Fr. Cantalamessa? Help!....

[Balance]

I have read several of Cantalamessa’s sermons … and found them quite problematic and confusing.

Now, Guy, have you considered that it might be simply that Cantalamessa is streets beyond you in writing sermons, and in practicing theology? Could it be that you find his sermons confusing because you don’t have the level of education and training he does?

… a man-made ecclesial community which is … electing homo “bishops” …

“homo”? Hardly charitable language.

… someone like Cantalamessa, who teaches a gospel that is that is so vague and watered-down to the lowest common denominator so that it offends hardly anyone.

“Someone like Cantalamessa”…

Are you looking for sections of his sermons that fit your argument or are you studying closely the whole body of his writings?

… the Episcopal Church is not the true church and has never claimed to be; the Lord has simply let that church go her gay and goofy way.

While the Lord would want that church to be in communion with his Catholic Church, he is saving people through the grace they receive through that “gay and goofy” church, you can count on it.

The Catholic Church, however, IS the one true church and Catholics loyal to their Church’s traditions must vehemently defend this doctrine and proclaim it as necessary for salvation in these times of confusion.

Language… interesting. The **doctrine **is neccessary for salvation? Sounds… heretical. I thought Christ was the only means of salvation…

In these times of confusion, we need men and women who live heroically the call placed on every human, on every Christian - to love as Christ did. We need Catholics who are doing that more than we need Catholics vehememently defending doctrine; we need Catholics living their faith, not arguing it.

If the current Pope encourages and participates in joint worship services with heretical sects, then I disagree with him and think what he is doing is wrong. I have on my side dozens of previous popes who condemned such worship as false and a mortal sin.

Oh dear. Your language again: you have dozens of popes “on your side”, ranged up against Benedict XIV? The image is a compelling one…

Traditional Catholics understand that the Pope is authoritative and we obey him when he is obedient to tradition; but if he departs from it, while we respect his office as pope and submit to him in infallible decisions, we cannot join him in this error. In this since maybe we are “more Catholic than the pope”, since we are saying the same thing that popes and theologians in the past have said.

What’s a “Traditional Catholic” anyway?

…

Why should a Catholic be concerned about the squabbles among various Protestant denominations? It matters not whether one is Wesleyan or Calvinist, for there is no salvation to be found in either of those false religions.

Nope. A Wesleyan or Calvinist, under certain “conditions”
can be saved. That’s a basic Catholic belief.

… men who lead people astray like Fr. Cantalamessa …

A big call. Who are you to set yourself up to make such a statement?

… And what difference does it make WHERE the articles come from? They’re written by reputable men like John Vennari and Christopher Ferrara …

It makes a difference. You might need to have a closer look at what else is on those websites and how it lines up against both the letter of Catholic teaching and the spirit.

I’m a bit angry, Crusade Guy, and that may be coming through in this post. I’ve reviewed it and edited it but will post it as it stands. It’s not an attack on you - I don’t even know you, right? - but it’s definitely a strong comment on the things you are saying - particularly what I see as slander, and as uninformed allegations.

I pray that you’ll find the time to make a closer, charitable study of Fr Cantalamessa’s sermons and writings and maybe come back and start a new thread when you’ve done so.
God bless.

 

[John_Higgins]

Nice try, Balance, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Crusader Guy somehow preferred something written a little earlier than the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

John

 

[Crusade_Guy]

That you are quite happy to begin this thread with such a statement says something about you, Crusade Guy, and also about your faith. Your profile says, under “Religion”, “Catholic.” And yet, here you are, happily labelling someone about whom you admit you don’t know much, beyond finding some of his writings “problematic,” a heretic.
Catechism paragraph 2475.
Christ’s disciples have “put on the new man, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.” By “putting away falsehood,” they are to “put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander.”
What makes you think I’m happy that he is a heretic? I’m horrified that someone who is so high ranking yet preaches heretical doctrines is welcomed into my diocese.

I don’t know if that makes sense to you, what I’m trying to say there. I hope it does.No, not really. Your entire post is actually nonsensical.

