Subsists in the Catholic Church

The Second Vatican Council, Lumen gentium, and Subsistit in

Christian D. Washburn

Josephinum Journal of Theology Vol 22, Nos. 1 & 2 2015, pp. 145-175

Abstract: Many contemporary theologians argue that when the Second Vatican Council replaced est with subsistit in, it repudiated the exclusive identification of the Catholic Church with the Church of Christ. This article argues historically that the council did not intend to reject the preconciliar teaching nor did it intend simply to restate that doctrine; rather subsistit in represents a development of doctrine that preserved intact preconciliar magisterial teaching yet also clarified the way the Catholic Church as the sole Church of Christ relates to non-Catholic Christian communities. Finally, the article denies that the council’s recognition of other communities as “church” or as having “elements of sanctification and of truth” meant that it rejected the exclusive identification of the Catholic Church with the Church of Christ.

Probably the single most controverted text of the Second Vatican Council is the Latin expression subsistit in, as found in Lumen gentium 8: the “Church of Christ ... subsists in the Catholic Church.” This Latin expression, as Gerard Philips (18991972) predicted, “will cause a flood of ink to flow.”¹ What has emerged from this difficult text is not only a historical debate over the proper interpretation of subsistit in but also radically different ecclesiologies. Many contemporary theologians argue that when the council replaced est with subsistit in, it repudiated the exclusive identification of the Catholic Church with the Church of Christ. Moreover, these theologians argue that the council’s willingness to acknowledge “elements of sanctification and of truth” outside the boundaries of the Catholic Church, combined with the council’s reference to non-Catholic communions as separated “Churches and ecclesial Communities” confirm the profound change. Consequently, many commentators have concluded that the council ushered in a fundamental change in doctrine when it substituted subsistit in for est.² There are, however, two other possibilities: the doctrine remained exactly the same, or there was a development in the doctrine or language of the Church.³ This article asserts that the council did not intend to reject the preconciliar teaching nor did it intend to simply restate that doctrine; rather subsistit in represents a development of doctrine that preserves intact preconciliar magisterial teaching while at the same time making more clear the way in which the Catholic Church as the sole Church of Christ relates to non-Catholic Christian communities. To this end, this article will examine the use of the term subsistere, its various uses in the council documents, and the development of Lumen gentium 8. Finally, this article will examine the way in which the council’s use of subsistere in Lumen gentium 8 can be harmonized with its two affirmations that there are many elements of sanctification and of truth and that some of these ecclesial communities can be referred to as church.

The Possible Meanings of Subsistere

Historically both the terms subsistere and subsistentia had a range of meanings. In classical Latin subsistere could mean to stand firm either in battle or against an opponent, to come with relief, to stop short, to remain, and to survive.⁴ In early Medieval Latin the noun subsistentia was used to mean substance or reality, while the verb subsistere ordinarily meant to exist.⁵ Currently, many scholars on both sides of the subsistit in controversy assert that the term is used in its ordinary sense of “to exist” or “to continue to exist”,⁶ although these two meanings cannot be said to be completely identical since the latter adds the notion of continuity to existence.

Medieval theologians also used these terms in a technical philosophical sense. As a technical philosophical term, subsistere could mean to stand under, to exist as a substance, and to exist in itself, while subsistentia could mean that mode of existence which is selfcontained and independent of any (other) subject.⁷ Aquinas in the Summa theologiae explains: “as it [a substance] exists in itself and not in another (perse existit et non in alio), it is called subsistence (subsistentia).”⁸ Subsistence is really a metaphysical category that is concerned with substance. Rubber balls, for example, are the result of the union of the form of a ball and the matter rubber, which gives us the concrete and complete existence of an individual rubber ball. Now in a rubber ball factory, thousands of rubber balls are made, and each concrete, complete, and individual instantiation is called its subsistence.⁹ While Becker claims that “the scholastics knew subsistere, but not subsistere in,¹⁰ this is simply not true. Aquinas, for example, used the phrase “subsistit in” on at least 59 occasions and the phrase “subsistere in” 12 times.¹¹

