Different spiritualities?


Are the Catholic spiritualites before and after the second Vatican council different?
The faith is the same, otherwise the gates of hell would have prevailed and the promise of Jesus would have become void.

Could one see Traditionalism as a Catholic spirituality?
There has always been several spiritualities in Holy Church.


Not to sound too arrogant here, but the Traditional Catholics (or Traditionalism) have assured that the gates of hell would not prevail. There is attachment more than the Mass, but as long as the Tridentine Mass lives, the Catholic faith holds steadfast and solid. What’s more spiritual than that?


Very sad that you believe that. Anyone who believes this should really think about what he/she is saying first.

God Bless


Why so?

Why have we seen Catholicism so ridiculed as it has the last 40 years with all its scandals and stuff? [Edited by Moderator]


Take a deep breath Bob. Much better when you do.

EWTN has produced a brilliant series on the history of the Papacy and the Church - available for downloading and listening on your computer or ipod. It’s here (scroll down a bit and you’ll see it)

I highly recommend it to everybody. What can clearly be seen is that there is absolutely nothing new in the way of the scandals or dissent of the present age. They are par for the course in terms of Church history, since the Bride of Christ has most always been under ferocious attack.

What IS highly unusual is the decades of relative calm of the first half of the 20th century, and yet so many seem to so blithely accept them as the norm.

Take a good look at the Arian heresy, the schism between Catholics and Orthodox, the Great Western schism, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution and Napoleonic periods - and on and on. And see the era immediately prior to Vatican 2 for what it truly was, a beautiful but finite oasis of relative peace in what has always been a turbulent history of our faith.


I believe it…


Well said.


Since this is supposed to be about spirituality, let’s try to keep it there. The spiritualities before and after the Council were the same. The range of spiritualities in Catholicism is greater than in any other Christian sect which supports the contention that we are catholic (universal) in our makeup. Perhaps since the council we have added more variety to our spiritualities but we are still Catholic. We haven’t and won’t kick out the ultatraditionalists or the ultraprogressives much as both ends of the spectrum might wish the exclusion of their opposites.
Catholic still means “here comes everybody.”



You’re grievously, grievously in error. The Tridentine Mass could be suppressed tomorrow and the Church would still be assured of Christ’s promise. It’s the Church and the Mass, not your idea of the Church and the form of the Mass. You’ve also insulted all of the Eastern Rite Christians in communion with the Holy See, for the promise is theirs as well.

Honestly, the ideas mistaken for being Catholic.


The Tridentine Mass will never be suppressed…Christ said the Gates of Hell will not prevail.


The Tridentine Mass probably never will be suppressed. It certainly shouldn’t be. Whether it is or isn’t will have no bearing on Christ’s promise, however, which was made to the Church long before what we know as the Tridentine Mass took its final form.


So you’re denying that Christ instituted the Traditional Mass.


I would never deny that Christ instituted the Mass. I’m a Catholic.

Are you asserting that Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, instituted that Mass in the exact form that Pope St. Pius V codified?



Here is an interesting read on the history and development of the Mass, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:


If our Lord said the Tridentine Mass, then why did the Apostles who took the Gospel and the Mass to the East do it differently? Why does the Church acknowledge these ancient liturgies as being “Apostolic?”


You didn’t say Traditional Mass…you said Mass.


See post 14, Uxor. They don’t say the Traditional Mass in the Eastern Catholic Churches in union with Rome, yet their Divine Liturgies are regarded as being of Apostolic origin or having Apostolic antecendents (by our Church). Did the Apostles get confused as to which Our Blessed Lord offered?


Why don’t you recognize the Roman liturgy?


I’m sorry, I don’t know what you mean, I do recognize the Roman liturgy.


We are not talking eastern ok…we are talking Roman.


Yes, that’s the one I accept, I still don’t understand your question.

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.