Oh dear. You “seem to recall,” and again “seem to recall.” Can you not see the ugliness of what you are doing? Labelling Fr Cantalamessa a “heretic” based on something you only “seem to recall.” I don’t know you beyond what I see you write on these boards - I wonder what you are really like, because the impression I have of you is not good.
Errrr…the reason I posted this in the first place, Balance, is because I have read shocking statements from Cantalamessa in the past but don’t specifically remember them other than they contained heresy (the one that stands out is his sermon promoting “faith alone”. Frankly, I don’t give a rip what your impression about me is, Balance. I posted this question because I wanted information about Cantalamessa. Can you answer my questions, or, based on the articles I have already provided, tell me why he ISN’T a heretic? If not, please don’t bother posting another snooty reply to me.

Another label, happily slapped out there. “Modernist bishops” -I wonder if would you call them that to their face, or do you just do it here behind their back?
Actually I would, as a matter of fact! This is a public forum anyway. How is it behind anyone’s back?

“Some problematic stuff” - so, any specifics?
Can you read the articles I posted?

So, is it heretical, or is it not? Or is it just your opinion, that it “sounds” heretical? Is it theological speculation, which, by its nature, can be dense and obscure, but perfectly licit and “orthodox,” that, to your eye, “sounds” heretical?
**If something is perfectly orthodox, why would it even “sound” heretical? St. Paul says to fly from every appearance from evil. Even if his intentions weren’t to preach a heresy, his sermons are obviously dubious enough that they are confusing a lot of Catholics. **

Is it? You’re telling the story. Is it a sin? If so, why? What do you base that on?
**I know for a fact that it used to be considered a sin. Why the change? **

Is this sly little reference going to be backed up, or just left to hang in the air like a bad smell?
Oh, surely you know what I’m referring to. And I agree, Assisi did leave a “bad smell” metaphorically speaking.

You think?
Well, based on the flyer it sounds like it’s gonna be ecumenical…

“So everyone knows” - what, you’re going to make up and hand out flyers? Or just stand up in the middle of a talk and heckle Cantalamessa?
Not sure yet. I’m considering handing out flyers. I wasn’t planning on heckling him in the middle of his talk. I was assuming there would be some sort of question and answer time after his lecture where I could voice my concern.

It sounds to me that your understanding of what this means might be alittle defective. Could you go back to your Catechism, start with these two paragraphs and go from there?
My catechism? Can you quote from a catechism that gives straightforward, precise definitions?
(Note that I’m not saying these two quotes stand alone. They’re a start.)

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”
**The only means of salvation is Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church. **

 

[Crusade_Guy]

Nice try, Balance, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Crusader Guy somehow preferred something written a little earlier than the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

John

Good hunch, John! If the CCC is totally accurate, then there should be previous catechisms and church documents which agree with its teachings (such as “ecclesial communities” being a “means of salvation”)…so assuming you’re correct you shouldnt have any trouble finding something pre-Vatican II that supports your claims.

 

[RobedWithLight]

That’s not saying much. Why do you think we have such a crisis in our Church now, because Rome has been excommunicating heretics left and right? I don’t think so…the world is full of heretical bishops and priests and they aren’t disciplined, instead they are actually given prominent positions. Interestingly, I know of one notorious group of bishops and priests who were “excommunicated” by the Pope himself even though they actually resist heresy…at the same time, that same Pope was appointing Mahoney as the Cardinal of L.A.

Yes, Lefebvre was indeed excommunicated by the Vatican, so I don’t understand why you had to employ subtle sarcasm by placing double quotes on the word excommunication, considering that the Vatican’s action was legitimately done in accordance with Canon Law.

However I would like to see your citations with regards your statement that the world is allegedly full of heretical bishops and priests. Sheer generalization and haphazard exaggerations propagated by schismatic and sedevacantist websites doesn’t help the cause of traditionalism and gives a bad name to real, sincere traditionalists who are in union with the Church.

 

[John_Higgins]

Crusader Guy:

My catechism? Are you referring to the Catechism of the Council of Trent?

While I was crafting this response, CG edited his response which said the Catechism of Trent, thus taking the edge off my Aha! moment. Although I’m not surprised, I expected he wouldn’t have any Catechism after 1907 or so.

From the introduction to the 1997 edition of the CCC:

CCC:

With today’s promulgation of the Latin typical edition, therefore, the task of composing the Catechism, begun in 1986, is brought to a close and the desire of the aforementioned Extraordinary Synod of Bishops is happily fulfilled. The Church now has at her disposal this new, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith, and it will serve as a “valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion” and as a “sure norm for teaching the faith,” as well as a “sure and authentic reference text” for preparing local catechisms (cf. Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, no. 4).