The terms subsistere and subsistentia are frequently used in Catholic theology in a technical theological sense that is metaphysically grounded and means “to exist in a concrete and complete way”. These terms appear not only frequently in theological texts but also with some frequency in various magisterial documents, usually with reference to Trinitarian and Christological issues (as a transiation for hypostasis), but the terms were also used occasionally ecclessiologically.¹² On the eve of the Second Vatican Council, these terms were used in their technical theological sense in various papal documents, for example in Pius XII’s Mystici corporis Christi (1943) and Sempirernus Rex Christus (1951).¹³ In most of these magisterial statements the terms are being used in their technical theological sense and not simply in the alleged ordinary sense of “to exist” or in the technical philusophical sense. This is an important point since many contemporary scholars argue that terms should be taken in their “ordinary” sense unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise, and as a result these authors think that subsistere should he translated as “to exist”. The ordinary understanding of a term, however, is not simply determined by its ordinary use in all forms of Latin literature but primarily by the usual way in which it is employed in a particular context, which here is theological.¹⁴ The “ordinary” meaning of subsistere in magisterial documents is not “to exist” but rather is its technical theological sense. Therefore, the growing number of scholars who assert that the term is used in a technical theological sense that is metaphysically grounded are closer to the truth.¹⁵

The Use of Subsistere in the Documents of the Second Vatican Council

The term subsistere is only used six times in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council.¹⁶ and the various uses in the conciliar documents reflect the term’s range of meanings. The term subsistere is used in a distinctly nontechnical way in Gaudium et spes, which states, “What is this sense of sorrow, of evil, of death, which continues to exist (subsistere pergunt) despite so much progress?”¹⁷ Here subsistere seems to be used in the sense of “to exist”. It is not used to mean, however, “to continue to exist.” The notion of continuity is supplied by the use of the term pergere, meaning to continue. This is again a good indication that subsistere does not mean “to continue to exist;” if it did mean this, it would have been unnecessary to add pergunt.

In Nostra aetate, however, the term is clearly used in a technical tbeological manner. Nostra aetate states that “The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting (subsistentem) in Hirnselt; merciful and allpowerful, the Creator of heaven and earth.”¹⁸ As used here the term signifies the unique manner of God’s existence, which is independent, perfectly determinate, incommunicably distinct and complete in itself. The theological tradition and the Second Vatican Council have, in a deliberately technical theological way, consistently employed the notion of subsistence to signify the distinctive mode of being proper to complete individual (per se existing) substantial things (or their analogates). This use makes it quite clear that one may not simply dismiss out of hand a technical theological use of the term by the council in Lumen gentium.¹⁹

The council also used the term subsistere twice in Unitatis redintegratio in article 4 and then in article 13. In article 4, subsistit is used to affirm the ongoing presence of unity in the Catholic Church:

This is the way that, when the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion have been gradually overcome, all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that unity which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning. We believe that this unity subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church as something she can never lose (l/lunnque tnamtssibtlems, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time (usque ad consummattonmn sacculi in dies cresceresperamusr.²⁰

There are three things to be noted about this usage in article 4. First, in this case subsistit in does not mean “to continue to exist” since the notion of continuity is supplied by the following phrases: “quam que inamissihilem” and “et usque ad consummationem saeculi in dies crescere” Second, in article 4 it seems likely that subsistit in is simply being used for “to exist”. The council affirms that Christ endowed His Church with a concrete and complete unity. It then notes that “this” unity, i.e. the one with which Christ endowed His Church, exists in the Catholic Church. Third, and most importantly, in article 4 subststit was not used as an “open ecumenical door.”²¹ Recall that those who argue that subsistit in in Lumen gentium 8 represents a change in the Church’s doctrine, usually do so on the grounds that the term allowed one to recognize that ecclesial communities separated from Rome were also the Church of Christ. One would expect, therefore, that this use of subsistit in would allow for the presence of the mark of unity outside the Church’s visible boundaries. Instead, later in article 13 the council is quite clear that “our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow.”²² So even though subsistit in seems here to mean “to exist”, this can in no way be understood as “an open ecumenical door” which recognizes even a mark of the Church of Christ existing outside the Catholic Church.

