Replies

You are the one who apparently has a faulty understanding of these usages. "Subsist" was used instead of "is" precisely as a concession to other Christian churches, especially the Orthodox. It was meant to suggest--and does--that the Church of Christ exists elsewhere and is NOT identified solely with the Catholic Church. Only the verb "is" could establish such an absolute identity--which is the verb that had always been used by the Church in its preconciliar documents. By rejecting this term, the bishops broke radically with traditional Church doctrine and introduced a distinct and troubling novelty.

""Subsist" was used instead of "is" precisely as a concession to other Christian churches, especially the Orthodox."

Prove it - don't just assert it like a mindless parrot!

"It was meant to suggest--and does--that the Church of Christ exists elsewhere and is NOT identified solely with the Catholic Church."

Show me where in any school of classical theology that any entity can have more than one subsistence.

You will never help the cause of Tradition by promoting falsehood.

Ultima Ratio:

Sir, you are waisting your breath, with this bunch, for they are being "invincibly ignorant" of the obvious. You and I--and several others here, both understand the proper context of Vatican II, and how ambivolent language was purposefully inserted into the counciliar documents. Many here are attempting to muddy the waters and play semantics.

Original intent is made obvious by the actions that follow immediately after a law is made operative. In other words, if there were some confusion of the methods to be used for the newly "instituted" rite, then such "misunderstandings" would have been clarified by Rome immediately--or, at the very latest, within one generation of the so-called reforms established by the Council. This was not the case, and the radical changes inflicted upon the Holy Mass were made in rapid succession. These were not "abuses;" but rather the planned outcome. "Well-intentioned reforms" do not transform overnight into "abuses," unless there is clear intent to abuse--such intent was made implicit through the ambiguities written throughout the conciliar text. To suggest otherwise is to pratice intellectual dishonesty.