—Pope John Paul II

Crusade Guy:

so assuming you’re correct you shouldnt have any trouble finding something pre-Vatican II that supports your claims.

Don’t need to. Seems to me it’s a “sure and authentic reference text”. Good enough for me.

John

 

[Crusade_Guy]

Now, Guy, have you considered that it might be simply that Cantalamessa is streets beyond you in writing sermons, and in practicing theology? Could it be that you find his sermons confusing because you don’t have the level of education and training he does?
Balance, the mark of true genius and intelligence is the ability to explain complex ideas in simple, understandable terms.

“homo”? Hardly charitable language.
Pardon moi, that’s homosexual

“Someone like Cantalamessa”…

Are you looking for sections of his sermons that fit your argument or are you studying closely the whole body of his writings?
I don’t have time to study the “whole body of his writings.” I can read some of his sermons though. No, I’m not looking for sections of his sermons just to fit my argument, but what a coincidence that I have heard other Catholics complain about his sermons in the past and then I look at his sermons and, jimmy crack corn! I see some misleading/confusing statements. Have you read his sermon where he preaches “salvation by faith alone”? Don’t you see how that might be a bit confusing to Catholics (to say the least) since Luther was excommunicated for that very thing? My, times have changed.

While the Lord would want that church to be in communion with his Catholic Church, he is saving people through the grace they receive through that “gay and goofy” church, you can count on it.
Wrong. Any grace they receive comes through the Catholic Church, despite their erros. The “gay and goofy” Episcopal Church supplies no salvific grace itself.

Language… interesting. The **doctrine **is neccessary for salvation? Sounds… heretical. I thought Christ was the only means of salvation…
Sorry if I worded that awkwardly. What I meant to say is the doctrine that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation

In these times of confusion, we need men and women who live heroically the call placed on every human, on every Christian - to love as Christ did. We need Catholics who are doing that more than we need Catholics vehememently defending doctrine; we need Catholics living their faith, not arguing it.
**Do you see some sort of dichotomy between defending Catholic beliefs and living one’s Catholic faith? **

Oh dear. Your language again: you have dozens of popes “on your side”, ranged up against Benedict XIV? The image is a compelling one…

What’s a “Traditional Catholic” anyway?
There’s a thread about this already, feel free to look it up. What I was specifically referring to when I used the term in this thread is Catholics who follow the whole body of Catholic teaching for the last 2,000 years, and don’t just ignore whatever was said before V2.

Nope. A Wesleyan or Calvinist, under certain “conditions”
can be saved. That’s a basic Catholic belief.
Yes, and they can be saved despite being a Wesleyan or a Calvinist. There is no salvation, though, in the Wesleyan or Calvinist churches themselves. All salvation comes through Christ, through the Catholic Church…that’s a basic Catholic belief.****

A big call. Who are you to set yourself up to make such a statement?

It makes a difference. You might need to have a closer look at what else is on those websites and how it lines up against both the letter of Catholic teaching and the spirit.
Huh? Not sure what you’re suggesting…are you saying that one doesn’t have to follow the “letter” as long as one follows the “spirit”? Are you following the “spirit” of Catholic teaching, Balance, or the “spirit of Vatican II”?
I’m a bit angry, Crusade Guy, and that may be coming through in this post. I’ve reviewed it and edited it but will post it as it stands. It’s not an attack on you - I don’t even know you, right? - but it’s definitely a strong comment on the things you are saying - particularly what I see as slander, and as uninformed allegations.
I’m sorry you’re angry, and yes, it is coming through in your post. I’ll pray for you.
I pray that you’ll find the time to make a closer, charitable study of Fr Cantalamessa’s sermons and writings and maybe come back and start a new thread when you’ve done so.
God bless.
Or how 'bout actually contributing something meaningful to this particular thread, Balance?

 

[John_Higgins]

Crusader Guy:

What I was specifically referring to when I used the term in this thread is Catholics who follow the whole body of Catholic teaching for the last 2,000 years, and don’t just ignore whatever was said before V2.

Okay, but quite a few feel free to ignore what was said in Vatican II and after.

John

 

[Crusade_Guy]

While I was crafting this response, CG edited his response which said the Catechism of Trent, thus taking the edge off my Aha! moment. Although I’m not surprised, I expected he wouldn’t have any Catechism after 1907 or so.