In article 13 of Unitatis redintegratio, the council begins to discuss “the two chief types of division”: the division with the East and “the Reformation.” The council here affirms that some Catholic institutions continue to exist in other communions:

Among those in which Catholic traditions and institutions in part (ex parte) continue to exist (subsistere pergunt), the Anglican Communion occupies a special place.²³

How is the term used in this context? Here the term simply means “to exist” or “to be present.” It cannot mean “to continue to exist,” since the notion of continuity is supplied by the term pergunt. Moreover, subsistere is qualified with “in part” (ex parte); so while the council is willing to acknowledge a certain ongoing existence of these elements, it is necessarily a qualified existence.²⁴ To say that these things continue to exist “in part” is to say that they have an incomplete existence; in other words, not even the Catholic traditions and institutions in question fully exist within these communities. In Unitatis redintegratio 4 and 13, most scholars argue that these terms should be used as they are used in Lumen gentium 8; however, there is a very good reason why subsistere would be used differently. In the case of Lumen gentium, subsistit in is referring to a substantial whole, while in the case of Unitatis redtntegratio what is “subsisting” are simply properties, and properties can only exist in alia, whereas in Lumen genitum 8 that which is said to subsist does not exist in alia in the sense of in another subject.

The last text to use the phrase subsistit in occurs in the second paragraph of Dignitatis Humanae 1:

First, the council professes its belief that God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men.²⁵

It must be remembered that the identification made between the one true religion and the Catholic Church was traditionally made not with subsistit in but rather with est. It is unlikely that subsistit in here means “to continue to exist” as it is sometimes translated, since the point of the statement is not to affirm continuity between the one true religion and the Catholic Church but to make it clear that this Church is the same one to whom Christ gave the duty of spreading the one true religion. In this text, subsistit in must be understood in a technical theological sense as affirming that the “one true religion” exists in a concrete and complete way in the Catholic Church. This is obvious for two reasons. First, if subsistit in here is read the way Sullivan and others read it in Lumen gentiem 8 it would lead to manifest absurdity. Initially the issue of religious liberty was considered in a chapter in the schema on ecumenism and was solely concerned with other Christians. Cardinal PaulEmile Leger (19041991) of Montreal pointed out that a doctrine of religious liberty concerned all persons; consequently a new document was subsequently drafted.²⁶ This draft proposed that all persons and communities have a right to social and civil freedom in religious matters. If Sullivan and others are correct, the use of subsistit in here then would have to be read as an attempt to allow not only greater ecumenical openness but also greater interreligious openness by acknowledging that all religions and nonreligions alike might be part of the” one true religion; even if not in a full way. Clearly such a view is patently false and has no historical basis. Second, the council is claiming an identity of the “one true religion” with the Catholic Church; it is therefore an inherently exclusive claim. The paragraph in article I of the text was not in the original schema of the decree but was only introduced on October 25, 1965.²⁷ The reason for this insertion, as the relationes show, was to make more clear the doctrine of the duty of all men toward the “one true religion which subsists in the Catholic Church,” a fairly common element in 19^th and early 20^th century magisterial teaching.²⁸ Part of this teaching, however, was that there is an identity between the “one true religion” and the Catholic Church. In magisterial and theological writings, this “one true religion” was often identified with the Catholic Church or the Catholic religion. Leo XIII, for example, clearly identified the two when he taught that “For the Catholic there is only one true religion, the Catholic religion.²⁹ This view was naturally taught by the standard theological texts prior to the council.³⁰ One may also note that this exclusive understanding of subsistit in does not in any sense entail a denial of elements of truth in other religions, which is why Nostra aetate affirms these elements outside the Catholic Church;³¹ a view that was standard among almost all preconciliar Catholic theologians.

There are a few things to conclude about the five uses of subsistere in the documents of the council other than Lumen gentium. First, the range of meanings of the term subsistere can be found in the conciliar documents. It was used in Gaudium et spes 10 in the sense of “to exist”; however, it was also used in Nostra aetate 3 in a technical theological sense that was clearly metaphysically grounded. Most importantly it was used twice in Unitatis redintegratio in the sense of “to be”; however, in both cases it is ultimately used to deny something of other ecclesial communities. Lastly, in Dignitatis humanae the phrase subsistit in was used again in a technical theological way in order to show the identity between the Church of Christ and Catholic Church.

