, but in doing so they reject the very institution that God gave to us so that we would have the Bible they hold so dear. The Bible is certainly the Word of God and is superior to the Church, but without the Catholic Church we would have no Bible.
“Staring at the History of the Church”
In the introduction to this brief booklet by Steven K. Ray and R. Dennis Walters, the story is told of a Christian woman who visited the Vatican and Saint Peter’s Basilica as a tourist decades ago. While standing among the crowd of spectators she witnessed the grand entrance of the pope, carried aloft on a throne to greet the people. Being Protestant, she had never attached any importance to the Bishop of Rome and rejected the Catholic notion of papal supremacy. But at that moment, when she caught a fleeting glimpse of Peter’s successor, the head of the Catholic Church on earth, she felt goose bumps on her arms and a rush of unexpected excitement. As she craned her neck to get a quick view of the pontiff, she felt as if she were “staring at the history of the Church.” And then he was gone.
That moment in one woman’s life encapsulates the essence of this short work entitled We Have a Pope. Not intended as an exhaustive or thorough examination of the papacy, this 31 page text offers us a fleeting glimpse of Peter’s Successor as it explains how the Holy Father fits into the Church that Christ established. Reading this booklet is like stopping briefly to gawk in curiosity (like a spectator in Rome), but to come away from that experience knowing that we saw something quite more than we had expected.
Within these pages we find, Scriptural passages (especially the giving of the “keys’’ to Peter in Matthew 16, and Jesus’ ordering of Peter to “feed my lambs” at the end of John’s Gospel) all of which support the Catholic teaching of Peter’s primacy and the special authority granted to him by Christ. We also find a few select quotes from the Fathers of the Church that support Apostolic Succession, Peter’s presence in Rome, and the unique role of Rome and its Bishop in the governance of the Church. History, the Bible, and the witness of many Christians come together in a short space to trace the outline of Catholic doctrine concerning the pope as Peter’s heir.
If I had one criticism of We Have a Pope it would be that some issues are passed over a little too quickly or without enough detail to set the record straight from an apologetics standpoint. For instance, the two forms of the Greek word “rock” used in Matthew 16:18 – petros for Peter’s name, and petra used in the same passage – are often cited by Protestants as proof that Jesus did not call Peter the “rock” on which the Church is built, since He used two different Greek words. Without directly addressing the Protestant side of the debate, the authors do explain that the actual language spoken by Jesus was most likely Aramaic (not Greek) and therefore kepha was used for “rock” in both instances. So the discrepancy in the naming of Peter is eliminated. Overall, the matter is handled effectively without delving too far into the technicalities of Greek linguistics or Protestant polemics. Also the authors do a good job of building the case for Peter as the “rock” by explaining the significance of name-changes in a Biblical context, and the use of Kepha (or Cephas) as Peter’s name elsewhere in the New Testament.
My criticism is only minor. Obviously the shortened format of this book does not lend itself to protracted explanations, or to a full treatment of every aspect of the papacy. In such limited space it is difficult to tackle every challenge to Catholic doctrine. More lengthy works on the papacy and Petrine authority do explore fully the Protestant challenges and defend Catholic belief in a more thorough manner. Steven Ray, one of the authors of We Have a Pope, penned just such a book entitled Upon This Rock, which includes ample footnotes and bibliographical information for anyone interested in further study. The important point and main goal of this smaller tract is to give the reader a quick glimpse of the pope (as a curious bystander might have while seeing the sights of Rome) and in doing so spark a longing for more. Once we have caught ourselves “staring at the history of the Church,” we can seek out other writings that give us a better view.
(Note: This is a great booklet to have as an apologetics source to lend out to non-Catholics who are inquiring about Catholic doctrine on the papacy. It may not answer all of their questions, but it gives a good summary and a jumping-off point for further discussion. Also the price is right for buying multiple copies so that sharing is made easier.)
To purchase this and other great Catholic books and products visit The Catholic Company website.
From the Catechism:
874 Christ is himself the source of ministry in the Church. He instituted the Church. He gave her authority and mission, orientation and goal:
In order to shepherd the People of God and to increase its numbers without cease, Christ the Lord set up in his Church a variety of offices which aim at the good of the whole body. The holders of office, who are invested with a sacred power, are, in fact, dedicated to promoting the interests of their brethren, so that all who belong to the People of God…may attain to salvation.