From the introduction to the 1997 edition of the CCC:

Don’t need to. Seems to me it’s a “sure and authentic reference text”. Good enough for me.

John

John Higgins, do you have any catechism before 1994 (Dutch catechisms don’t count! )? It’s just that when discussing issues like these, I prefer using a catechism with simple definitions and clear distinctions.

 

[Crusade_Guy]

Okay, but quite a few feel free to ignore what was said in Vatican II and after.

John

Vatican II statements were so ambiguous, dubious, confusing, and vague, they have to be interpreted in the light of previous Church teaching in order to be understood.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

John Higgins, do you have any catechism before 1994 (Dutch catechisms don’t count! )? It’s just that when discussing issues like these, I prefer using a catechism with simple definitions and clear distinctions.

But the CCC clarifies and makes clearer what went before it, does it not? Unless one subscibes to the notion that it contradicts what went before it? Can the magisterium not do that, clarify and refine?

 

[Crusade_Guy]

Yes, Lefebvre was indeed excommunicated by the Vatican, so I don’t understand why you had to employ subtle sarcasm by placing double quotes on the word excommunication, considering that the Vatican’s action was legitimately done in accordance with Canon Law.

However I would like to see your citations with regards your statement that the world is allegedly full of heretical bishops and priests. Sheer generalization and haphazard exaggerations propagated by schismatic and sedevacantist websites doesn’t help the cause of traditionalism and gives a bad name to real, sincere traditionalists who are in union with the Church.

Let’s please not turn this into another SSPX thread, RobedWith. If you’re interested, there are plenty of other threads where posters have explained why the SSPX isn’t excommunicated. People who attend Society chapels ARE real, are sincere, and are in union with the Catholic Church.

 

[Crusade_Guy]

But the CCC clarifies and makes clearer what went before it, does it not? Unless one subscibes to the notion that it contradicts what went before it? Can the magisterium not do that, clarify and refine?

JKirkLVNV, I’m not an expert on the nuanced definitions of the various levels of magisterium–not all of which are infallible–but I do know, and even you should agree, that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not an infallible document. Even if it contains no positive error, it words things in a confusing way. For example, the quote Balance gave about how God uses non-Catholics sects as a “means of salvation.” Well, this is not technically incorrect if understood properly in the context of prior Church teaching but it is so dubious that it can easily interpreted as meaning that the non-Catholics religions themselves are means of salvation. I’m sure you will agree with my previous statement that a non-Catholic is saved despite their religion not because of it and that they are saved through Jesus Christ, through the Catholic Church. (By the way, the Church never teaches that this is common or even likely, but only that it is possible). I disagree that the 1994 Catechism always clarifies things. In many cases, I believe, it reiterates pre-Vatican II Church teaching (since the CCC is “the ripest fruit of the conciliar teaching” according to JPII) but in a confusing, misleading way. For example, the simple doctrine that the Mystical Body of Christ, that is, the Church of Christ, IS the Catholic Church. Vatican II (and therefore the new catechism) state that it “subsists” in the Catholic Church. Now this is not technically wrong because, well, the Church of Christ does subsist in the Catholic Church…but obviously it subsists in it because they are one and the same. The Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church. “Subsists” can easily give the impression that the Church of Christ exists outside of the Catholic Church (rather like the Anglican branch theory or the Protestant idea of what the church is) but that it merely exists in all its “fullness” within Catholicism. This interpretation, however, would be an error.

 

[Balance]

What I said:

It makes a difference. You might need to have a closer look at what else is on those websites and how it lines up against both the letter of Catholic teaching and the spirit.

What CG said:

Huh? Not sure what you’re suggesting…are you saying that one doesn’t have to follow the “letter” as long as one follows the “spirit”? Are you following the “spirit” of Catholic teaching, Balance, or the “spirit of Vatican II”?

Me again:
You’re misunderstanding me - and it seems like a gleeful misunderstanding, and a cheap shot!
I’ll say the same thing in a different way.
Some people (I’m talking about an extreme here) set themselves up as being entirely (and fiercely) orthodox - and the thing is, on the face of it, they are. They’re following the letter of Catholic teaching. The thing is, they seem to leave out a whole lot of the spirit of it. So what’s “the spirit of Catholic teaching”? Christ himself, who is love, and truth, and kindness, and patience, and gentleness. In my experience, (extensive experience with Catholics of many different “stripes”, in many different settings, in many different towns and cities in three different countries) many of the people who proudly label themselves “orthodox” are disturbingly unchristlike. They do all the right things but there’s something missing in their eyes. They speak to me quite clearly about devotional practices, but less so about Christ. Why is that? Is it just me?