The Formation of Lumen gentium 8

During the preparatory stage of the council, the preparatory commissions composed a number of schemata, which they labeled as dogmatic constitutions, doctrinal constitutions, constitutions, and decrees; but by the middle of the summer of 1962, only the first seven were thought to be ready. As a result of this assessment, on July 13, 1962, John XXIll decreed that these first seven schemata should be sent to all the council fathers. The schema on the Church was not amongst these;³² The preparatory theological commission, headed by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani (18901979) and with Sebastian Tromp, S. J. (18891975) as its secretary, continued its work on the schema on the Church. In May of 1962, the Preparatory Theological Commission’s draft, Schema constitutionis dogmaticae de Ecclesia, known by its incipit Aeternus Unigeniti,³³ was discussed by the Central Preparatory Commission, Chapters one through four were discussed on May 8, and the only real objection to the identification of the Mystical Body of Christ with the Catholic Church came from Cardinal Achille Lienart (18841973); however, he did not object on ecumenical grounds but because he thought that the draft obscured the relationship of purgatory and heaven to the Church of Christ. Nevertheless, the draft was approved with overwhelming support.³⁴

Toward the end of the first session, in the 25^th general congregation on November 23, 1962, the initial draft of the document Aeternus Unigeniti was distributed to the council fathers.³⁵ This schema was then officially presented in the aula on December I, 1962 in the 31^st  general congregation and was discussed in six general congregations concluding on December 7.³⁶ In the first chapter, De ecclesiae militantis natura, the schema identified the Mystical Body of Christ with the Catholic Church:

The holy Synod teaches and solemnly professes, therefore, that there is only a single true Church of Jesus Christ, that Church which in the Creed we proclaim to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, the Church which the Savior acquired for himself on the cross and joined to himself as body to head and as bride to bridegroom, the Church which, after his resurrection, he handed over to be governed to St. Peter and his successors, the Roman Pontiffs. Therefore, only the Roman Catholic is rightly called the Church.³⁷

Later in chapter 9, entitled The Relationship of the Catholic Church to Separated Christian Communities, the schema affirmed that “there are certain of the elements of the Church” present in other Christian communities.³⁸ The text was, like most of the other preparatory schemata, criticized for a variety of reasons.³⁹

Given the criticism, it was felt that a new schema on the Church was required when the council resumed for its second session. Cardinal Leo Jozef Suenens (19041996) asked Philips, the adjunct secretary of the doctrinal commission, to write a new draft.⁴⁰ Philips wrote at least two drafts. The first was the “Belgian Schema,” known by its incipit, Concilium duce Sptritu, largely based on Aeternus Unigeniti. Philips then wrote a second schema entitled Lumen gentium which was to become the basis of the second schema. This was completed in the first half of February 1963 and presented to a subcommission of the Doctrinal Commission. This text repeated the exclusive identification of Christ’s Church with the Catholic Church.⁴¹ In this text, Philips wrote,

Therefore this Church, the true mother and teacher of all, constituted and ordered in this world as a society, is (est) the Catholic Church, directed by the Roman Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him, although (licet) some elements of sanctification can be found outside her complete structure.⁴²

There are several things to notice in Philips’ draft. First, Philips affirmed “exclusive identity” through the use of est. Second, he moved (not introduced) the affirmation of the existence of elements in other communities from where it occurred later in the original schemata to sit beside the sentence that maintains the exclusive identity. At this point it is reasonable to assume that Philips did not think that there was a contradiction between est and the affirmation of elementa. Moreover, he clearly did not think that his colleagues would object that the two were contradictory. Third, Philips employed a grammatical device to highlight his point: he introduced the concessive particle, licet, to set off the two affirmations. This subordinating clause is concessive precisely because something is being conceded, in this case the schema is conceding the existence of elements outside the visible boundaries of the Church. This subordinate statement is made “in spite of” the main clause so that the truth of the concessive clause is “emphasized by the contrast.”⁴³ So Philips’ text cannot be considered to be more ecumenically open than the previous drafts. This text is important since it introduces the basic structure of the formulation that would remain unchanged into the approved document.

After reworking Philip’s text, the second schema was presented in the aula on 30 September, 1963 in the 37^th general congregation, and debate continued to the 59^th general congregation of October 31, 1963.⁴⁴ This draft also repeated the teaching of Aeternus Unigentti on the exclusive identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church:

The holy Synod teaches and solemnly professes that there is only a single true Church of Jesus Christ, which we proclaim in the Creed as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic which the Savior after the resurrection handed over to Peter’s and the apostles’ and their successors’ pastoral care ... Therefore, this church ... is (est) the Catholic Church, even though (licet) one may be able to find many elements (plura elementa) of sanctification outside of its visible boundaries.⁴⁵

This schema was thought to be an improvement over the first schema. There were almost no objections to the est formula made by the bishops in the aula that are relevant to our doctrinal question. One of the few objections and the strongest was made by Bishop Jan Van Dodewaard (19131966) who suggested a formula which entailed replacing est with inuenire in.⁴⁶ Yet, Dodewaard’s objection nowhere hinted at a repudiation of the doctrine of Pius XII. Nonetheless, there were a large number of interventions concerning other aspects of the schema, so it was decided to task a subcommission with reworking it.

