How Did The Priesthood Change After Vatican II?

[Dempsey1919]

I am currently discerning a vocation to the priesthood.

I have a strong preference for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and the other traditional Catholic devotions and prayers. For this reason, I am thinking about joining a traditionalist society or order such as the FSSP or The Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer. At the same time, I feel deeply attached to the Order of Preachers.

In order to come to a decision, I would like to know how the priesthood changed after Vatican II? How is a traditional priest different from a non-traditional priest? * I want to have an in-depth discussion on the priesthood before Vatican II and the priesthood after Vatican II.* What were priests like before Vatican II? Did the role of the priest change? Did the types of men becoming priests change? Why did the number of vocations to the priesthood decline after Vatican II? What are your memories of priests before Vatican II?

Also, would my preference for traditional Catholic customs and prayers cause me any difficulties in a non-traditionalist order or society? Would the seminaries frown upon my love for tradition?

Also, and forgive me for asking this question, but this is the only place I can really find the answer. I have heard it said that there is a homosexual subculture in many seminaries, and that these homosexuals do not promote a lifestyle of chastity and purity; this network of homosexuals has been referred to as the Lavender Mafia. Does the Lavender Mafia exist? Others have told me that there was a heterosexual exodus from the priesthood after Vatican II. Is this true?

*Please share your views on the priesthood before Vatican II and after Vatican II; if you don’t have any views, please share your recollections. Please help me decide whether I should undergo a traditional priestly formation. *

 

[ChurchTorch]

I believe that as long as you think “traditional” and “non-traditional” are two different camps in the Catholic Church that you’ll have some difficulties.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think you need to go where God is calling you to go. If that’s to a place like FSSP, then go for it. If that’s to a religious order or to the diocesan priesthood, then do that. God doesn’t want you to be a miserable priest, so I’m sure he won’t put you somewhere that you don’t belong.

I do think ChurchTorch is right. You want to avoid falling into the trap of thinking there are two entirely distinct concurrent Latin Catholic Churches: “Traditional” and “Non-Traditional”.

As far as the “Lavendar Mafia” business that is propogated by places like NOR, I am very skeptical. Perhaps it depends on where you go to seminary. I have personally known dozens of guys who have been in the seminary in the past 10 years, and not one of them have experienced this. Try places like Mount St. Mary’s Seminary.

Perhaps there was a time that such a subculture existed, but I think it has greatly dissipated (if it still exists at all). Many bishops are striving to improve our seminaries. Even places like Mundelein are in a much better place now than they were 15 or 20 years ago.

In any case, even if such a thing did exist, we need people like you to go in there and improve the situation. Don’t let other people scare you away from where God wants you to be. Even if you are ridiculed or laughed at, God knows you can take such punishment for love of Him.

Really, you just need to look around and pray a lot. Not all seminaries are the same. Not all dioceses are the same. With some dioceses, you have to attend a specific seminary (or you may have two or three to choose from). If you’re going to be a diocesan priest, you’re going to have to get used to obeying your bishop from the start. That includes where you will go to seminary. You could always request to be sent to the PNAC, though.

 

[michaeldaniels]

And I state emphatically that there are huge differences…there are more traditional orders that a priest can become a part of…as a diocesan priest, one can be traditional as well.
There are some priest that leave the ambo when giving the homily, deny COTT, allow women and children on the altar to concelebrate mass, allow clown masses to happen, allow gay pride masses, voodoo masses, multi-denomination masses, slain in the spirit masses, liturgical dancers, improper vessels for the Blessed Sacrament, removal of the tabernacle, guitars and drums, etc…THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. So please don’t insult my intelligence by stating there are priest who are more traditional than other…or that there isn’t a division, when there clearly is.

all of those things are abominations and should be stopped immediately

I believe that as long as you think “traditional” and “non-traditional” are two different camps in the Catholic Church that you’ll have some difficulties.

