ASK FATHER: Why did dioceses stop using the word, “the” before words like “priesthood”, “Eucharist, or “Church?

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Do you have any insight into why Dioceses stopped using the word, “the” before words such as “priesthood”, “Eucharist, or “Church”, etc? It irritates me, as well as makes me cringe when I read phrases such as, “it’s Jesus Christ who calls men to priesthood” or “discover if priesthood is your true vocation.”

Does it mean something different by not putting “the” before it?

It just really grinds my gears.

Yes. There is a real difference.

First, however, I think that people who do this simply want to sound more “theological” (i.e., smarter) than they really are.  They pick up this progressivist buzz language in order to sound sophisticated.

That said, taken at face value, there is a difference though could be stylistic rather than doctrinal.

In English, “the priesthood” normally means the priesthood as a definite, identifiable sacred order or state: the sacramental priesthood, the ministerial priesthood, the priesthood of Christ shared by ordained men. The article gives it concreteness and institutional weight.

By contrast, “priesthood” without the article treats the word more like an abstract mass noun, like “ministry,” “leadership,” “service,” “discipleship,” or “formation.” Thus:

“Christ calls men to the priesthood”

sounds like a call to a definite sacramental order in the Church.

“Christ calls men to priesthood”

sounds more abstract, professionalized, or vocational-office-like. It can sound as though “priesthood” is a field of service, a lifestyle category, or a career path.  What’s worse, it blurs the real difference between those who have the title of “priest”.  There are real priests, such as Catholic priests with valid orders, and there are wannabes in ecclesial communities without valid orders.

That is probably why it grates on your ear. The missing “the” subtly de-sacralizes the phrase by making “priesthood” sound less like an ontological sacramental state and more like a ministry-option.

The same thing happens with “Eucharist” and “Church.”

“The Eucharist” usually refers to the Sacrament: the Holy Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Real Presence, the sacramental reality instituted by Christ.

“Eucharist” without the article can be legitimate in some theological contexts. But in ordinary diocesan prose it often sounds as though “Eucharist” were an activity or value rather than the Most Blessed Sacrament.

Likewise:

“the Church teaches”

means the visible, historical, hierarchical, apostolic Catholic Church.

“Church teaches” or “being Church”

has a buzzy modern pastoral-register sound. It treats “Church” as a mode of communal identity or experience. It reflects a real shift in ecclesiological tone, from the Church as a definite divine society to “church” as a process, gathering, or communal self-expression.  Even a “walking together”!

So, does it always mean something different? Not always, strictly speaking. English permits anarthrous nouns, especially in institutional or abstract usage. One may say “go to school,” “enter ministry,” “serve in government,” “receive Communion,” “study theology.” In that sense, “discern priesthood” can be defended grammatically as elliptical for “discern a vocation to priesthood.”

However, in Catholic theological language, articles often matter because they preserve definiteness. “The priesthood,” “the Eucharist,” “the Church,” “the Mass,” “the sacred liturgy” all point to received realities, given before us, not invented by us.

So, in most diocesan vocation-copy, phrases like “called to priesthood” are probably influenced by modern ecclesial bureaucratese and the progressivist faux-sophisticated echo chamber, yet for the most part not all the writers intend something heterodox.  They’re just trying to sound deep.

“Called to the priesthood” is clearer, more Catholic-sounding, more traditional, and more theologically precise.