TRAD FOLK: LUMEN GENTIUM "subsistit in" issue FORCEFULLY clarified on JULY 10

Hot on the heels of the MP:

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

"New Document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
The “Church of Christ” and the Catholic Church
Andrea Tornielli reports today in Il Giornale that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is about to release a Doctrinal Document stating in definitive and clear terms the interpretation of the Lumen Gentium passage according to which, “Haec …unica Christi Ecclesia … in hoc mundo ut societas constituta et ordinata, subsistit in Ecclesia catholica” (“this …one Church of Christ … constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church”)

"The Church of Christ is the Catholic one"

from Rome

*The Church of Christ is not distinct or distinguishable from the Catholic Church, which is the only one to possess "all elements of the Church instituted by Jesus". The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will confirm it next week, responding to "doubts" [dubia] raised in the past few years. The doctrinal stand of the former Holy Office ... should be accompanied by an authoritative theological comment on the pages of L'Osservatore Romano.

At the center of the debate is once again the meaning of the verb "subsists", used by the Council in the Constitution Lumen Gentium, where it is said that the only Church of Christ "subsists in the Catholic Church" (in Latin, "subsistit in"). Words which, in the course of the years, have suffered several interpretations, including the one according to which Jesus in reality had not thought of founding a Church and, in case he had, it would have afterwards divided itself in various Churches and ecclesial communities. Therefore ... , there would not be the true Church of Christ anymore, but only several expressions of it.

This recurrent thesis has already been repeatedly denied by the Popes. In 1973, with the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, of Paul VI; in 1985, with the notification of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on a book of liberation theologian Leonardo Boff; in 1992, with the Letter to the Bishops Communionis Notio, and, finally, in 2000 ... , with the declaration Dominus Iesus, approved by John Paul II.

Nonetheless, the doubts return cyclically ... ."

Ha! I’m liking Benedict XVI more by the minute :smiley:

Me too, brother!:extrahappy: :dancing: :extrahappy: :dancing:


:thumbsup:

Does this mean the Protestant churches were never real churches??? :extrahappy: :extrahappy: :highprayer: :crossrc:

Now all that we need is for Benedict to bring back the Oath Against Modernism :stuck_out_tongue:

The way things are going, I wouldn’t be surprised to see something along those lines. :smiley:

(MAN, it feels SO GOOD to be able to say that!!!)

Let’s hope he has better luck than his successors.

This recurrent thesis has already been repeatedly denied by the Popes. In 1973, with the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, of Paul VI; in 1985, with the notification of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on a book of liberation theologian Leonardo Boff; in 1992, with the Letter to the Bishops Communionis Notio, and, finally, in 2000 … , with the declaration Dominus Iesus, approved by John Paul II

.

I think Papa Benny is gonna do juuuust fine in that regard, my friend! :slight_smile:

You’ll always have “depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is…” people out there. Just look at the womynpriests who think they can challenge Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and get “ordained” on boats. :rolleyes:

I thought he never addressed them as churches, he addresses them as “communities”, that’s what I heard from somebody…:shrug:

The document Dominus Iesus refers to Protestant groups as “ecclesial communities”-only groups with valid Orders and thus Sacraments (Catholics and Orthodox, basically) are actually Churches.

You guys do realize, this will not be the first time this has been properly explained. That being said, I think it is good pastoral approach for the CDF once again explain it http://www3.christianforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

By the way, here are two good articles on the subject:

ewtn.com/library/Theology/subsistitin.HTM
ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/subsistit.htm

In sum, “est” indicates a present reality. “Subsistit in” represents a perduring reality–it’s actually stronger. Those who have interpreted as meaning that the Church can subsist in two places at once, are incorrect, as the CDF has stated:

From one of the articles above:

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, already in 1985, in the face of erroneous interpretations, made the following statement in this regard: " . . . the Council chose the word subsistit precisely in order to make it clear that there exists a single ‘subsistence’ of the true Church, while outside her visible structure only elementa ecclesiae exist, which — as elements of the Church — tend and lead toward the Catholic Church".6

More recently, the same Congregation declared: “The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen Gentium”.7

It also bears pointing out, the whole reason “subsistit in” was used, was to counter the idea that the Church of Christ could at some point be other than the Catholic Church–sure the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church now, but in the future or past, it could be something else. Wrong, said the Council, the Church of Christ is permenantly the Catholic Church, past, present, and future, despite the fact that, due to sin, ecclesial elements are found outside her (Apostolic Succession, Eucharist, Baptism, Scripture, prayer etc.).

