The Church of Christ "Is" the Catholic Church vs. The Church of Christ "Subsists" in the Catholic Church

[Inhimthroughher]

Do these men and women include:

Bonaventure
John Duns Scotus
Anthony of Padua
Leonard of Port Maurice
Lawrence of Brindisi
Alphonse Ligoouri
Francis de Sales
Catherine of Siena
Teresa of Avila
John of the Cross
Francisco of Osuna
John Henry Newman
Giovanni Montini
Joseph Ratzinger?

None of them are Thomists nor have they ever taught error.

No one has taken away anything from Thomas’ genius, especially his colleague Bonaventure would not deny his genius; but neither would Thomas deny Bonaventure’s.

Second, the Canon of 1917 has been abrogated… Aquinas is no longer required as long as one studies his key points on certain areas of theology along with the other doctors and masters of the Church. In other words, the approach is no longer exclusively Aquinas.

There is a reason why the Canon of 1917 was dropped. It was not followed by anyone except diocesan clergy and Dominicans. Every major religious order used their own doctors to teach systematic theology. Redepmtorists used Ligouri and Aquinas. Franciscans used Bonaventure, Lawrence, Leonard, Anthony and Aquinas. Augustinians used Augustine and Aquinas.

Aquinas was like the Shakespeare of theology. Just as you don’t study English literature without exposure to Shakespeare, you don’t study theology without exposure to Aquinas. However, a course in Shakespeare and exposure to Shakespeare are not the same thing. This is what happened with Aquinas between 1917 and 1983. Pope Benedict himself did not study Aquinas. Given a choice to study him, Augustine and Bonaventure, he chose Augustine and Bonaventure. As he said, after his exposure to Aquinas, he did not agree with his systems. He felt that Augustine’s and Bonaventure’s systems made more sense. This was while the Code of 1917 was still in effect, which goes to show how many exceptions to that code were being handed out. In the end, if you give out so many exceptions, then why have the code at all? You simply admit that there are many other good doctors of theology in Catholic history that can take you to the same place as Aquinas.

The Church has never said that she accepts everything that Aquinas said. She has said that he is the bright star of Catholic theology. In fact, the Eastern Catholics don’t study Aquinas at all. He’s not even on their map. Yet they have very good theologians.

We can’t dismiss him as insignificant. That would be like dismissing Shakespeare in literature. Nor do we need to make him the only source of knowledge. That’s too rigid. We may as well burn what every other doctor has written on the same subjects as Aquinas.

As good as Aquinas writes about Mystical Theology, he can’t hold a candle to Teresa of Avila. As good as he writes on Christian Spirituality, he can’t hold a candle to St. Francis de Sales or to St. Anthony of Padua on Sacred Scripture.

There is a tendency in Traddom to attribute to Aquinas omniscience. The Church has never done that. She has always respected and honored his contribution as essential, but not the only writing of value. All that we’re trying to say here is that this concept comes from a theology of history, which is not Thomist. Therefore, Thomist language and systems won’t help in understanding it. One has to use the language and system of those who developed it. Aquinas probably never heard of the idea, for all we know. It certainly does not contradict him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

The quotes I gave speak for themselves and the purpose of these quotes from these encyclicals are to protect against this line of thought of Thomas being just another Doctor or only being honored. If one reads the encyclicals and the quotes one must admit the importance of Thomas over the others you have mentioned.

 

[JReducation]

The point in writing all of that was to show that while there are many Doctors in the Church and different Schools of Thought, The School of Thomas is the one the Church has adopted. He is not just one among many but the one the Church has chosen as her own.

Because She has adopted his philosophy and his language- back to the main point of the thread- to use subsist in this way is different and is a break with tradition.

I do not begrudge you for looking at others schools but other schools are more likely to end in error–again listed in the quotes I gave.

also-
John XXII “ He (Aquinas) enlightened the Church more than all the other Doctors together; a man can derive more profit from his books in one year than a lifetime spent in pondering the philosophy of others.”

Many try and set up a dichotomy between Augustine and Thomas yet they don’t really disagree. If you look at he earlier quote you will see even the Augustinians were required to study Thomas It is often said that Thomas systematized Augustine.

This is only true in as much as everyone who studies English Lit has to study Shakespeare. Religious who had their own masters were never bound to have exclusive Thomistic studies. That’s why the law was dropped in 1983. Too many exceptions to keep it in the books. You keep wanting to enforce a law that has not existed for 30 years and which had so many exceptions long before that, that we don’t actually know to how many people it actually applied.