And I don’t know if I’ve ever used the phrase “Spirit of vatican II” in my life. Like you, I’m not sure what that means exactly.

The letter and the spirit; love and truth. That’s basic Catholic teaching.

CG again:

Or how 'bout actually contributing something meaningful to this particular thread, Balance?

Me:

Can anyone else comment on my posts? I’m curious to know whether I did contribute anything meaningful - I thought I did.

 

[Crusade_Guy]

Okay, but quite a few feel free to ignore what was said in Vatican II and after.

John

Are you implying that Vatican II taught something that the Church never taught previously? Like what?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JKirkLVNV, I’m not an expert on the nuanced definitions of the various levels of magisterium–not all of which are infallible–but I do know, and even you should agree, that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not an infallible document. Even if it contains no positive error, it words things in a confusing way. For example, the quote Balance gave about how God uses non-Catholics sects as a “means of salvation.” Well, this is not technically incorrect if understood properly in the context of prior Church teaching but it is so dubious that it can easily interpreted as meaning that the non-Catholics religions themselves are means of salvation. I’m sure you will agree with my previous statement that a non-Catholic is saved despite their religion not because of it and that they are saved through Jesus Christ, through the Catholic Church. (By the way, the Church never teaches that this is common or even likely, but only that it is possible).

I think a non-Catholic (but Christian) sects have what the CCC says that they have: elements of sanctifying grace. I believe that those things are DERIVED from the Catholic Church and that they belong to Her, however. Only in that sense can those sects be means to salvation (in which case it truly is the Catholic Church whereby they are saved. I believe that the Catholic Church is utterly necessary for salvation). And I believe that the CCC is what the Servant of God John Paul II said that it was, “a sure norm for teaching the faith,” which he promulgated for the whole of the Church in his role and office as Successor of Saint Peter. The faithful cannot be mislead by learning their faith from the CCC.

I don’t think anything in the CCC denies what went before it (and I very seriously doubt that any of the people who post on these fora are the types of liberal, western Catholics who would ignore everything that happend before the Second Vatican Council), but I do think it clarifies and refines the teaching.

 

[Crusade_Guy]

What I said:

It makes a difference. You might need to have a closer look at what else is on those websites and how it lines up against both the letter of Catholic teaching and the spirit.

What CG said:

Huh? Not sure what you’re suggesting…are you saying that one doesn’t have to follow the “letter” as long as one follows the “spirit”? Are you following the “spirit” of Catholic teaching, Balance, or the “spirit of Vatican II”?

Me again:
You’re misunderstanding me - and it seems like a gleeful misunderstanding, and a cheap shot!
I’ll say the same thing in a different way.
Some people (I’m talking about an extreme here) set themselves up as being entirely (and fiercely) orthodox - and the thing is, on the face of it, they are. They’re following the letter of Catholic teaching. The thing is, they seem to leave out a whole lot of the spirit of it. So what’s “the spirit of Catholic teaching”? Christ himself, who is love, and truth, and kindness, and patience, and gentleness. In my experience, (extensive experience with Catholics of many different “stripes”, in many different settings, in many different towns and cities in three different countries) many of the people who proudly label themselves “orthodox” are disturbingly unchristlike. They do all the right things but there’s something missing in their eyes. They speak to me quite clearly about devotional practices, but less so about Christ. Why is that? Is it just me?
Balance, do you even know me? No, you don’t. Are you assuming because of my thread about Cantalamessa that I never speak about Christ? How presumtuous of you. All of your posts in this thread seem rather unchristlike to me.

 

[Balance]

I’m not really sure I want to continue with this discussion. I find some of Crusade Guy’s posts problematic and confusing…

I’d like to look at more of his replies to my earlier posts but I’ll just have a go at a couple more:

My post:
Another label, happily slapped out there. “Modernist bishops” -I wonder if would you call them that to their face, or do you just do it here behind their back?

Crusade Guy’s post:
Actually I would, as a matter of fact! This is a public forum anyway. How is it behind anyone’s back?