551 From the beginning of his public life Jesus chose certain men, twelve in number, to be with him and to participate in his mission. He gives the Twelve a share in his authority and 'sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal." They remain associated for ever with Christ's kingdom, for through them he directs the Church:
“As my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Christ, the "living Stone", thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakeable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.
553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep." The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.
880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them." Just as "by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."
883 "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."
884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council." But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor."
889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility…
891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals....When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
936 The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. The bishop of the Church of Rome, successor to St. Peter, is "head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth"
937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls."
There are many ways to live out the Catholic faith with loyalty to her teachings. One does not have to be a cloistered nun or a celibate priest to be considered faithful and true. A lay businessman, a stay-at-home mom, a 19 year-old college student away from home for the first time - all can find ways to live out their calling as faithful Catholics in their daily lives. We may not see ourselves this way as easily as we do the priest or religious person who takes their vows and commits their life to poverty and obedience, but even our mundane, ordinary lives are meant to reflect our Christian faith in everything we do.
This does not mean that we will be perfect, sinless people. We all have our faults. We will sometimes fail, and have to pick ourselves back up again, and try to do better. It is helpful to remember that everyone sins, including the holiest of nun and priest…and even the greatest of Saints. But we all must try to maintain devotion to God and faithfulness to His commands as best we can in whatever our vocation might be.
This can prove difficult out in the “real world” where we are pulled in so many directions and tempted in so many ways. It is easy to become ensnared in the ways of the world and adopt values and beliefs that conflict with Catholic teaching. Many Catholics justify their own falsehood and sinfulness using the faulty logic of the atheistic culture to justify their errors. They try to live comfortably as both a Catholic and a secularist with one foot in each world.
An acquaintance of mine, who was raised Catholic (though he attends Mass infrequently), has adopted such an approach to life. Among other things, he vocally supports gay marriage and criticizes the Church’s teaching on the issue. He claims to believe that life begins at conception, yet he defends a woman’s right to end that life as a personal choice. While in college he led a student coalition that petitioned the administration to install condom machines in the dormitory restrooms. And just this year he spent a week in a motel, hundreds of miles from home, with a woman he had only recently met online.
…But don’t worry. He still describes himself as a “devout Catholic.”
Just to be perfectly clear on this matter, I looked up the word devout. According to the online version of Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “devout” means devoted to religion or to religious duties or exercises; expressing devotion or piety; devoted to a pursuit, belief, or mode of behavior. And the Free Online Dictionary reads: Devoted to religion or to the fulfillment of religious obligations; displaying reverence or piety. Every definition I checked used similar words to describe devout.
If my friend is “devout” – if he is “devoted to religion or to the fulfillment of religious obligations” – then it is certainly not “Catholic” that best describes the object of his devotion. He has publicly and privately thumbed his nose at Church teaching and has neglected his duties as a baptized Catholic. He has done more than just sin – he has obstinately persisted in sin, has adopted false moral precepts as his own moral code, and worked to change society to fit this false morality. If he is a “devout Catholic” then what does a “fallen-away Catholic” look like?
Now I do not pretend to know the state of any person’s soul. I am not arguing that my acquaintance is destined for Hell. I could not possibly pass such a judgment on him or anyone else. Only God can make such a claim.
However, I can certainly recognize a false statement when I hear one. I know what “devout” means; and I know what “Catholic” means; and these two words together do not describe my friend accurately. This is not about his personal sins (we all sin); rather, this is about his public actions and public statements made against Catholic teaching while at the same time claiming to have a devotion to the faith. By doing this he brings scandal to the Church while jeopardizing his own salvation and those who might be influenced by him. His words betray the Truth.The challenge of living a devout Christian life is to know the Truth and to pursue that Truth even against what the world tries to substitute in its place. Armed with Truth, the Christian must know sin and void it; and he must know goodness and strive to achieve it. If instead we mislabel Good and Evil, if we confuse reality for a falsehood and place our devotion in something other than Truth, then we eventually mislabel even our own selves. Thus a “devout Catholic” can be one who skips Mass, supports abortion, and distributes condoms on college campuses.