As Pius XII warned, “all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected.” Sometimes, new terminology is better than the old–we know this from tradition, with new words like transubstantiation and hypostases developed for the betterment of the faith.:slight_smile:

So why didn’t they keep it simple at Vatican II and **proudly and boldly **say what Pope Pius XII said in MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI

  1. If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ --** which is **the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church [12] – we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression “the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ” - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers.

Just say it ‘is’ the true Church and not the ecumenical “subsists”

Actually, “subsists” is MUCH less ecumenical than “is”. A car “is” red today, tomorrow it “is” blue; there is no permanence of identification. The term “subsist” means that it is fundamental and continuing, a much, much stronger term than “is”. An immortal soul subsists, but it’s not always in a body though it “is” in a body today. A subsistence does not extend to anything else, nor does it change its nature.

When we say that that Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, we’re saying that it is a permanent and fundamental identification and reality, just like the immortal soul. If you read Latin theology, like the Summa Theologica, you’ll see that whenever a permanent and fundamental identification is made, the word “subsist” or “subsistant” is used; that people view subsist as “more ecumenical”, or interpret it in such a way, is due to their lack of understanding (or intentional warping) of Latin.

Given the choice, I would use “subsists in” every time; “is” is simply too ecumenical. :wink:

So why didn’t Pope Pius XII use the word ’ subsists"? Why didn’t any previous Pope use the word “subsists” ?

Because “est” works too, it’s not an error it’s just less forceful and precise.

I don’t know that no other Pope ever used “subsists” to describe the Church, but remember that this was a Conciliar decree and not just a general Encyclical, which means it’s given to more exacting language.

Peace and God bless!

I am hopeful about this document as well, but let us recall what the then Cardinal Ratzinger said about the word “subsists” in his interview with Zenit:

Zenit: "He [Cardinal Ratzinger] explained that Vatican II did not use Pius XII’s expression, according to which “the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Jesus Christ.” Instead, it preferred the expression “The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church ruled by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him,” because, he said, it wished to affirm “that the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church.” cadeio.org/Oct-9-2000.html

Let’s hope that Pope Benedict has changed his view since becoming Pope. And let’s keep our prayers going for him. Imagine what he must be dealing with as he does his job of guarding the faith. If he remained indifferent and just traveled the world like a pop star the devil would leave him alone; but actually defending the faith and correcting the errors will certainly result in the wrath of hell being unleashed upon him. Expect persecution from the secular media.

God bless Pope Benedict.

I want to correct something I wrote above. Contrary to what I implied, Cardinal Ratzinger did not say that he believed that the Church of Christ is larger than the Catholic Church. What he said is that this is the reason the Vatican II fathers used that term. In other words, according to Cardinal Ratzinger, the intent of Vatican II was to teach that the Church of Christ is a larger entity than the Catholic Church.

Let’s read the quote again.

Zenit: "He [Cardinal Ratzinger] explained that Vatican II did not use Pius XII’s expression, according to which “the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Jesus Christ.” Instead, it [Vatican II] preferred the expression “The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church ruled by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him,” **because, he said, it [Vatican II] wished to affirm “that the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church.”/b

What does this mean? It means that, according to Cardinal Ratzinger, Vatican II taught an error - the error that he is now going to “clarify” (correct).

My apologies to Cardinal Ratzinger for implying that he held to the error when, according to him, it was only Vatican II that was in error.**

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.