This subcommission I of the De Ecclesia Commission eventually replaced est with adest in.⁴⁷ Strangely, it was Bishop Dodewaard who wrote the text that answered his own intervention, and this text was eventually accepted by the subcomrnission.⁴⁸ The adest in formula simply means “to be present in” or “being in there,” and its lise here merely notes that there is a relationship between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church.⁴⁹ This formula, despite perhaps the intention of Dodewaard, does not tell one anything at all about those ecclesial communities outside the visible bounds of the Church, nor could one find in it a change of doctrine. If it were intended as a fundamental change of doctrine, it would have to contradict the est formulation, which it simply does not. One can affirm both that the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ and that the Church of Christ is present in the Catholic Church simultaneously. So in the end this change tells one very little about the Church.

On the afternoon of Tuesday, Nov. 26, 1963, in a meeting of the plenary doctrinal commission presided over by Cardinal Ottaviani, this new draft was discussed. When the change from est to adest in was brought up, Heribert Schauf immediately opposed this modification, since he felt it was not strong enough to express the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. Schauf suggested that the term be changed back to est, at which point Tromp suggested the phrase subsistit in.⁵⁰ Fortunately, a tape recording of the meeting has been discovered, and one can hear Tromp continue: “We can say, therefore, the sole Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, and this is the exclusive right” which Becker notes was said very forcefully, “insofar as it is said that outside [of the Church] there are nothing but elements.”⁵¹ Nothing else was said that was of relevance. The conversation immediately changed, and a little later Philips asked whether the commission wanted subsistit in. It was adopted without any further discussion.⁵² What is clear from this is that Tromp’s subsistit in was intended to replace both adest in and est but in two different ways. Subsistit in was essentially a rejection of adest ill hut a clarification of est as Tromp’s explanation makes clear.

Tromp’s wording was not only accepted by the plenary commission but was also eventually approved by the council. So at the very least one has to say that Tromp’s wording became the wording of the council as such. Sullivan argues that we cannot presume that the other members of the plenary doctrinal commission shared his view as to the meaning of his words.⁵³ There are several things to say about this claim. First, Tromp made an intervention which not only included a new term but also the meaning of this term. Not only did no one offer any opposition, they also agreed to it. It is commonly understood that if in a committee a new term is introduced with a corresponding meaning, then when the term is accepted, so is the meaning unless some other is applied. Certainly if Sullivan is correct that one can never really know whether anyone agreed to the meaning, then this renders all historical investigation of conciliar texts fruitless. One could almost never know, for example, whether the meaning of a text given in relatio was actually accepted. Second, it is not really believable that not a single person on the doctrinal comission, including Cardinal Ottaviani, head of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, and Cardinal Michael Browne, former Master of the Sacred Palace, made issue over what, if Sullivan and others are correct, was a dramatic change in doctrine from the immediately preceding pontificate. Third, we actually do know, at least in some cases, what the individuals who were present at the meeting thought at the time about the questton.⁵⁴ We know the views of some of the bishop members: Cardinals Ottaviani, the president, and Browne,⁵⁵ the vice president of the doctrinal commission, as well as Bishop Pietro Parente.⁵⁶ We also know the vrews on the eve of the council of the following present pertu on this issue: Fenton,⁵⁷ Ratzinger,⁵⁸ Tromp,⁵⁹ Salaverri,⁶⁰ and Schauf,⁶¹ all of whom held to a doctrine of exclusive identity. For these men to understand subsistit in to be a break in doctrine would have entailed a repudiation of their own previous theological convictions and work. Again, one must ask whether it is really believable that these cardinals, bishops, and theologians would have remained silent, if they thought that such a change in words entailed a change in doctrine.