It begs the questions asked by Pontius Pilate so many centuries ago:
“Quod est veritas?” – “What is Truth?”
From Saintly Intercessions to Saint Bernards
When I received my copy of Catholic Answers to Catholic Questions, I found myself surprised by its content. I have read many books explaining Catholic beliefs - from the papacy, to transubstantiation; from why we call our priest’s “Father,” to why we have all of those statues of Jesus and the Saints. This sort of apologetic work is usually an invaluable resource for answering questions from non-Catholics and even the occasional ill-informed Catholic. The format is generally the same: question-by-question the author refutes fallacies and elaborates on correct doctrine until every inquiry is laid to rest. Most of these works use similar arguments borrowed from other apologists, sometimes going back centuries, with a few unique insights thrown in to shed new light on a subject or to appeal to a specific audience. That is what I expected when I first read the title of this present volume.
But as I began reading I was confronted with a unique assortment of topics that challenged my preconceived notion of this book. Certainly there are the old standards concerning biblical interpretation, confessing sins to a priest, prayer to saints, etc. These are the issues that most trouble the inquiring Protestant mind. These are the questions that need to be answered, the doctrinal stumbling blocks that stand in the way of any conversion.
But there are other questions included in this present volume. Questions of a less pressing sort, the kind that make one say, “Hmm, I always wondered about that.” These issues are more a matter of curiosity and not so much a doctrinal or theological sticking point. A good example of this sort of question: “How did a breed of dogs come to be named for St. Bernard of Clairvaux?” Or this one: “Did Jesus ever laugh?” These are scattered in amongst more weighty doctrinal questions that divide Catholics and Protestants.
Yet there can also be found questions that non-Catholic Christians will appreciate on common ground with Catholics. For instance: “How should we respond to claims that the resurrection of Christ was just a hoax, hallucination or superstition?” and other such questions that pertain to Christianity in general and not specifically Catholicism. These too are peppered throughout, and make for a well-rounded assortment of topics.
Obviously this book is not the typical apologetics resource. As the primary author/editor of the material, Paul Thigpen, Ph.D., explains in the forward, Catholic Answers to Catholic Questions is a compilation of questions received mostly from readers of The Catholic Answer magazine (of which he was the editor), as well as a Question of the Day portion of the same magazine’s website (whose parent company is Our Sunday Visitor, and the publisher of this book). Considering the broad range of questions generated from such a format, this text includes an interesting mix of both serious doctrinal matters as well as fascinating tidbits of trivia, rolled into one.
I have several books on my shelf that give a more in-depth answer to questions concerning “Scripture and Tradition” or “The Primacy of Peter” and other such apologetics challenges. But this book fills in the gaps with answers to questions that are less often encountered and yet sometimes shed light on aspects of the faith that puzzle Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
The answers are brief, and sometimes leave the reader wanting more (a problem that can be solved by checking out resources on the web or other books with similar themes). However, as a simple volume to answer quick questions and satisfy one’s curiosity, Catholic Answers to Catholic Questions earns a place on my book shelf.
To purchase this and other great books and Catholic products, visit The Catholic Company website.
It has become a common practice among some churches (generally Protestant) to post inspirational messages and catchy slogans on a marquee outside of their church for passers-by to read. These are usually brief enough as to be read quickly while one is driving through the neighborhood or strolling past on the way to somewhere else. Usually these messages are meant to spiritually inspire the reader or to express in a few words why this particular church would be a good place to worship.
…But in general, it’s all about the marketing. Slogans and sales pitches, memorable one-liners, popular catch-phrases spelled out in bold black letters and back-lit for night-time viewing.
Now, I’m not opposed to churches (even Catholic churches) having marquees in front of their buildings for posting information about Mass schedules, upcoming events, and even the occasional inspirational message (perhaps a quote from a saint or a pope, or an invitation to inquire about the faith and the RCIA program). What concerns me is the seemingly thoughtless approach of many of these churches that use their signs as cute gimmicks rather than as tools for ministry.
A (Protestant) church near where I work recently posted the following message:
“Our church is 2000 years old; our thinking is not.”
I did not stop to inquire what was meant by this odd statement, but it certainly seems to imply that ancient “thinking” ought to be rejected by the Church. Apparently 2000 years of Christian thought on various doctrines, on moral teachings, and biblical exegesis are simply not what the Church should be “about.”