This is not a break with tradition. These other thinkers are also part of tradition.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Inhimthroughher]

Here when you talk about the Church you are talking about the Latin Rite, am I correct?

The Pope’s do not make that distinction

 

[Inhimthroughher]

This is only true in as much as everyone who studies English Lit has to study Shakespeare. Religious who had their own masters were never bound to have exclusive Thomistic studies. That’s why the law was dropped in 1983. Too many exceptions to keep it in the books. You keep wanting to enforce a law that has not existed for 30 years and which had so many exceptions long before that, that we don’t actually know to how many people it actually applied.

This is not a break with tradition. These other thinkers are also part of tradition.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

The point of mentioning the old code is to once again show his importance. This has never been done for any other Doctor of the Church, neither have any of the other things mentioned. I am showing ways that the Church distinguishes Thomas and his teachings above all other Dr’s. This is important in going back to the use of the word subsists.

 

[JReducation]

The quotes I gave speak for themselves and the purpose of these quotes from these encyclicals are to protect against this line of thought of Thomas being just another Doctor or only being honored. If one reads the encyclicals and the quotes one must admit the importance of Thomas over the others you have mentioned.

You’re interpreting my statement as minimizing Thomas. I’m doing the opposite. You’re minimizing everyone else and I’m trying to show you that the Church has great respect for these other theological masters and has always had it.

In 1983, she realized that Thomas was not being taught as the sole Catholic theologian, because the Church had given indults to everyone who asked for it. The Church abrogated the law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

The quotes I gave speak for themselves and the purpose of these quotes from these encyclicals are to protect against this line of thought of Thomas being just another Doctor or only being honored. If one reads the encyclicals and the quotes one must admit the importance of Thomas over the others you have mentioned.

St. Augustine, Doctor Gratiae (Doctor of Grace).
St. Anselm, Doctor Magnificus (Magnificent Doctor)
St. Bonaventure, Doctor Seraphicus (Seraphic Doctor)
St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor Mellifluus (Mellifluous Doctor)
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor Zelantissimus (Doctor Most Zealous)
St. Francis de Sales, Doctor Caritatis (Doctor of Charity)
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Doctor Incarnationis (Doctor of the Incarnation)*
St. John of the Cross, Doctor Mysticus (Mystic Doctor)
St. Albertus Magnus, Doctor Universalis (Universal Doctor)
St. Anthony of Padua and Lisbon, Doctor Evangelicus (Evangelizing Doctor)
St. Lawrence of Brindisi, Doctor Apostolicus (Apostolic Doctor)
St. Thérèse de Lisieux, Doctor Amoris (Doctor of Love)

I wouldn’t say St. Thomas “outranks” any of these fine folks.

By saying “there’s other folks to learn from” we’re not saying Thomas is terrible, we’re saying there’s other people we can learn from.

 

[Inhimthroughher]

You’re interpreting my statement as minimizing Thomas. I’m doing the opposite. You’re minimizing everyone else and I’m trying to show you that the Church has great respect for these other theological masters and has always had it.

In 1983, she realized that Thomas was not being taught as the sole Catholic theologian, because the Church had given indults to everyone who asked for it. The Church abrogated the law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Yes, the Church has respect for other lines of theologians. Yet, the Church has always preferred Thomas and has used his language. Using subsist in a different way that it had been used by the man who’s language the Church has been using for a long time is a break with tradition and leads to great confusion.

 

[Cristiano]

The Pope’s do not make that distinction

So are you saying that the Eastern Catholic Churches adopted the School of Thomas and chosen it as their own and not just as one among others?

 

[Melchior_1]

Yes, the Church has respect for other lines of theologians. Yet, the Church has always preferred Thomas and has used his language. Using subsist in a different way that it had been used by the man who’s language the Church has been using for a long time is a break with tradition and leads to great confusion.

Unless the “break from tradition” was the use of Thomism to the exclusion of all other schools of thought.