What precisely did Tromp mean by the term subsistere? Some scholars look to some aspect of Tromp’s intellectual formation in order to explain what he meant by the term subsistere. Becker and von Teuffenbach have argued that Tromp’s excellent Latinitypoints to subsistere meaning “to continue to exist.”⁶² Others have argued that Tromp was influenced by Gregory the Great’s usage.⁶³ while others hold that Tromp used it scholastically.⁶⁴ It is true that Tromp was an expert in Latin, but it is also true that he was a trained NeoScholastic who even produced a very fine manual on revelation and insptrarton.⁶⁵ Tromp did extensive work on St. Robert Bellarmine, who was a Thomist, having lectured from 1570-1576 on Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae while a professor in Louvain, and it was Tromp who transcribed the manuscript of Bellarmines commentary on the Summa tbeotogtae?⁶⁶ Tromp was trained both classically and scholastically, as was customary for Jesuits of his era and as required by Ignatius’ Spiritual Exercisesand the Society’s Constttutions.⁶⁷ He was also equally at home with the Fathers, even writing a volume on the theology of the Mystical Body in the Fathers of the Church.⁶⁸ Given the breadth of his intellectual formation, an appeal to some aspect of his formation is not particularly helpful in determining the meaning of subsistere.

Instead, we need to look at Tromp’s words to see if we can understand why he thought subsistit in was better than adest in. Now one must recall that subsistii in was introduced to replace both est and adest. If subsistit in simply means “to continue to exist,” then it is difficult to see why he or the commission would think that subsistit in contributes a meaning not conveyed by adest (besides perhaps the notion of continuing, which is not even a necessary part of the signification of subsistere). If subsistit in simply means “to be,” then it is difficult to see why he or the commission would think that subsistit in contributes a meaning different from est. In any case, Tromp, along with the doctrinal commission, thought the term was better than both adest and est.

Both Tromp’s explanation and indeed the text itself make it clear that subsistere means to exist in a concrete and integral way. It must be recalled that Tromp was not merely suggesting a term, i.e. subsistit in, hut was suggesting its use in a particular context, i.e. as part of a sentence with a concessive clause. It is precisely this concessive clause that expresses an idea that is emphasized by contrast to the truth of the main clause. Now if it is indeed a contrast, then subsisttt In must mean either that the Catholic Church has no elements or that it has all of the elements of the Church of Christ. Clearly the latter is the only plausible explanation given that the council repeatedly affirmed the complete presence of elements in the Catholic Church. This is why Tromp explained that there are “only elements” outside the Catholic Church. For Tromp, there must be something more than only elements, and this something else is the totality of the Church of Christ. This is because the full identity of the Catholic Church with the Church of Christ must not simply be understood as the summation of all of Christ’s Church’s elementa, but as a positive quality which exceeds the elements in the Church of Christ when considered either individually or collectively.⁶⁹ Therefore, it is clear that Tromp used subsistit in as a technical theological term, i.e. in the sense that a thing has both a concrete existence and all that is proper to its nature (wholeness).

Philips’ own post-conciliar reading of subsistit in confirms this interpretation of Tromps view. Philips explained that one is tempted to translate subsistit in as “it is there (c’est la) that we find the Church of Christ in all its fullness and all its force.”⁷⁰ There are several things to notice about Philips’ own interpretation. First, he did not simply say that it means adest or inuenitur, which would have been a relatively easy way to explain the meaning of subsistit in if that is what it meant. Instead Philips felt obliged to use a series of words since neither adest nor inuenitur was accurate. He used the expression “it is there” (c’est la) which is roughly equivalent of both adest and invenitur but then immediately joined to it the notion of wholeness, “in all its fullness and all its force” (toute sa plenitude). Therefore, Philips’ own understanding of what subsistit in does is similar to what appears to be Tromp’s notion of a concrete and whole existence.⁷¹

Why did Tromp then affirm exclusivity? First, Tromp did not derive exclusivity from the use of the term subsistit in. One must remember that philosophically the notion of subsistence does not necessarily imply exclusivity. Recall the example of the rubber ball: one could have thousands of rubber balls and each would have its own unique subsistence. So the fact that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church does not mean in itself that it cannot also subsist elsewhere. Tromp seemed to be aware of this, which is why after he affirmed that the Church of Christ “subsists in the Catholic Church,” he then immediately added, “and this is exclusive.” It is precisely this conjunction, “and,” which shows that he did not think that exclusivity was a necessary part of subsistence. So what then supplies the notion of exclusivity? There are two related answers to the question. First, subsistence in the technical use requires that the thing have both a concrete existence and all that is proper to its nature. In the case of a rubber ball, it must have a concrete existence, i.e. exist in the real order, and it must have the integral and whole nature of a rubber ball. Analogously, the Church of Christ subsisting in any church would need to have both concrete existence and all those elements which are integral to its nature. Second, when Tromp stated the reason (in quantum dicitur) for this exclusivity, he noted that there are “only elements” outside of the Catholic Church. So it is not the notion of subsistence alone that allows one to affirm exclusivity; rather it is this notion in conjunction with other considerations about the defective nature of these non-Catholic Christian bodies that allows Tromp to draw the conclusion he did.

