Why is subsist it an issue? It is an issue only in Vatican Council II, Cushingite. In Vatican Council II, Feeneyite it is meaningless. It is not a rupture with Tradition and the old ecclesiology.
.............."subsists in", utilized in the Vatican II Document, Lumen Gentium. Was there another, more clear cut word that could have been used to express the authors intent? Maybe....what do you think? What word would you have suggested the author(s) use instead, to express more clearly what they wish to accurately convey?
Please note that Vatican Council II has been influenced by the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. The phrase subsist it refers to a hypothetical case and not a concrete case..So it is not a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite) or the Syllabus of Errors. It does not contradict the old ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
If I may add a personal note .... I used to think the verbiage used in the Vatican II documents were vague, until, that is, until this present Pontificate began "teaching us".
This pontificate does not acknowledge the factual error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. For the present magisterium hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire for example, refer to objective persons, known in the present time saved without 'faith and baptism' in the Catholic Church.So the baptism of desire is considered an exception to the dogma EENS(Feeneyite).It would have to be objective to be an exception or relevant to EENS (Feeneyite).Invisible cases cannot be exceptions to all needing to incorporated into the Church as members in the present times. So subsist it would be meaningful for the magisterium.It would refer to visible in the flesh cases.This is Cushingism. Vatican Council II is Cushingite for the magisterium.There are known exceptions to the dogma EENS and LG 8 is an exception. This was the reasoning in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case, the hypothetical is considered to be concrete.So one has to avoid this reasoning when interpreting Vatican Council II.Be aware of the visible-invisible distinction.
Today, what we have, in my opinion, is a resurgence of the Tower of Babel... on weed.
Really cool, ma-a-an. Can ya dig it? I mean, like.....far out.
There are mistakes in Vatican Council II from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.1) LG 14 assumes there are known cases of people saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance. So it states those who know about Jesus and the Church and do not enter are on the way to Hell.It infers not every one in general.Why? Since being saved in invincible ignorance was an exception to the dogma EENS in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.This was approved by Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits who were active at Vatican Council II. The same people who approved the error in the Letter 1949 also inserted the same error in Vatican Council II.So only they need to enter the Church who know about it according to LG 14.
However instead of rejecting Vatican Council II simply avoid the mistakes.Then we are back to the old ecclesiology.LG 14 refers to a hypothetical case for me.So it does not contradict Feeneyite EENS.Who knows and does not know cannot only be known to God.
Quote: "This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society,subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity."http://www.vatican.va/roman_
"although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity."
This is a description of a hypothetical case and is in no way a concrete exception to the dogma EENS.
So LG 8 with 'subsists it' and 'elements of sanctification and of truth found outside of its visible structure' is not a rupture with Tradition.
In Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) in which LG 8 is hypothetical it is not a rupture with Tradition.
In Vatican Council II (Cushingite) in which LG 8 refers to non -hypothetical, personally known and objective cases it is a rupture with Tradition.
In Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) LG 8 refers to invisible cases and so it does not have the hermeneutic of rupture.
In Vatican Council II (Cushingite) LG 8 refers to visible cases and so it has the hermeneutic of rupture.
I mentioned in the previous blog post:-
If you consider the baptism of desire as being invisible or visible decides how you interpret Vatican Council II.
If you infer that the baptism of desire is visible you have a Vatican Council II which I call Cushingite.
If you infer that the baptism of desire is physically invisible for us human beings, then you have a Vatican Council II which I call Feeneyite.
If the baptism of desire is visible then Fr. Leonard Feeney was in heresy and the magisterium in 1949 was correct.Since there would be exceptions to Tradition which he refused to acknowledge.
If the baptism of desire is invisible then it is the magisterium which was in heresy and Fr. Leonard Feeney was repeating orthodoxy.
For Bishop Bernard Fellay and the SSPX priests subsist it is a break with Tradition. The fault lies with their interpretation.It is Vatican Council II (Cushingite).The Same mistake is made by the SSPX Superior in Italy.-Lionel Andrades
February 13, 2017
February 13, 2017