Replies

"To use the verb "subsist" is deliberately ambiguous. It could mean a number of things: to live within something or to remain within something. In other words, the Church that now exists is not necessarily the Church that Christ founded, though some elements may live or remain within it."

Many have proposed that the word is intended in an ambiguous sense, however, the Latin "subsistit in" is very specific in that it literally means "is in", "is under" or "stands under" the Catholic Church and not outside of it, i.e. the same Church that Christ founded is in the Catholic Church and is to be found nowhere else. It does allow for the fact that "elements" of the Church exist outside her boundaries such as valid baptism and the Pater Noster for instance, but these elements alone are not sufficient for salvation as the constant tradition of the Church has taught.

The CDF issued a notification re Leonardo Boff which dealt with the correct way that this word should be understood and made it clear that he and many others had misinterpreted it. There are still many liberal scholars though who put the wrong slant on it - implying that the Church also exists outside of the Catholic Church. This is clearly false as Our Lord is not an adulterer - He is the bridegroom of one spouse only - but don't you think that agreeing with them that the meaning is ambiguous will only encourage their doubt?

With hindsight the word has been so manipulated by those of ill will and little faith that, with retrospect, it would have been better if the traditional formulation had been used. I imagine that most of the council fathers had no idea what would be the consequences of using this one little word!!

In the face of those who continue to insist on its ambiguity, however, we can only point them to the principle that truly magisterial teachings must by definition be in harmony with prior tradition.

You may not evangelise other Christians, but I certainly try to and I think you'll find the fruits of modernism all around you - Boston, Los Angeles, Milwaukee!!!!!

"Is in" is not "Is" Once you break the connection of identity, then you might ask--is the Church of Christ also elsewhwhere else--in the Methodist faith, for instance? We know the Catholic faith is not Methodism. But the door is wide open to the idea that Methodism might also contain within it the Church of Christ--which, of course, was the whole idea of the liberals posing the change in the first place. But then we might ask--if the Church of Christ may also be in another religion, why must I bother following such a strict religion like Catholicism? Why not become something a little easier and more morally accommodating? In fact, this is the drift of the Conciliar Church as it moves further and further from traditional belief. Little by little these major changes are being injected into the Catholic organism like so much poison. It accounts for the divisions among us and for the sense of malaise in general. This is happening in much the same way that changes in doctrine and culture were introduced in England after its break with Rome. Out went the altars and statues and rosaries and saints. In came the Vernacular and secularist thought.

Most Catholics are unaware of how subtley these changes are being introduced. Words remain the same--but their meanings are shifted so that nobody notices. The word "Sacrament", for instance, has a different meaning in the newer theology than it has had for two millenia. It is now used in such a way that it subtley undermines the concept of the Real Presence, setting up a veil of symbolism. This has had major consequences in our understanding of the Mass. In sum, the thrust is toward Protestant ideology and away from traditional Catholicism.