|
1 members (Hutsul),
457
guests, and
94
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,511
Posts417,526
Members6,161
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
Amado, you took the letters right off my keyboard! I was scrolling down to respond to exactly the same insertion. My post WOULD have said (yes...it was preconceived): "The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Orthodox Church" Talk about inserting novelties into the Creed. Logos Teen
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
The follow concerns the Latin phrase "subsistit in" from the Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium, in which it states that, "The Church of Christ...subsists in the Catholic Church." To adequately discuss the significance of the term � subsistit in � in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium it is necessary to recall that the presumption of correct interpretation is with the official explanation given for the text at the time prior to its approval.
The official explanation given above is the following:
Certain words are changed: in place of "est", in line 21, there is said "subsistit in", as an expression more harmonious with the affirmation of ecclesial elements which are elsewhere. [5]
What is to be understood by this brief explanation. To understand this, let us have recourse to a few Latin dictionaries. The meaning of the term est is well understood by all who have studied even elementary Latin: est means "is." [6] The Latin term in means "in" when used, as it is here, in conjunction with the ablative declension. [7]
But what does the all important and controversial subsistit mean. Let us take a look at some authoritative Latin dictionaries that were available at the time of the Council. Subsisto means "to exist" [8]; to "exist, be" [9]; and finally "existere, esse; etre". [10] This last is one of the most authoritative Lexicons in the Latin languague, compilged by the Abbe Migne himself.
But perhaps this implicit assertion that the usage of subsistere has an equivalence significance as "is" will be to hard to swallow by some who have prejudged the matter. Let us then consider the entire text of the official explanation.
Remember that "ecclesial" both in English and Latin means "church-like." Secondly, it is patent that in non-Catholic communities there are things taken from Catholicism. Therefore the official explanation is saying that the term � subsistere in � expresses the truth that the manner in which the Church of Christ is present in the Catholic Church permits "church-like" elements to be found elsewhere.
Again "Every finite substance has only one act of existence and only one substantial form" [12] It follows therefore if any act consitutes a substance in reality, it is the substantial cause of a thing.
Again, subsistere has the etymological meaning of "to stand; to make a stand; to withstand; to come to stand, stop, halt, cease; to stay, remain." [13] And it is nearly identical with the Latin verb from which substance is derived: substo, "to stand firm". [14]
Now inasmuch as the idea or form, known as the "Church of Christ", the Mystical Body, is distinct from a substantial reality, one cannot use this similar term (substo) and say that the form of the Church substat in Ecclesia catholica; since properly speaking a substance alone substat. And so, just as one says that the human person subsists in a human being [15]; so one says that the Church of Christ subsistit in (subsists in) the Catholic Church.
Hence there is no reason derived from the official texts themselves to warrant any misunderstanding of this term in of itself, despite what modernists after the Council may claim.[16] The entire essay can be accessed at: http://www.franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/subsist.html Logos Teen
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268 |
Dear LT (the Orig):
Likewise, I was waiting in suspense for your rejoinder or from others.
Elsewhere, Orthoman has also "corrected" the Creed to say: "One, Holy, Orthodox Catholic, and Apostolic Church"
Anyway . . .
AmdG (the Orig)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915 |
I would recommend that everyone read the quotation posted by Logos Teen.
Good job, LT!!
-the other LT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657 |
[Elsewhere, Orthoman has also "corrected" the Creed to say: "One, Holy, Orthodox Catholic, and Apostolic Church"]
WHERE? and WHEN? Please provide proof to back up your accusation! I have NEVER inserted the word Orthodox when writing about, or reciting the Nicean Creed.
Identifying myself and an Orthodox Catholic and inserting the word Orthodox into the Creed have nothing to do with one another.
Careful in what you write. I am still lurking!
OrthoMan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
Before everyone gets too excited over the article cited by LogosTeen, it is (1) a personal interpretation and (2) carries no imprimatur or nihil obstat. You Latins should know what that means. Essays are not definitions of dogma nor ecumenical councils of the Church.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 351
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 351 |
Dear Amado: Sorry to confuse, but after much investigation the Creed does indeed say "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"  The sentence was used only in a descriptive sense. I have been trying to remember where I originally heard the phrase. I think it was something in Latin where the word Orthodox was also inserted to describe the faith of the Church. Maybe my mind is playing tricks, but if I find the reference I will be glad to let you know  defreitas
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915 |
Originally posted by Diak:
Before everyone gets too excited over the article cited by LogosTeen, it is (1) a personal interpretation and (2) carries no imprimatur or nihil obstat. You Latins should know what that means. Essays are not definitions of dogma nor ecumenical councils of the Church. The following IS a definition of dogma: Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed. We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' . . . Boniface P.P. VIII LatinTrad
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268 |
Dear defreitas: I understand how you feel, especially when you have in Toronto an Orthodox Catholic "harassing" you. :p I think the phrase says: ". . . orthodox in faith, Catholic in love;" or, ". . .the Church is Catholic, the faith orthodox!" Why are you hiding Alex from us? Amado
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
LT, what does that have to do with the article? If you want to talk about the article, fine. I can quote papal documents outside of their context or the context of the Church's development of doctrine, also.
Again, that article is personal interpretation and has neither the nihil obstat or imprimatur. As a Latin Trad I would hope you understand what that means.
This article, in its current form, is nothing other than a private interpretation which has no official sanction from the Church, regardless of how many sources are cited.
And please document by which ecumenical council of the church established your quote above as de fide or infallible teaching of the Church if it is as you say dogma. I'll assume as a Latin Trad you know all of the conditions for the proclamation of an infallible dogma.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 351
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 351 |
Dear Brother Amado: Brother Alex is in cloistered retreat for the spiritual well-being of his soul and body. When that retreat is at an end, he will then be able to discern his full capacities. Heaven help us defreitas
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 351
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 351 |
Dear Latin Trad:
All nice documents aside (which of course do not carry the understanding of an infallible dogma of the Church), do you believe that the Orthodox Churches remain outside of the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"?
Please deign to impart to us your wisdom.
defreitas
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915 |
Originally posted by defreitas:
Dear Latin Trad:
All nice documents aside (which of course do not carry the understanding of an infallible dogma of the Church), do you believe that the Orthodox Churches remain outside of the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"?
Please deign to impart to us your wisdom.
defreitas Defreitas, Por favor n�o comece irritado em mim. We've talked about this issue a lot lately. Catholic position as understood by the BC's and LC's on the Forum: step 1) It seems that everybody agrees that the Orthodox are not in "full communion" with the Catholic Church. The Orthodox agree. The BC's agree. The LC's agree. step 2) Is the Catholic Church (i.e. the body that includes all those jurisdictions and sui juris churches that are in communion with Rome) the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that we profess in the Creed? If it is, then how are the Orthodox part of it? If it's not, then why the heck are WE part of it? Of course, I believe that it is. The Orthodox claim not to be part of the One Body-that-includes-all-jurisdictions-and-sui-juris-Churches-that-are-in-communion-with-Rome. Therefore they claim not to be part of what I believe to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I pray daily for the restoration of full communion. LatinTrad
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 976
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 976 |
Originally posted by LatinTrad:
Por favor n�o comece irritado em mim.
Quer falar portugu�s, �? A gente pode. Vamos l�!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915 |
|
|
|
|
|
