Training that the Priest has to undergo in the Past


#1

Hi,

I am not sure if this is the right place where I should place this question. Anyway, I was having a discussion with a friend who is pretty well-schooled in history, and he posted a question to be that I am not able to answer.

In the historical times, say the pre-1800's or so, how were the priest trained? The question arises from the fact that priests were mainly from the noble class who were only interested in politics or the really poor who were illiterate.

Therefore the noble person may not be trained to interpret the scripture to educate the lay people, as they were heavily involved in politics (so not interested in scripture per se). And the poor who were illiterate, so they couldn't read and therefore could not teach the people as well.

Note: the discussion I was having with this friend was about how the bible has been misinterpreted by many, but in the Catholic church we have the Magisterium.

Appreciate if you could share your insight and knowledge.

Blessings
Godloves U


#2

Hi,

I am not sure if this is the right place where I should place this question. Anyway, I was having a discussion with a friend who is pretty well-schooled in history, and he posted a question to be that I am not able to answer.

In the historical times, say the pre-1800's or so, how were the priest trained? The question arises from the fact that priests were mainly from the noble class who were only interested in politics or the really poor who were illiterate.

Therefore the noble person may not be trained to interpret the scripture to educate the lay people, as they were heavily involved in politics (so not interested in scripture per se). And the poor who were illiterate, so they couldn't read and therefore could not teach the people as well.

Note: the discussion I was having with this friend was about how the bible has been misinterpreted by many, but in the Catholic church we have the Magisterium.

Blessings
Godloves U


#3

[quote="Godloves13, post:2, topic:252998"]
Hianswer.

In the historical times, say the pre-1800's or so, how were the priest trained? The question arises from the fact that priests were mainly from the noble class who were only interested in politics or the really poor who were illiterate.
U

[/quote]

ask your source to provide proof since they are singularly ill-informed.

seminary education for priests was one of the reforms of the counter-reformation in the late 16th early 17th c. Prior to that instruction was through membership in a religious order, or apprentice style, similar to most professional education. that model was common for lawyers up to the late 19th c. for instance.


#4

Above all, prior to the establishment of formal semanaries, even during the dark ages, priests were literate and were fluent in Latin as well as their native tongue. They had to be in order to say mass and read and interpret the gospel to their people. From the time of Christ, the Diciples and after them, the priests most often were the most educated individuals in any community.
Never forget that after the fall of Rome it was monks in abbeys that preserved Western civilation in their libraries and through their teaching.


#5

[quote="Godloves13, post:1, topic:252998"]

In the historical times, say the pre-1800's or so, how were the priest trained? The question arises from the fact that priests were mainly from the noble class who were only interested in politics or the really poor who were illiterate.

[/quote]

I think that's an unfortunate bifurcation - both of classes and of times. I think there were a number of nobility who were interested very much in the welfare of the people and the power of the Gospel, and these were as likely as the poor to be illiterate if you go far back enough (you didn't need letters to be able to run a fiefdom).

Training has changed over time. It wasn't until the 13th century or so that there was a standard seminarian training, as we'd see it today, and even then that wasn't necessarily followed. If you lived near enough a seminary and had a sponsor, you'd go. Otherwise, if you're in the foothills of Ireland you may only get the rudimentary prayers and Scripture and be sent out to mission. There were a number of attempts to standardize the training, and this is one reason why the orders were so successful. They were equipped to do this, to implement a rigorous spiritual formation that would have a desired end-result, and ordered priests were often used to combat heresies especially in dioceses that had few resources to spend on preparing clergy.

Move up to the American era, and you'll find that the system was generally more rigorous and modern. Seminary training was more common, but it wasn't until the past fifty or so years that seminaries included training in counseling and psychology. Then again, these weren't especially established fields until the last century, so it shouldn't be a surprise.

I think if you need resources for further research you could start with Bokkenkotter's Concise History.


#6

did I not already answer this on another forum?


#7

the word "cleric" to describe priests and those holding minor orders means literally educated and literate in Latin and other disciplines, that is where it comes from. Someone who was educated in the middle ages most certainly got that way in spending time in the monastery, cathedral or around priests and learned from them not only Latin but the order of Mass, and the other requisite knowledge.


#8

***Duplicate threads merged here.



#9

[quote="puzzleannie, post:3, topic:252998"]
ask your source to provide proof since they are singularly ill-informed.

seminary education for priests was one of the reforms of the counter-reformation in the late 16th early 17th c. Prior to that instruction was through membership in a religious order, or apprentice style, similar to most professional education. that model was common for lawyers up to the late 19th c. for instance.

[/quote]

He would be meaning how the priests were trained before the Council of Trent, as one of the many reasons for the council was because priests often knew little or next to no Latin, and were not very well educated as they are today.


#10

[quote="Godloves13, post:1, topic:252998"]
Hi,

I am not sure if this is the right place where I should place this question. Anyway, I was having a discussion with a friend who is pretty well-schooled in history, and he posted a question to be that I am not able to answer.

In the historical times, say the pre-1800's or so, how were the priest trained? The question arises from the fact that priests were mainly from the noble class who were only interested in politics or the really poor who were illiterate.

Therefore the noble person may not be trained to interpret the scripture to educate the lay people, as they were heavily involved in politics (so not interested in scripture per se). And the poor who were illiterate, so they couldn't read and therefore could not teach the people as well.


They were trained in regular seminaries

jr
Note: the discussion I was having with this friend was about how the bible has been misinterpreted by many, but in the Catholic church we have the Magisterium.

Appreciate if you could share your insight and knowledge.

Blessings
Godloves U

[/quote]


#11

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.