I suppose this appeals to a certain breed of “progressive” Christians who wish to re-shape the Church into whatever form fits the current “in”-thinking. I know there are many liberal Catholics who could adopt this as their own slogan. The first half certainly fits the Catholic Church (being 2000 years old) unlike Protestant denominations that are at best only a few hundred. But if our 2000 years of “thinking” were to suddenly be jettisoned for a modern mindset, would we still be the same Church? Indeed, isn’t that what Protestantism did centuries ago. – reject 2000 years of Tradition and form a new church? Can we really say that a church is 2000 years old, if they have rejected their very roots? They cease to be the same church.
Who thinks up these marquee slogans and do they bother to check their messages against reality? But just as important, should the Church waste her time coming up with off-beat ways to express herself in modern terms? Is this a valid forum for the Church to reach souls?
I have read accounts of people who found themselves down-and-out, at their lowest low, messed up in drugs or prostitution or gangs, and were suddenly inspired to conversion upon reading a church sign that said, “Jesus saves,” or “God loves you,” or some such simple phrase. At that moment in their life the sign pointed to redemption, and it spoke to them where they were. These people owe their salvation to the bold black lettering of a church marquee. I cannot belittle their experience (although I do hope they find the fullness of the Catholic Faith to deepen their conversion). However I also think that these modern gimmicks can too often get in the way of the clear Gospel message. If the Church focuses too much on marketing strategies and bumper-sticker slogans that compete with the mass market, too much of the Christian message is watered down or left by the wayside. If it doesn’t fit on a T-shirt, then it doesn’t get printed. And soon our signs promote the message quoted above and we loose 2000 years of Christian thought.
Let’s face it, the Church cannot compete with the larger-than-life ads on Times Square or the glitz and glamour of the Vegas Strip…nor should we want to. The Church is not meant to be a worldly institution that draws people in with flashing lights and neon signs. The Church should draw people in as an alternative to the modern, over-hyped world of consumerism and materialism. The Church has more to offer than can fit on a billboard. She offers centuries of spiritual and theological substance, she offers spiritual truths and sacramental realities, most especially the Eucharist. She offers salvation that is eternal, not fleeting as the things of this world are.
If the Church tries to compete with worldly things in terms and conditions that are set by worldly powers, then the Church will begin to think in worldly terms, and we will forget what it means to think as Christ taught us. Instead the Church ought to preserve her vast treasure of accumulated knowledge and not stoop to the level of cheap advertising gimmicks or ploys to drum up more attendance…or to put it another way:
“My Church is 2000 years old; and so should her thinking be.”
In an earlier post I told of my plan to learn some basic Catholic prayers in Latin. This was my own personal project, but my kids soon learned what I was doing and asked to join in the endeavor. We began with the ‘Sign of the Cross’ – short and simple, and used so frequently in our daily prayers that the constant repetition aided in their quick learning of it. Once I was sure that they had this under their belts, I suggested the ‘Our Father’ as our next challenge. By that time I had already learned the ‘Our Father’ (‘Pater Noster’) and was able to recite it from memory while they followed along. Within a few weeks they were familiar enough with the prayer that they could recite it unassisted with only a few hesitations and minor mistakes. Not bad for a 6 year-old and 4 year-old. They have shown steady improvement, and we are now ready for the ‘Ave Maria.’
What began as a novelty for my own spiritual benefit has become a standard feature of our whole family’s prayer life. The kids now insist upon it. Whenever my wife and I slip into the familiar English: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son…” the kids scold and firmly remind us: “No, no! In Latin, please…”
The ‘Pater Noster’ has now taken first place among the prayers that we say together at bedtime. Our 6 year-old has tried his own version of Gregorian chant as an alternative to the spoken prayer, and our 4 year-old has a fondness for Shubert’s Ave Maria. And whenever Latin is used at Mass for the ‘Sanctus’ or the ‘Agnus Dei’ or an occasional hymn, the kids’ ears perk up. They seem to know that the language demands our attention and they enjoy the use of Latin in prayer and song.