Me:
To what end would you call them a Modernist to their face? What would be the outcome you’d be hoping for? The fruit?
This is hardly a “public forum” - we all use nicknames! Whether you posted a comment here or wrote a letter to your newspaper, or waved a placard outside a Bishop’s church or house, it’s still “behind their back.”

My post:
“Some problematic stuff” - so, any specifics?
CG’s post:
Can you read the articles I posted?

Me:
Can you quote me any specific “problematic stuff”?

My post:
Is it? You’re telling the story. Is it a sin? If so, why? What do you base that on?
CG’s post:
I know for a fact that it used to be considered a sin. Why the change?

Me:
It used to be considered a sin to believe the Earth moved around the sun - now it’s not. Why the change?

Is it perhaps because we needed to grow up?

 

[Balance]

Read my post again:

Some people (I’m talking about an extreme here) set themselves up as being entirely (and fiercely) orthodox - and the thing is, on the face of it, they are. They’re following the letter of Catholic teaching. The thing is, they seem to leave out a whole lot of the spirit of it. So what’s “the spirit of Catholic teaching”? Christ himself, who is love, and truth, and kindness, and patience, and gentleness. In my experience, (extensive experience with Catholics of many different “stripes”, in many different settings, in many different towns and cities in three different countries) many of the people who proudly label themselves “orthodox” are disturbingly unchristlike. They do all the right things but there’s something missing in their eyes. They speak to me quite clearly about devotional practices, but less so about Christ. Why is that? Is it just me?

You said:
Balance, do you even know me? No, you don’t. Are you assuming because of my thread about Cantalamessa that I never speak about Christ? How presumtuous of you. All of your posts in this thread seem rather unchristlike to me.

Me:
No, I don’t.

I said “Some people (I’m talking about an extreme…)”. If that’s unclear, and seems to be an assumption about you, I’m sorry. However, if the cap fits, if you are, in fact, in that “extreme” - and by the content of some of your posts, I wonder if you’re in some place that’s not entirely, truly, Catholic - wear it.

By “speaking to me about Christ” I don’t mean verbal speaking. I mean that “who a person is speaks so loudly I can’t hear what they’re saying.” Many Catholics I’ve encountered - and, in fact, I’m just reminded (!), I’ve been like this myself, before I was humbled, and forgiven, and embraced by Christ; and still am, regrettably, at times - were loudly “orthodox” but just as loudly sarcastic, uncharitable and surly - even while they made deep genuflections or conspicuously fingered their rosaries.
I hope your life does speak of Christ - as I hope mine does. What I’m saying is, I believe you’ve deliberately slandered Fr Cantalamessa, in this “public forum,” while all the while giving the impression that you’re a faithful Catholic. That’s all I’m talking about - notice I haven’t talked about the tone of your posts - I know that what can seem, on a message board, unChristlike in tone is often not in fact. I’ll accept that I might have been uncharitable myself, even “snooty” to use your word, but I haven’t gone out to paint a priest, the preacher to the Pope no less, as a heretic.

I don’t think you came in here to seek information, as you claim, but to make a point.

 

[Genesis315]

The notion of “subsists” comes from the traditional teaching on the soul of the Church which is outside the body of the Church and which also affords men salvation:

From the Catechism of St. Pius X (1910):
ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM

29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.

From an 1846 Doctrinal Catechism by Fr. Stephen Keenan:
biblelight.net/keenan.htm

Q. Do Catholics charge all that are apparently out of their communion with the crimes of heresy and schism, and consequently exclude them from salvation

A. No; all baptized children who die before they sin *mortally*, and before they embrace and believe error, are members of the true Church. Again, all those sincere people belong to the soul of the Church, who, being baptized, and believing the great fundamental truths of Christianity, and who are prevented from believing it in all its details, not by carelessness, nor temporal interest, nor human respect, nor the spirit of obstinacy, nor by malice, but simply because they never doubted, and never had sufficient means of knowing the truth, which they would embrace at once, and with gladness, could they only discover it,*—*all these, we say, belong to the soul of the Church, and will be saved, if they lead good lives and do not violate God's law.
Q. *What do you mean by the soul of the Church?
*A. All those belong to the body of the Church who are *openly* professing Catholics; to the soul of the Church belong all such as I have above described, who, being baptized, and believing the fundamental truths of religion, are living separate from the body of the Church, not by any fault of their own, but purely by not having sufficient means to lead them into a knowledge of the whole truth.