 

[Joe_5859]

And I state emphatically that there are huge differences…there are more traditional orders that a priest can become a part of…as a diocesan priest, one can be traditional as well.
There are some priest that leave the ambo when giving the homily, deny COTT, allow women and children on the altar to concelebrate mass, allow clown masses to happen, allow gay pride masses, voodoo masses, multi-denomination masses, slain in the spirit masses, liturgical dancers, improper vessels for the Blessed Sacrament, removal of the tabernacle, guitars and drums, etc…THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. So please don’t insult my intelligence by stating there are priest who are more traditional than other…or that there isn’t a division, when there clearly is.

all of those things are abominations and should be stopped immediately

There is division, certainly. We don’t want to pretend there is not. But I think we need to be careful about how we articulate it.

I’ve been to a lot of Masses in a lot of different places celebrated by priests of a wide variety of theological beliefs, but I have never seen most of the things you have listed. I’m not saying such abuses do not happen, but I think we need to avoid creating the impression that it happens everywhere with great regularity.

Further, we want to avoid giving the inaccurate impression that there are only two possible types of priests:

• those “traditional” priests who would far prefer for everything liturgical to be exactly as it was in 1962
• those “non-traditional” priests who perform and promote every sort of wacked-out liturgical abuse that one can imagine

The vast majority of priests could not be placed in either of the above categories. When we attempt to set up such a polarizing dichotomy, we do a great disservice. It can lead to the attitude that “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.” Therefore, if you think that CITH or altar girls are okay, you must be a flaming heretic with a love of clown Masses and liturgical dancers. That is not a healthy attitude for a pastor of souls to have. It just leads to resentment and more division.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I believe that as long as you think “traditional” and “non-traditional” are two different camps in the Catholic Church that you’ll have some difficulties.

You want to avoid falling into the trap of thinking there are two entirely distinct concurrent Latin Catholic Churches: “Traditional” and “Non-Traditional”.

There is one Roman rite but there are two forms of the Roman rite, and these forms are very different from each other; there are two forms of Mass; two forms of Ordination; different sacraments; different vestments; different lectionaries; different calendars. The two forms are both equally valid, but they are different. For this reason, I think it is incorrect to suggest that there is only one form of the Roman rite; I think people need to realise that there are two forms of the one Roman rite and that the two forms are vastly different from each other. In reality, there are two camps within the Roman rite; one celebrates the extraordinary forms of the sacraments and the other celebrates the ordinary forms of the sacraments. While all priests of the Roman rite are free to celebrate all forms of the sacraments, those who undergo a traditional formation mainly celebrate the traditional sacraments, and those who undergo a non-traditional formation mainly celebrate the ordinary form of the sacraments.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Does anybody know how the formation of traditionalist priests is different from the formation of non-traditionalist priests? I know traditionalist priests receive the minor orders but that is all I know. How did the formation of priests change after Vatican II?

 

[edwest2]

I am currently discerning a vocation to the priesthood.

I have a strong preference for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and the other traditional Catholic devotions and prayers. For this reason, I am thinking about joining a traditionalist society or order such as the FSSP or The Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer. At the same time, I feel deeply attached to the Order of Preachers.

In order to come to a decision, I would like to know how the priesthood changed after Vatican II? How is a traditional priest different from a non-traditional priest? * I want to have an in-depth discussion on the priesthood before Vatican II and the priesthood after Vatican II.* What were priests like before Vatican II? Did the role of the priest change? Did the types of men becoming priests change? Why did the number of vocations to the priesthood decline after Vatican II? What are your memories of priests before Vatican II?

Also, would my preference for traditional Catholic customs and prayers cause me any difficulties in a non-traditionalist order or society? Would the seminaries frown upon my love for tradition?

Also, and forgive me for asking this question, but this is the only place I can really find the answer. I have heard it said that there is a homosexual subculture in many seminaries, and that these homosexuals do not promote a lifestyle of chastity and purity; this network of homosexuals has been referred to as the Lavender Mafia. Does the Lavender Mafia exist? Others have told me that there was a heterosexual exodus from the priesthood after Vatican II. Is this true?

*Please share your views on the priesthood before Vatican II and after Vatican II; if you don’t have any views, please share your recollections. Please help me decide whether I should undergo a traditional priestly formation. *

It would serve you best to see an actual priest or member of one of the orders. Any answers here would likely lead to more questions. That way, whatever replies you receive can be clarified.

I was there before and after Vatican II. The role of the priest did not change.