What is so surprising about all of this is that the conventional wisdom for decades has told us that Latin ceased to be used in the Church’s prayer life so that the laity could be more fully engaged in the Liturgy. Supposedly Latin stifled the average Catholic’s spirituality and limited their experience of the Mass. When Latin was used the people could not understand what was going on and so they tuned it out, or they simply failed to grasp the full depth of what the prayers contained. While I do not doubt that for some Catholics this was the case, watching my kids experience Latin prayer has shown me that this does not have to be so.
When I hear it said that Latin causes confusion, that we cannot understand the words and so we loose the meaning of the prayer, I know differently. Using Latin has prompted more questions from my kids than the use of English ever had, and those questions have lead to far greater understanding than we might have had otherwise. When my child asks, “Dad, what does quotidianum mean?” I am far more careful and thoughtful in my response than if they had asked about the English. It forces me to delve into the meaning behind each word and seek a fuller understanding. The use of Latin has prompted far more questions of this sort and has inspired much deeper discussions than ordinary English. Of course, it takes a little more effort to research a solid response, but the result has been greater understanding, not less as some would suggest.
Many claim that the use of Latin makes prayer less personal. The words of a dead language, a language that is not your own and that you do not speak fluently, separates you from the act of prayer; you do not feel personally engaged in the prayer. In my experience and in watching my children go through the same process of learning a foreign language - learning the correct pronunciation, the rhythm of the syllables, the meaning of the words - all of this only serves to heighten one’s connectedness to the prayer and draw one deeper into the experience. Your thoughts hang on every phrase and you focus on every utterance. In the end, the sense of achievement you feel after learning the Latin increases your personal connection to the prayer – you own that prayer. Every word of it you struggled to master and now it is yours.
Some feel that the Catholic switch from Latin to the vernacular was a mark of progress. They argue that the Church must move beyond its ancient roots and embrace new forms of spirituality. Latin is a relic of the past and should be left behind. But aren’t Catholics the ones who venerate relics? Is it not the Catholic Church’s duty to preserve the faith that has been handed on to us since ancient times? Latin is an integral part of this great tradition. Of course, those who most often argue against such handing on of past customs are usually the same sort who argue in favor of female priests, or who experiment with “cutting edge” liturgical rites, and advocate the abandonment of long-held Christian moral precepts. The rejection of Latin is but a small part of their agenda, and often signifies a deeper rejection of other parts of the faith.
Using Latin in our home has certainly put my children in contact with ancient (and even not so ancient) history, but I don’t think that that is such a bad thing. There are many facets of our cultural past in music, art, and literature that utilize Latin to convey their beauty. Having a familiarity with this important language will only serve to augment their experience of these great works. And let us not forget that the scientific and medical fields use Latin as the source for their technical jargon. If these modern branches of study can make use of Latin so effectively then why should Catholics be thought of as “backwards” or “archaic” for our own use of this ancient language in prayer?
Pope Benedict XVI has strongly encouraged the re-introduction of Latin into the mainstream of Catholic prayer. And there are many good books out there, as well as web resources, to aid Catholics who wish to learn. Older Catholics who still remember the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass from their childhood may need only to brush up a little. Younger Catholics will have to begin from square one. But my children have demonstrated that even the youngest among us can benefit from revitalizing Latin prayer, and you are never too young to start.
+ + +
Update: Here are a couple of sites you can visit to listen to recordings of the spoken prayers in Latin:
Catholic iPod, Catholic Prayers in Latin
Audio Recording of Latin Catholic Prayers
From the first site I downloaded files onto my mp3 player for easy listening. (Instructions for downloading are given on the site.) Hearing the Latin spoken by someone who knows correct pronunciation really helps in learning the prayers. The second site states that the material is copyrighted and the author does not encourage downloading. But listening from the site is another option.
Of course there are many other resources online. These are just two that I found in a brief search when I began learning Latin. Another option would be finding a phonetic pronunciation guide for each prayer as a visual aide.The important thing is to find a method that works for you and that utilizes the resources you have at your disposal.
I am currently reading a book on ecclesiology by Charles Cardinal Journet, entitled Theology of the Church, which is a shorter version of a two volume work the Cardinal wrote in the early 1940s. (The book I am reading was first published in the 1950s.) Even though this is a condensed version of the original work, it is still pretty intense reading, and is full of insightful passages.