 

[Inhimthroughher]

St. Augustine, Doctor Gratiae (Doctor of Grace).
St. Anselm, Doctor Magnificus (Magnificent Doctor)
St. Bonaventure, Doctor Seraphicus (Seraphic Doctor)
St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor Mellifluus (Mellifluous Doctor)
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor Zelantissimus (Doctor Most Zealous)
St. Francis de Sales, Doctor Caritatis (Doctor of Charity)
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Doctor Incarnationis (Doctor of the Incarnation)*
St. John of the Cross, Doctor Mysticus (Mystic Doctor)
St. Albertus Magnus, Doctor Universalis (Universal Doctor)
St. Anthony of Padua and Lisbon, Doctor Evangelicus (Evangelizing Doctor)
St. Lawrence of Brindisi, Doctor Apostolicus (Apostolic Doctor)
St. Thérèse de Lisieux, Doctor Amoris (Doctor of Love)

I wouldn’t say St. Thomas “outranks” any of these fine folks.

By saying “there’s other folks to learn from” we’re not saying Thomas is terrible, we’re saying there’s other people we can learn from.

You may not but the Church has never singled any of them out or spoken of them the way She has Thomas. No one is saying it is only Thomas but the Church has said he is preeminent. Read the quotes, read the encyclicals and then show me the Church ever speaking of any of those you mentioned in the same way She has of Thomas.

again

Quotes John XXII “ He (Aquinas) enlightened the Church more than all the other Doctors together; a man can derive more profit from his books in one year than a lifetime spent in pondering the philosophy of others.”

Pius X
“The principles of philosophy laid down by St. Thomas Aquinas are to be religiously and unavoidably observed, because they are the means of acquiring such a knowledge of creation as is the most congruent with the faith.”
“The principles of St. Thomas, considered generally and as a whole, contain nothing but what the most eminent Doctors have discovered after much reflection…in regard to the particular reasons determining human knowledge , the nature of God and creation the moral order and ultimate end to be pursued.”

Humani Generis

31-Church demands Thomism, singularly pre-eminant.
32 -defends Thomism against those who attack it calling it “honored”

 

[Inhimthroughher]

So are you saying that the Eastern Catholic Churches adopted the School of Thomas and chosen it as their own and not just as one among others?

I am quoting Pope’s and Encyclicals, please don’t try and put words in my mouth.

I look forward to continuing this discussion but must leave for a few hours.

God bless

 

[TrueLight]

Subsists is not an experiment. It is well within Catholic tradition. It was first used by St. Bonaventure in writing his work on Historical Theology. The point is rather complex, but very logical.

Christ founds the Church. During its early years it’s simply known as The Church. Gradually, it comes to be known as the Christian Church. The Catholic Church with an upper case C is a much later title that came out of the Apostles Creed: one, holy catholic and apostolic.

Already, by the time of Bonaventure, there were heresies that claimed that the Catholic Church was the Church of Constantine and not the Christian Church founded by Christ.

The term subsists has a very definitive meaning in philosophy. If something subsists in something else, it means that the thing that followed, grew out of that first seed. It is not new. On the contrary. It is the fruit of that seed. It is inseparable, because the essence of the seed remains alive in the fruit. Therefore, there can be no other.

In this case, the Christian Church and the Catholic Church are not two different Churches. The Christian Church is very much alive in the Catholic Church, because that which we have come to know as the Catholic Church is really the natural development of the Christian Church. Therefore, the Christian Church subsists in the Catholic Church. By extension, since the fullness of truth is found only in the Christian Church, then this Truth subsists in the Catholic Church.

Bonaventure compared it to the acorn and the tree. The tree is not separate from the acorn. It already existed; but it was not visible. It was always there, inside the acorn. Does the acorn disappear when the tree grows? Not at all. The acorn subsists in the tree. It is essential to the tree. The tree is not new. It is just new to our senses, because we couldn’t see it in the acorn.

So too, throughout history, Christ’s Church breaks open like a seed and out of that comes forth the Church that we see today. Even though it may look different through organic development and other changes, it is the same Church. The Christian Church has never ceased to exist, but if you’re going looking for it, you won’t find it anywhere else, except in the Catholic Church. Just like you won’t find that acorn anywhere else, just at the root of that tree.

We can find elements of the Christian Church in other Christian communities and even in some non Christian communities, because like the leaves of a tree are carried off by the breeze, truths are also dispersed by the Spirit of God with the purpose of drawing all men back to the source, which is the Christian Church that can only be found in its fullness in Catholicism.

Catholicism is a divine activity that takes place within history through very natural historical events and very real persons. Therefore, the Catholic Church is not the Church of Constantine. It is a contemporary expression of the Christian Church, not a new church. The fact that there was a Constantine and the fact that the Church became the state religion of the empire are historical events that God uses to help his Church grow. Not historical events that actually give life to some new church as the heretics alleged.

To understand this document, one must understand sacred tradition and one must understand history. There was always a challenge that Catholicism was a created church or man made as many heretics taught their students and this was passed from generation to generation for hundreds of years. Today, many non Catholic Christians believe that the Catholic Church is man made. It’s extremely important to pull out the language of Historical Theology to show that the Catholic Church is merely the tree that grew out of the seed that Christ planted. Therefore, that Church which Christ founded remains very much alive in the Catholic Church, with a different exterior look.

If one understands Bonaventure’s Theology of History, subsists is a very beautiful concept, because it shows that the Church is not static. It is dynamic. God is always at work within her. He is always perfecting her within history and yet she is already perfect in eternity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

This is the best explanation I’ve read of the term “subsist”. Thanks!

The only question I have is in your opinion, do you think the Bishops, priests and Religious, understand and agree with the term subsist you described it? Never mind the laity.

If yes, then great. If no…well that is why there is confusion.

 

[Lormar]

Subsists is not an experiment. It is well within Catholic tradition. It was first used by St. Bonaventure in writing his work on Historical Theology. The point is rather complex, but very logical.

Christ founds the Church. During its early years it’s simply known as The Church. Gradually, it comes to be known as the Christian Church. The Catholic Church with an upper case C is a much later title that came out of the Apostles Creed: one, holy catholic and apostolic.

Already, by the time of Bonaventure, there were heresies that claimed that the Catholic Church was the Church of Constantine and not the Christian Church founded by Christ.

The term subsists has a very definitive meaning in philosophy. If something subsists in something else, it means that the thing that followed, grew out of that first seed. It is not new. On the contrary. It is the fruit of that seed. It is inseparable, because the essence of the seed remains alive in the fruit. Therefore, there can be no other.

In this case, the Christian Church and the Catholic Church are not two different Churches. The Christian Church is very much alive in the Catholic Church, because that which we have come to know as the Catholic Church is really the natural development of the Christian Church. Therefore, the Christian Church subsists in the Catholic Church. By extension, since the fullness of truth is found only in the Christian Church, then this Truth subsists in the Catholic Church.

Bonaventure compared it to the acorn and the tree. The tree is not separate from the acorn. It already existed; but it was not visible. It was always there, inside the acorn. Does the acorn disappear when the tree grows? Not at all. The acorn subsists in the tree. It is essential to the tree. The tree is not new. It is just new to our senses, because we couldn’t see it in the acorn.

So too, throughout history, Christ’s Church breaks open like a seed and out of that comes forth the Church that we see today. Even though it may look different through organic development and other changes, it is the same Church. The Christian Church has never ceased to exist, but if you’re going looking for it, you won’t find it anywhere else, except in the Catholic Church. Just like you won’t find that acorn anywhere else, just at the root of that tree.

We can find elements of the Christian Church in other Christian communities and even in some non Christian communities, because like the leaves of a tree are carried off by the breeze, truths are also dispersed by the Spirit of God with the purpose of drawing all men back to the source, which is the Christian Church that can only be found in its fullness in Catholicism.

Catholicism is a divine activity that takes place within history through very natural historical events and very real persons. Therefore, the Catholic Church is not the Church of Constantine. It is a contemporary expression of the Christian Church, not a new church. The fact that there was a Constantine and the fact that the Church became the state religion of the empire are historical events that God uses to help his Church grow. Not historical events that actually give life to some new church as the heretics alleged.

To understand this document, one must understand sacred tradition and one must understand history. There was always a challenge that Catholicism was a created church or man made as many heretics taught their students and this was passed from generation to generation for hundreds of years. Today, many non Catholic Christians believe that the Catholic Church is man made. It’s extremely important to pull out the language of Historical Theology to show that the Catholic Church is merely the tree that grew out of the seed that Christ planted. Therefore, that Church which Christ founded remains very much alive in the Catholic Church, with a different exterior look.

If one understands Bonaventure’s Theology of History, subsists is a very beautiful concept, because it shows that the Church is not static. It is dynamic. God is always at work within her. He is always perfecting her within history and yet she is already perfect in eternity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Brother Jay, this was one of the last stumbling blocks I had. God reward you for helping me to overcome it today!

I was hoping that you had weighed in with an explanation when I saw the topic!

 

[Cristiano]

I am quoting Pope’s and Encyclicals, please don’t try and put words in my mouth.

I look forward to continuing this discussion but must leave for a few hours.

God bless

I was addressing your specific statements. In your original post that I addressed you did not quote any pope, at least you did not do it in an explicit or evident manner. I am asking that because in “Fides and Ratio” when discussing the different stances on philosophy Bl. JPII wrote:
“…A second stance adopted by philosophy is often designated as Christian philosophy. In itself, the term is valid, but it should not be misunderstood: it in no way intends to suggest that there is an official philosophy of the Church, since the faith as such is not a philosophy…”

Bl. JPII also added:
“…It should be clear in the light of these reflections why the Magisterium has repeatedly acclaimed the merits of Saint Thomas’ thought and made him the guide and model for theological studies. This has not been in order to take a position on properly philosophical questions nor to demand adherence to particular theses. The Magisterium’s intention has always been to show how Saint Thomas is an authentic model for all who seek the truth…”

I also thought that Thomism was not the main leading school for a while until in 1879 Pope Leo XIII wrote Aeterni Patris and made a wonderful case for Thomism.
Please be aware that I am not trying to detract from St. Thomas, I am simply trying to say that we should not put him where he is not.

 

[ready]

Thanks, everybody, for your excellent feedback! Now I have another question. How could saying the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church contradict Tradition if St. Bonaventure has taught this without it being condemned by the Church as heresy? Is saying the Chruch of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church a contradiction of what other Popes have said? Why do some people feel this way? Thanks in advance for your help!

 

[Inhimthroughher]

I was addressing your specific statements. In your original post that I addressed you did not quote any pope, at least you did not do it in an explicit or evident manner. I am asking that because in “Fides and Ratio” when discussing the different stances on philosophy Bl. JPII wrote:
“…A second stance adopted by philosophy is often designated as Christian philosophy. In itself, the term is valid, but it should not be misunderstood: it in no way intends to suggest that there is an official philosophy of the Church, since the faith as such is not a philosophy…”

Bl. JPII also added:
“…It should be clear in the light of these reflections why the Magisterium has repeatedly acclaimed the merits of Saint Thomas’ thought and made him the guide and model for theological studies. This has not been in order to take a position on properly philosophical questions nor to demand adherence to particular theses. The Magisterium’s intention has always been to show how Saint Thomas is an authentic model for all who seek the truth…”

I also thought that Thomism was not the main leading school for a while until in 1879 Pope Leo XIII wrote Aeterni Patris and made a wonderful case for Thomism.
Please be aware that I am not trying to detract from St. Thomas, I am simply trying to say that we should not put him where he is not.

You are right that 1st quote from JPII is certainly hard to square with all of the previous quotes

Studiorum Ducem
Pope Pius XI
11-“We consider that Thomas should be called not only the Angelic, but also the common or Universal Doctor of the Church; for the Church has adopted his Philosophy as Her own, as innumerable documents of every kind attest.”

The language of Thomas is used by the Church. It is the very way we explain everything from the soul to the Confection of the Eucharist- Transubstantiation

 

[Inhimthroughher]

Thanks, everybody, for your excellent feedback! Now I have another question. How could saying the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church contradict Tradition if St. Bonaventure has taught this without it being condemned by the Church as heresy? Is saying the Chruch of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church a contradiction of what other Popes have said? Why do some people feel this way? Thanks in advance for your help!

For the same reasons I have been stating. Subsist is being used in a way that the Church has not used it before. And it would make it appear that The Church of Christ and The Catholic Church are two separate things. This cannot be and this is why the use of subsist and other inexact language from VII has caused so many problems.

 

[ready]

For the same reasons I have been stating. Subsist is being used in a way that the Church has not used it before. And it would make it appear that The Church of Christ and The Catholic Church are two separate things. This cannot be and this is why the use of subsist and other inexact language from VII has caused so many problems.

Yes, I understand that when we use a word differently it can cause confusion and problems. Thanks for the clarification, Inhimthrough her!

 

[Cristiano]

…The language of Thomas is used by the Church…

Do you know why? The guy is a freaking genius! Any time I read something of his I feel like the village idiot.

 

[Andre1000]

Would “My father subsists in me” be a better analogy in understanding the concept of subsisting?

No, because the father is not the son, but the older Councils said Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church.
Also a father can have many sons, so the Church of Christ could subsists in many differed Churches.