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[Joe_5859]

There is one Roman rite but there are two forms of the Roman rite, and these forms are very different from each other; there are two forms of Mass; two forms of Ordination; different sacraments; different vestments; different lectionaries; different calendars. The two forms are both equally valid, but they are different. For this reason, I think it is incorrect to suggest that there is only one form of the Roman rite; I think people need to realise that there are two forms of the one Roman rite and that the two forms are vastly different from each other. In reality, there are two camps within the Roman rite; one celebrates the extraordinary forms of the sacraments and the other celebrates the ordinary forms of the sacraments. While all priests of the Roman rite are free to celebrate all forms of the sacraments, those who undergo a traditional formation mainly celebrate the traditional sacraments, and those who undergo a non-traditional formation mainly celebrate the ordinary form of the sacraments.

Here, you are talking about the two different forms of the liturgy. I don’t think I would use the terms “traditional” and “non-traditional” to describe them, though - mainly because the Church Herself does not use that language in describing the two forms.

If all you’re talking about is learning the different liturgical forms, then I guess I’ve gone off topic and I aplogize. I just want to avoid conflating the issues. Simply because there are two forms of the Mass in the Latin Rite does not mean that there are only two types of priest one can be. There’s a whole spectrum of personalities and theology for those priests who celebrate the OF. It’s probably less of a spectrum for the EF.

(On another note, I just want to say that I dislike the phrase “different sacraments”. I’m sure you’re just speaking about differences in the rubrics, but we need to be clear that the sacraments are not really “different”. They’re the same seven sacraments we’ve always had.)

 

[Dempsey1919]

I don’t think I would use the terms “traditional” and “non-traditional” to describe them, though - mainly because the Church Herself does not use that language in describing the two forms.

The use of the word “traditional” is appropriate when referring to the Extraordinary Form of the Sacraments because they are the traditional form; the sacraments existed in this form long before the emergence of the Ordinary Forms; for this reason, the EF Mass is commonly referred to as the Usus Antiquior; the EF Mass is the ancient form of the Roman Mass.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I agree. There is a continuum if you will rather than 2 distinct camps. The clown Mass nonsense in particular only seems to have actually happened once or twice yet some speak about it as if it were going on in every neighborhood parish regularly. There are many good and holy priests who are perhaps not the most gifted liturgists who celebrate Mass as well as they are capable of. Their Masses are not overflowing with incense, chant, or latin, but they are not irreverant, abusive, or illicit.

Please pray for an increase in charity for your fellow Catholics and all priests as we all struggle to advance in holiness as God calls us.

There is division, certainly. We don’t want to pretend there is not. But I think we need to be careful about how we articulate it.

I’ve been to a lot of Masses in a lot of different places celebrated by priests of a wide variety of theological beliefs, but I have never seen most of the things you have listed. I’m not saying such abuses do not happen, but I think we need to avoid creating the impression that it happens everywhere with great regularity.

Further, we want to avoid giving the inaccurate impression that there are only two possible types of priests:

• those “traditional” priests who would far prefer for everything liturgical to be exactly as it was in 1962
• those “non-traditional” priests who perform and promote every sort of wacked-out liturgical abuse that one can imagine

The vast majority of priests could not be placed in either of the above categories. When we attempt to set up such a polarizing dichotomy, we do a great disservice. It can lead to the attitude that “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.” Therefore, if you think that CITH or altar girls are okay, you must be a flaming heretic with a love of clown Masses and liturgical dancers. That is not a healthy attitude for a pastor of souls to have. It just leads to resentment and more division.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I agree. There is a continuum if you will rather than 2 distinct camps.

But how do these two “camps” differ from one another? How is the traditional priesthood or religious life different from the post Vatican II priesthood or religious life?

 

[corsair]

I have a very close attachment with the Dominicans but they celebrate both forms of the Roman Rite. And not all of their Provinces practice the old Dominican Rite. So IF you bag is the EF form, then you run the risk of having to say the OF form as well.

IF you really prefer the EF form then your best bet is an application to FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, Most Holy Redeemer, Carmelites of Wyoming, Benedictines of Clear Creek, OK. There also several in Europe. Which can be a challenge if you don’t speak a European language. (that problem exists with the Institute of CK).

