Tuesday, July 14, 2015

The subsist it confusion is based on B being an exception to A


traditionalmass.org | Traditional Latin Mass Resources

The Magisterium of Vatican II
Rev. Curzio Nitoglia

Subsists in: “Found in, but not Exclusively Identified with”
What does this formula “subsists in” actually mean? It was chosen deliberately in order to deny that the Church of Christ is only the Catholic Church. “Subsistit in” means, in fact, that the Church of Christ is found in the Catholic Church, but is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church.
“The change of est (Pius XII) to subsistit (Gaudium et Spes) took place for ecumenical reasons,” explains Fr. Mucci, S.J. in Civiltà Cattolica (December 5, 1988). And Fr. Louis Bouyer writes that thanks to the “subsistit” introduced by the Council, one has sought to“propose again the idea of the one Church, even if it is presently divided among the diverse Christian Churches, as if among many branches.”[8] This idea was taken up again by John Paul II in Canterbury. Furthermore Cardinal Willebrands, on May 5th and 8th of 1987, held some conferences in which he affirmed that the “subsistit” supersedes and corrects the est of Pius XII (cf. Documentation Catholique, January 3, 1988). While the Council was in progress, Bishop Carli (then Bishop of Segni) and Fr. Aniceto Fernandez, Master General of the Dominicans, vigorously intervened to request the correction of Lumen Gentium by using the word est instead of “subsistit,” in order to unequivocally reaffirm the Catholic Faith. But the ecumenical choice — or better, the heretical choice — prevailed. Fr. Congar writes:
The problem remains if Lumen Gentium strictly and exclusively identifies the Mystical Body of Christ with the Catholic Church, as did Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Can we not call it into doubt when we observe that not only is the attribute “Roman”missing, but also that one avoids saying that only Catholics are members of the Mystical Body.
Lionel: Only Catholics are members of the Catholic Church according to Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7. Those who have faith and baptism are members of the Catholic Church. Let's call this statement A.
 Thus they are telling us (in Gaudium et Spes) that the Church of Christ and of the Apostles subsistit in, is found in the Catholic Church. There is consequently no strict identification, that is exclusive, between the Church of Christ and the “Roman” Church. Vatican II admits, fundamentally, that non-catholic christians are members of the Mystical Body and not merely ordered to it. [emphasis added][9]
Lionel: There is nothing in Gaudium e Spes to contradict A. If non Catholic Christians are members of the Mystical Body we do not know of any case who has been saved as such. If it is  assumed  that there are personally known non Catholic Christians who are saved without being formal members of the Church then we could call this statement B. B would refer to explicit cases known in the present times. So B would be an exception to A.This would be irrational. Since Congar could not have known any one saved outside the Church. If there was such a case it would only be known to God.So his reasoning was faulty.
In fact Pius XII, in Mystici Corporis, teaches that the unique Church of Christ is (est) the Catholic Church.
Lionel: Yes. It is in agreement with A in Vatican Council II (AG 7).
Lumen Gentium, on the other hand, changes the est to subsistit because it no longer identifies (est) the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. This is to say that the Church founded by Christ exists in the catholic Church, without excluding the other “separated churches.” (The conciliar magisterium uses capital C for the “separated Churches”)
In short, the Mystical Body of Christ has a greater extension than that of the Roman Catholic Church.
Lionel: This is an inference. The text does not state this. Pope Benedict XVI also issued a document clarifying this point.The document was traditional.
And why do they assert this? It is simple: just as each man is divinized by the very fact that the Word became incarnate, it is inconceivable that only Catholics are members of the Mystical Body of Christ, but as well the sects and all men are united in an indissoluble manner to Christ and form a part of His Mystical Body. (Cf. John Paul II, Speech to the Roman Curia, December, 1986: “The Church as Symbol of the Unity of the Human Race”)
Lionel: This would be an inference in which B would be an exception to A. 
Correct Interpretation of“Subsists in”
But here it may be objected that this interpretation of “subsistit in” is factious and extremist, and that, ultimately, such a phrase could be interpreted in an orthodox way by seeing it “in the light of tradition.” The very “conciliar magisterium,” however, taken as a whole, gives us the “authentic” interpretation of the phrase.
Lumen Gentium continues:
Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible confines [that is, outside the Catholic Church]. Since these are gifts proper to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity. (no. 7) [emphasis added]
We do not know anyone saved with 'elements of sanctification and of truth'(LG 8) and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.So LG 8 is not an exception to A.
If it is assumed that these cases are known to us in the present times, to be explicit and obvious exceptions to the dogma, then this would be irrational and a falsehood.Then B would be an exception to A.
Yet this is implied by the sedevacantist writer.
This means that elements of truth and holiness, proper to the Church of Christ, exist also outside the Roman Church, that is, they subsist in her, but do not coincide with her. These elements are found in the Catholic Church as they are found in sects, as they are found in every man united to Christ by the very fact of the Incarnation!
If there are such elements it could be accepted as something theoretical, de jure, known only to God.So they would not be exceptions or relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors etc. B would not be an exception to A.
John Paul II himself intervened to further explain Gaudium et Spes on May 29, 1982 in Canterbury, where he gave a speech in which he said:
The Church of our time is the Church which participates in a particular manner in the prayer of Christ for unity...The promise of Christ fills us with confidence in the power with which the Holy Spirit will heal every division introduced into the Church in the course of the centuries since Pentecost.
Lionel: Yes we seek unity with an ecumenism of return. Ut Unum Sint calls for our separated brethren to be united in the Catholic Church under the pope who represents St. Peter.
As you can see, for the conciliar “magisterium”the Church of Christ is not one (i.e., the Catholic Church), but is divided and subsists or is found in the various sects and in every man and therefore also in the Catholic Church.
As you can see for the writer B is an exception to A.So he interprets Vatican Council II with this irrationality.
He does not know any one in the present times saved with 'elements of sanctification and of truth'. So how can LG 8 be an exception to Tradition for him? Yet it is!
-Lionel Andrades

Vatican Council II (UR ,DH) would contradict Mortalium Animos, Quanta Cura, Syllabus of Errors only if B

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/vatican-council-ii-ur-dh-would.htmls an exception to A


No comments: