TRAD FOLK: LUMEN GENTIUM "subsistit in" issue FORCEFULLY clarified on JULY 10

[rwoehmke]

Zenit: "He [Cardinal Ratzinger] explained that Vatican II did not use Pius XII’s expression, according to which “the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Jesus Christ.” Instead, it preferred the expression “The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church ruled by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him,” because, he said, it wished to affirm “that the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church.” cadeio.org/Oct-9-2000.html

Let’s hope that Pope Benedict has changed his view since becoming Pope.

God bless Pope Benedict.

Wouldn’t they have to rewrite the CCC and rehabilitate Fr. Feeny if Benedict changes his view?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Wouldn’t they have to rewrite the CCC and rehabilitate Fr. Feeny if Benedict changes his view?

Read my other post. Cardinal Ratzinger did not say he held to that error. He just said that Vatican II taught the error.

If he correct the error of Vatican II then they may need to re-write the new Catechism if it teaches the same error.

The case of Fr. Feeney does not really pertain to this issue. And Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated for any doctrinal teaching, but for not showing up at Rome to defend himself. The excommunication was lifted by his simply reciting a creed of the Church. He chose to recite the athanasian Creed that says, in part “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”

The “subsists” issue deals with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the church of Christ, it is not larger than the Catholic Church as Vatican II taught (according to Cardinal Ratzinger). Heretical sects, such as the thousands of differing forms of Protestism, as well as schismatic groups, such as the Eastern Orthodox, are not part of the Church. They are separated from the Church.

It is possible for a member of a heretical sect, or a schismatic group, to be united to the soul of the Catholic Church and thus attain salvation, but that does not make their false “church” part of the true Church.

A great encyclical to read is Satis Cognitum by Pope Leo XIII. If you are interested, here is a link: papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13satis.htm

 

[PepeRoni]

Read my other post. Cardinal Ratzinger did not say he held to that error. He just said that Vatican II taught the error.

If he correct the error of Vatican II then they may need to re-write the new Catechism if it teaches the same error.

The case of Fr. Feeney does not really pertain to this issue. And Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated for any doctrinal teaching, but for not showing up at Rome to defend himself. The excommunication was lifted by his simply reciting a creed of the Church. He chose to recite the athanasian Creed that says, in part “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”

The “subsists” issue deals with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the church of Christ, it is not larger than the Catholic Church as Vatican II taught (according to Cardinal Ratzinger). Heretical sects, such as the thousands of differing forms of Protestism, as well as schismatic groups, such as the Eastern Orthodox, are not part of the Church. They are separated from the Church.

It is possible for a member of a heretical sect, or a schismatic group, to be united to the soul of the Catholic Church and thus attain salvation, but that does not make their false “church” part of the true Church.

A great encyclical to read is Satis Cognitum by Pope Leo XIII. If you are interested, here is a link: papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13satis.htm

He also said something (nearly exact translation, wish I knew where I read it)

“THey [Protestant Churches] are not churches in the proper sense”

I think the quote was used to show how evil and “insensitive” (the heresy of the late 20th and 21st centuries) the new Pope was and would be.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I want to correct something I wrote above. Contrary to what I implied, Cardinal Ratzinger did not say that he believed that the Church of Christ is larger than the Catholic Church. What he said is that this is the reason the Vatican II fathers used that term. In other words, according to Cardinal Ratzinger, the intent of Vatican II was to teach that the Church of Christ is a larger entity than the Catholic Church.

Let’s read the quote again.

Zenit: "He [Cardinal Ratzinger] explained that Vatican II did not use Pius XII’s expression, according to which “the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Jesus Christ.” Instead, it [Vatican II] preferred the expression “The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church ruled by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him,” because, he said, it [Vatican II] wished to affirm "that the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church."

I bet you won’t see the Holy Father saying VII erred. He may issue a clarification that illuminates and explains, but he won’t say that it erred.

 

[robert_ambrose]

jesus said i will build A church (singular ) and the gates of hell etc. etc.

 

[AveVerumCorpus]

It seems as though Benedict is moving in a direction to CLARIFY all of the errors that have been voiced in recent years. I am so tired of hearing people say that this pope is “changing” Church teaching. Thank the heavens that there is a brave man sitting in the chair of Peter. Speaking of Protestants, I have heard talk from an Anglican bishop friend of mine that Benedict is having some discussions regarding the catholicity of the Anglican Communion… something about the possibility of recognizing certain ordinations, which would make it possible that SOME parts of the Anglican Communion are catholic but schismatic. Very interesting.

 

[AveVerumCorpus]

I want to correct something I wrote above. Contrary to what I implied, Cardinal Ratzinger did not say that he believed that the Church of Christ is larger than the Catholic Church. What he said is that this is the reason the Vatican II fathers used that term. In other words, according to Cardinal Ratzinger, the intent of Vatican II was to teach that the Church of Christ is a larger entity than the Catholic Church.

Let’s read the quote again.

Zenit: "He [Cardinal Ratzinger] explained that Vatican II did not use Pius XII’s expression, according to which “the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Jesus Christ.” Instead, it [Vatican II] preferred the expression “The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church ruled by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him,” because, he said, it [Vatican II] wished to affirm "that the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church."

Well, THE [CATHOLIC] CHURCH is larger than the Roman Catholic Church… if you consider there are also the Eastern Rite catholic churches, and in the wider sense- catholic churches in every nation that are in communion with the Roman Church. Maybe this is a matter of semantics.

 

[demerzel85]

Now all that we need is for Benedict to bring back the Oath Against Modernism

Hmm… wonder if the Pope would celebrate a Pontifical Solemn High Mass on 14 September 2007, wear his Triregnum and be carried in on the sedia gestatoria with attendants bearing the flabella.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I bet you won’t see the Holy Father saying VII erred. He may issue a clarification that illuminates and explains, but he won’t say that it erred.

I think we should take him at his word. In the interview, Cardinal Ratzinger said that Vatican II taught the error. He specifically stated that Vatican II used the term “subsists” instead of the term used a few years earlier by Pope Pius XII in order to shows that the Church of Christ is larger than the Roman Catholic Church, which is the error that Pope Pius XII condemned.

First let’s read the quote from Pius XII, then the stament from Cardinal Ratzinger:

When the liberals and modernists first began teaching the novel doctrine that the Church of Christ is larger than the Catholic Church, Pope Pius XII condemned it, first in the encylical Mystici Corporis, then in Humani Generis…

Pope Pius XII: "Some say that they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation". (Humani Generis)

According to Cardinal Ratzinger, the express purpose of Vatican II was the teach to error that Pope Pius XII condemned.

Zenit: "He [Cardinal Ratzinger] explained that Vatican II did not use Pius XII’s expression, according to which “the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Jesus Christ.” Instead, it [Vatican II] preferred the expression “The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church ruled by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him,” because, he said, it [Vatican II] wished to affirm "that the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church."

Fr. Ratzinger was at Vatican II so he should know what the intent was. I take him at his word that the purpose of Vatican II was to teach the previously-condemned-error that the Church of Christ is a larger indentity than the Roman Catholic Church.

According to Fr. Ratzinger that is the express purpose of using the term “subsists”.

Now, if you read through this thread you will see people posting articles that claim Vatican II did not intend this; that “subsists” is actually a stronger word than “est” (is); and that when Vatican II used the term “subsists” it meant the same thing that Pope Pius XII mean. But that is not what Cardinal Ratzinger said.

I think we should trust that Cardinal Ratzinger knows what he is talking about since he was at the council, don’t you? I sure hope Pope Benedict XVI’s next letter (which is due in a few days) corrects this error of Vatican II, don’t you? That would be another great step in the right direction.

Then, after that, hopefully he will issue another “clarification” in order to correct the previously-condemned-error of religious liberty that Vatican II teaches. After all, religious liberty was condeemned repeatedly by many Poped over a span of 100 + years before Vatican II taught it using virtually the indentical words that were condemned.

But I certainly do agree with what you said: I agree that Pope Benedict will not say publicly that Vatican II errored. Instead he will just issue a “clarification” and claim that the error was based on a wrong “interpretation” of Vatican II, which is sort of true. After all, the documents themselves are neutral. They are just writing on paper and, due to the ambiguity, can be interpreted in more than one say. If you interpret the documenst based on the intent of the council, then you will be interpreting them in a way that teaches what was previously condemned by the Church, since the intent of Vatican II, according to Cardiinal Ratzinger, was to teach precisely what is now going to be corrected.

After all these “misinterpretations” of Vatican II have been “clarified” the SSPX will very quickly reach an agreement with Rome and the “schism” will come to an end.

 

[bear06]

More on the then Cardinal Ratzinger and “subsists”:
ewtn.com/library/Theology/OBDOMIHS.HTM
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFECCL.HTM

 

[Genesis315]

Then, after that, hopefully he will issue another “clarification” in order to correct the previously-condemned-error of religious liberty that Vatican II teaches. After all, religious liberty was condeemned repeatedly by many Poped over a span of 100 + years before Vatican II taught it using virtually the indentical words that were condemned.

You’re falling into the same trap the non-Chalcedonians fell into. Because the specific errors being dealt with by Ephesus and Chalcedon were exactly opposite, the condemnations appeared to be condeming themselves (Christ is one, Christ is two, and vice-versa), according to the interpretation of the Alexandrians.

The same can be said concerning Vatican II and 19th century papal magisterial texts. One is dealing with radical Liberalism and the other with radical totalitarianism (especially communism.). Certain folks, like the Alexandrians before them, see it as a contradiction.

The Relatio from the Council deals with such texts:
lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=202

Some further reading:
lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=330
lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=345

Here is a good read from Cardinal Newman on conscience, what the 19th century popes were condeming, and the true Catholic understanding:
newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section5.html

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

You’re falling into the same trap the non-Chalcedonians fell into. …
The same can be said concerning Vatican II and 19th century papal magisterial texts. One is dealing with radical Liberalism and the other with radical totalitarianism (especially communism.). Certain folks, like the Alexandrians before them, see it as a contradiction.

I have heard many people twist themselves into pretzels in their attempt to show that what was condemned in the Syllabus is something different than what Vatican II taught. I think we should listen to Cardinal Ratzinger on this point.

Cardinal Ratzinger: **"If one is looking for a global diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et spes], one could say that it (along with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-Syllabus **… Undoubtedly, many things have changed since then. The new ecclesiastical policy of Pius XI established a certain openness toward the liberal conception of the State. In a silent but persevering combat, Exegesis and Church History increasingly adopted the postulates of liberal science; on the other hand, in face of the great political upheavals of the 20th century, Liberalism was obliged to accept notable corrections. This happened because, first in central Europe, conditioned by the situation, the unilateral dependence on the positions taken by the Church through the initiatives of Pius IX and Pius X against the new period of History opened by the French Revolution was to a large extent corrected via facti. But a fundamental new document regarding relations with the world as it had been since 1789 was still lacking. In reality, the mentality that preceded the revolution still reigned in the countries with strong Catholic majorities; today almost no one denies that the Spanish and Italian concordats [accords between Church and State] tried to conserve too many things from a conception of the world that for a long time had not corresponded to reality. [where Church and State are both subject to God]. Likewise, almost no one can deny that this dependence on an obsolete conception of relations between the Church and State was matched by similar anachronisms in the domain of education and the attitude taken toward the modern historical-critical method … Let us content ourselves here with stating that the text [of Gaudium et spes] plays the role of a counter-Syllabus to the measure that it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789. On one hand, this visualization alone clarifies the ghetto complex that we mentioned before. On the other hand, it permits us to understand the meaning of this new relationship between the Church and the Modern World. “World” is understood here, at depth, as the spirit of modern times. The consciousness of being a detached group that existed in the Church viewed this spirit [of the world] as something separate from herself and, after the hot as well as cold wars were over, she sought dialogue and cooperation with it [the spirit of the world. (Les Principes de la Theologie Catholique - Esquisse et Materiaux, Paris: Tequi, 1982, pp. 426-427).

This is an admission that Vatican II attempted to reconcile the Church with the errors of 1789 - errors which were condemned many times by the Church. And people wonder why the Church is in the situation that it is?

But new days are dawning so let us be hopeful.

 

[stmaria]

I bet you won’t see the Holy Father saying VII erred. He may issue a clarification that illuminates and explains, but he won’t say that it erred.

Here [edited by Moderator] from Vatican II that needs to be clarified and explained.

*Gaudium Spies *24.2

For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest
commandment. Sacred Scripture, however, teaches us that the love of God
cannot be separated from love of neighbor:

Sacred Scriptue may say that but the First Commandment doesn’t…

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT : "I am the lord thy god, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.

Nothing about loving your neighbors is in the first commandment. Let’s not put words in God’s mouth.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Read my other post. Cardinal Ratzinger did not say he held to that error. He just said that Vatican II taught the error.

Talk about opening a can of worms. If V2 was in error on that (which, to say the least of it, is hardly a peripheral matter) - what else may need correction - in Vatican 2, in catechisms reflecting its doctrine, in other magisterial documents? If the CCC is wrong - well, so much for its being “a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.”

What is to stop the present Pope’s teaching being corrected in the future ? I’m sure the Fathers of Vatican 2 thought they were teaching the Church’s doctrine on this matter, & didn’t think they were wrong: but if they were wrong, his own certainty of being right is worth exactly nil.

It’s all very well for the theologians, but what about us, who have to take the flak when people point these things out - as, not unreasonably, they may very well do ? Thank God I’m not a catechist or priest - I would hate to have to explain that change: “the Church is infallible - even when in error.” Not very convincing, is it ?

If he correct the error of Vatican II then they may need to re-write the new Catechism if it teaches the same error.

The case of Fr. Feeney does not really pertain to this issue. And Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated for any doctrinal teaching, but for not showing up at Rome to defend himself. The excommunication was lifted by his simply reciting a creed of the Church. He chose to recite the athanasian Creed that says, in part “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”

The “subsists” issue deals with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the church of Christ, it is not larger than the Catholic Church as Vatican II taught (according to Cardinal Ratzinger). Heretical sects, such as the thousands of differing forms of Protestism, as well as schismatic groups, such as the Eastern Orthodox, are not part of the Church. They are separated from the Church.

That last bit - “Heretical…Church” - is going to throw a truckload of spanners into the Church’s current ecumenical efforts: it’s hardly an exaggeration (if it is an exaggeration) to say that it trashes the last forty years of ecumenical dialogue. Whom is one to believe: the Church until now, as enriched by the teaching of Vatican II - or those who (in effect) are disowning its teaching ?​

It is possible for a member of a heretical sect, or a schismatic group, to be united to the soul of the Catholic Church and thus attain salvation, but that does not make their false “church” part of the true Church.

A great encyclical to read is Satis Cognitum by Pope Leo XIII. If you are interested, here is a link: papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13satis.htm

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I bet you won’t see the Holy Father saying VII erred. He may issue a clarification that illuminates and explains, but he won’t say that it erred.

There are two reasons he’s unlikely to say so:​

• he was partly responsible for what the Council taught - so he has a stake in not saying it erred. Unflattering, human, but very understandable.
• the CC is not much good at apologising for putting her foot in it - so when apologies are made, they are made not by the Popes who fouled up, but by their successors. Maybe in 2500 Pope Benedict LXXXV (give or take a few) will condemn Vatican II - but by that time, we’ll all be long gone

 

[japhy]

Here [edited by Moderator] from Vatican II that needs to be clarified and explained.

*Gaudium Spies *24.2

For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest
commandment. Sacred Scripture, however, teaches us that the love of God
cannot be separated from love of neighbor:

Sacred Scriptue may say that but the First Commandment doesn’t…

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT : "I am the lord thy god, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.

Nothing about loving your neighbors is in the first commandment. Let’s not put words in God’s mouth.

What about Matthew 22:36-39 and Mark 12:29-33? According to Jesus, the “first” commandment is in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, and the “second” commandment is in Leviticus 19:18.

 

[Genesis315]

I have heard many people twist themselves into pretzels in their attempt to show that what was condemned in the Syllabus is something different than what Vatican II taught. I think we should listen to Cardinal Ratzinger on this point.

Cardinal Ratzinger: "If one is looking for a global diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et spes], one could say that it (along with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-Syllabus … Undoubtedly, many things have changed since then. The new ecclesiastical policy of Pius XI established a certain openness toward the liberal conception of the State. In a silent but persevering combat, Exegesis and Church History increasingly adopted the postulates of liberal science; on the other hand, in face of the great political upheavals of the 20th century, Liberalism was obliged to accept notable corrections. This happened because, first in central Europe, conditioned by the situation, the unilateral dependence on the positions taken by the Church through the initiatives of Pius IX and Pius X against the new period of History opened by the French Revolution was to a large extent corrected via facti. But a fundamental new document regarding relations with the world as it had been since 1789 was still lacking. In reality, the mentality that preceded the revolution still reigned in the countries with strong Catholic majorities; today almost no one denies that the Spanish and Italian concordats [accords between Church and State] tried to conserve too many things from a conception of the world that for a long time had not corresponded to reality. [where Church and State are both subject to God]. Likewise, almost no one can deny that this dependence on an obsolete conception of relations between the Church and State was matched by similar anachronisms in the domain of education and the attitude taken toward the modern historical-critical method … Let us content ourselves here with stating that the text [of Gaudium et spes] plays the role of a counter-Syllabus to the measure that it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789. On one hand, this visualization alone clarifies the ghetto complex that we mentioned before. On the other hand, it permits us to understand the meaning of this new relationship between the Church and the Modern World. “World” is understood here, at depth, as the spirit of modern times. The consciousness of being a detached group that existed in the Church viewed this spirit [of the world] as something separate from herself and, after the hot as well as cold wars were over, she sought dialogue and cooperation with it [the spirit of the world. (Les Principes de la Theologie Catholique - Esquisse et Materiaux, Paris: Tequi, 1982, pp. 426-427).

This is an admission that Vatican II attempted to reconcile the Church with the errors of 1789 - errors which were condemned many times by the Church. And people wonder why the Church is in the situation that it is?

That’s not what was being said there [adding bracketed commentary doesn’t help]–here’s a good article that addresses this statement and others that have been badly misconstrued:

lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=179

 

[stmaria]

What about Matthew 22:36-39 and Mark 12:29-33? According to Jesus, the “first” commandment is in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, and the “second” commandment is in Leviticus 19:18.

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. ** This is the first and greatest commandment.** The **second **is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” (Matthew 12:35-40)

Gaudium Spies 24.2
For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest
commandment.

This statement from this Vatican II document is confusing at best.

 

[Genesis315]

“And it cannot be otherwise, because love of Me and of her neighbor are one and the same thing, and, so far as the soul loves Me, she loves her neighbor, because love towards him issues from Me. This is the means which I have given you, that you may exercise and prove your virtue therewith; because, inasmuch as you can do Me no profit, you should do it to your neighbor. This proves that you possess Me by grace in your soul, producing much fruit for your neighbor and making prayers to Me, seeking with sweet and amorous desire My honor and the salvation of souls. The soul, enamored of My truth, never ceases to serve the whole world in general, and more or less in a particular case according to the disposition of the recipient and the ardent desire of the donor, as I have shown above, when I declared to you that the endurance of suffering alone, without desire, was not sufficient to punish a fault.”

God the Father to St. Catherine of Siena

 

[KnightforChrist]

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. ** This is the first and greatest commandment.** The **second **is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” (Matthew 12:35-40)

Gaudium Spies 24.2
For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest
commandment.

This statement from this Vatican II document is confusing at best.

I wasn’t under any impression that “LOVE” and “TRUTH” would be in opposition to each other…why any confusion???

They’re also both names used to describe our Lord aren’t they ??? Love and Truth

The Holy Father is only expressing the unchangeable Truth in a loving manner…There is no hostility involved…The only anger that will come forth from this is from one who’s actions are exposed due to the light…