One of the big difference in the seminary is, aside from learning to say the EF form, is Philosophy. The OF seminaries are a little “light” on that subject and it shows in sermons.

 

[Dempsey1919]

One of the big difference in the seminary is, aside from learning to say the EF form, is Philosophy. The OF seminaries are a little “light” on that subject and it shows in sermons

I have been given the impression that a traditional priestly formation focuses on philosophy and theology to a greater extent than OF priestly formation; I have heard it said that the traditionalist orders and societies place an emphasis on the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. I have also been told that the traditionalists obviously focus more on Latin and the ancient biblical languages.

 

[Joe_5859]

The use of the word “traditional” is appropriate when referring to the Extraordinary Form of the Sacraments because they are the traditional form; the sacraments existed in this form long before the emergence of the Ordinary Forms; for this reason, the EF Mass is commonly referred to as the Usus Antiquior; the EF Mass is the ancient form of the Roman Mass.

My issue is not so much using the word “traditional” for the EF (which I really don’t object to) as it is using the word “non-traditional” for the OF.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

But how do these two “camps” differ from one another? How is the traditional priesthood or religious life different from the post Vatican II priesthood or religious life?

I think you will find many answers to this question as you speak to different priests and religious who lived through the changes.

One aspect I’ve noticed is that diocesan priests are more likely to live in a form of community. (at least in the Eastern US) That is, one priest parishes seem to be less common in this area as small ethnic parishes are merged together. Of course, there are still many places where a parish only has one priest or even where several parishes share a priest.

I suggest you seek out some of the older priests in your diocese and ask them. You’ll be able to get a first-hand account that way.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

There is one Roman rite but there are two forms of the Roman rite, and these forms are very different from each other; there are two forms of Mass;

According to the Holy Father there is one Mass with two rites.

different sacraments;

Different Sacraments? You mean that the seven Sacraments are different if you prefer the EF than if you prefer the OF?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I have been given the impression that a traditional priestly formation focuses on philosophy and theology to a greater extent than OF priestly formation; I have heard it said that the traditionalist orders and societies place an emphasis on the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. I have also been told that the traditionalists obviously focus more on Latin and the ancient biblical languages.

All who enter a major seminary must have 30 credits of philosophy and 12 credits of theology.

The seminary will decide what sort of classes fill this requirement but usually it is that they must come from a Catholic institution as those classes from a public institution usually do not fit.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

IF you really prefer the EF form then your best bet is an application to FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, Most Holy Redeemer, Carmelites of Wyoming, Benedictines of Clear Creek, OK. There also several in Europe. Which can be a challenge if you don’t speak a European language. (that problem exists with the Institute of CK).

And of these only the Benedictines are a religious order. The FSSP and ICK are not orders and the Carmelites of Wyoming are of diocesen right, that is they are formed under the local bishop and are not affiliated with either the O.Carm. or O.C.D. orders.

 

[ChurchTorch]

There is one Roman rite but there are two forms of the Roman rite, and these forms are very different from each other; there are two forms of Mass; two forms of Ordination; different sacraments; different vestments; different lectionaries; different calendars. The two forms are both equally valid, but they are different. For this reason, I think it is incorrect to suggest that there is only one form of the Roman rite; I think people need to realise that there are two forms of the one Roman rite and that the two forms are vastly different from each other. In reality, there are two camps within the Roman rite; one celebrates the extraordinary forms of the sacraments and the other celebrates the ordinary forms of the sacraments. While all priests of the Roman rite are free to celebrate all forms of the sacraments, those who undergo a traditional formation mainly celebrate the traditional sacraments, and those who undergo a non-traditional formation mainly celebrate the ordinary form of the sacraments.

NO!

You’re speaking about two forms (or “rites”) of the Mass not two forms of the actual (western/Roman) church rite.

There have long been more than one liturgical rite within the Latin Rite of the Church. The Ambrosian, Bragan, Carmelite, Carthusian, Dominican and Mozabaric Mass “rites” come to mind. Not all Latin Rite priests are “free” to celebrate all these different forms of the Mass.

Some people here desperately want to infer that the EF Mass is akin to a truly separate sui juris church as they have in the East and it’s not. Spreading misinformation like you are doing is a grave disservice to all Catholics.