What does it mean to "subsistit in"?

The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council declared, in the dogmatic constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium (8), that

Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation (9*) through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.(10*) For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body.(73) (11*)

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

The parenthetical numbers represent footnotes in the original text not here copied.

Since the promulgation of this text in 1964 no little debate has ensued as to the meaning of the phrase "subsists in the Catholic Church." Some have claimed the Catholic Church is the one Church of Christ and others have claimed that Christ did not intend to found a Church at all; other answers have of course also fallen in between the two.

Today, His Emminence William Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued five "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," seeking to clarify the debate.

Over these past four decades many have claimed that the Second Vatican Council changed the teachings of the Church and altered the faith. Correcting this view, Cardinal Levada quotes the eloquent words of the Holy Father Paul VI:

There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation.

Do have a read of the document. It will help to clarify much and, though it will likely receive little media attention, it is at least as important a document as Summorum Pontificum.

Summorum Pontificum

Over the past many months, "News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion," Pope Benedict XVI wrote to the Bishops in his letter that accompanied the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. "There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown."

The Supreme Pontiff has made it clear that the Missal of 1962 is a valid form of the Latin rite. In fact, it is the extraordinary form of the Latin rite while the Missal of 1970 is the ordinary form of the Latin rite.

At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church [emphasis mine].

The two primary fears voiced prior to the publication of Summorum Pontificum, both that the motu proprio would undo the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and that it would cause division in the Church, are "quite unfounded."

The Supreme Pontiff explains that the Missal of 1962 was "never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted." As to the second fear, he says:

The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.

"There have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition," His Holiness acknowledged. "Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these," he wrote to his brother Bishops.

Much of the talk in recent weeks has focused on the negative reasons for the issuing of this motu proprio, but as is his customary style, Pope Benedict offers the positive reason for his decision:

It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: “Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!” (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

The entire letter is beautiful and extremely well crafted. You really must give it a read.

Kudos to Bishop Seratelli

Ever so slowly the tide is turning. Each day, if one looks properly, the signs are readily apparent.

As just one more example, the Most Reverend Arthur J. Serratelli, Bishop of Patterson, has recently begun a series of articles exploring the "loss and the recovery of the sense of the sacred in Catholic life."

His Excellency says:

Even within the most sacred precincts of the Church, we witness a loss of the sense of the sacred. With the enthusiasm that followed the Second Vatican Council, there was a well-intentioned effort to make the liturgy modern. It became commonplace to say that the liturgy had to be relevant to the worshipper. Old songs were jettisoned. The guitar replaced the organ. Some priests even began to walk down the road of liturgical innovation, only to discover it was a dead end. And all the while, the awareness of entering into something sacred that has been given to us from above and draws us out of ourselves and into the mystery of God was gone. [more]

This first installment is quite good; do read it in its totality. Fr. Z. adds his own comments here.

It is interesting to compare Bishop Serratelli's thoughts with those of Bishop Trautman.