Prior to the third session, the third draft of the schema of the constitution on the Church was sent to the fathers in]uly 1964.⁷² The text was officially presented in the 81^st general congregation of September 16, 1964. This was really an emended text of the second schema, and it was presented to the council fathers with the textus prior (second schema) in a parallel column next to the textus emendatus (third schema). There were a number of significant modifications. The term “dogmatic”, for example, was removed as a modifier of “constitution” in the title.⁷³ It is in this third schema that Tromp’s subsistit in first appeared:

This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside her structure, which are the proper gifts of the Church of Christ and tend to Catholic unity.⁷⁴

This schema, accompanied by a written relatio, was distributed in the aula on September 15, 1964 in the 80^th general congregation.The written relatio provided a ratio of what was intended by the various changes introduced into the emended text. The retatio explained that the Church is “perpetually united with Christ and His work” and “is concretely found here on earth in the Catholic Church.” The goal was “to avoid the impression that the description which the Council sets forth of the Church is merely idealistic and unreal.”⁷⁵ The relatio further noted that the structure of Lumen gentium 8 is intended to make two distinct hut related points. First, “the mystery of the Church is present in (adest) and manifested ill a concrete soctety.”⁷⁶ Second, “the Church is one only (unica), and here on earth is present (adest) in the Catholic Church, although outside of her there are found ecclesial elements.”⁷⁷ Finally, the relatio took up the issue of the change from est to subsistit in, explaining the change this way:

Certain words are changed: in place of “is”, I. 21, “subsists in” is used in order that the expression may be in better agreement with the affirmation about ecclesial elements which are present elsewhere.⁷⁸

There are a number of points to make about this aspect of the relatio. First, the relatio simply says that est has been replaced by subsistit as an expression which is “in better (melius) agreement” with the existence of ecclesial elements elsewhere.The relatio uses the comparative of good (melius), which implies that the term it was replacing was itself good. If susbststit in was a change in doctrine as some argue, it would be strange to use the term melius since the previous position would now simply be an error and therefore bad.

In what respect is it “in better agreement”? The council was clearly trying to select a term to be more precise. The difficulty with est is that, while the doctrine of the exclusive identity of the Church of Christ is made quite clear, this clarity comes at the expense of making it clear whether elements can exist outside the visible bounds of the Church. The use of the term subsistere more easily allows for ways of speaking about another aspect of the Church’s doctrine, i.e. the existence of these elements outside of the Church. Second, the relatio is in basic agreement with Tromp’s explanation in the plenary doctrinal commission. It correctly explains what, in part, stubsistere actually does, i.e. shows the presence of the ecclesial elements outside of the visible: boundaries in a defective way. Although in the relatio Tromp’s term “only” in reference to ccclesial elements is missing, it must be acknowkdgl’d that there is not even the slightest hint that subsistere was used of the Catholic Church in order to recognize beyond her anything more than elements.

One would expect that, if this language was perceived as a sudden and profound change in Church doctrine, someone would have made a vocal or written note of it; however, no protestation, no query, no remark whatsoever arose at any point in the council’s deliberations. As far as we are aware, the council, both in its commissions and in the relationes, never once raised the issue. Not even members of the Coetus Internationalis Patrum, who were so concerned to reconcile the council’s teaching on religious liberty or collegiality with the tradition, seemed to raise the issue. One would expect, given that the exclusive identification was taught unanimously for 1,700 years and reconfirmed by Pius Xll’s papal magisterium on the eve of the council, that this would have naturally occurred to someone to at least comment upon it.

 

Subsistit in in Lumen gentium 8

The debate over the “subsists in” phrase is usually conducted primarily on historical grounds, attempting to ascertain the precise meaning of the term by examining the historical origin of the phrase, as if showing that a change from esseto subsistere is itself adequate for settling the issue of whether this doctrine has or has not been changed. What is often overlooked is that Lumen gentium 8 makes an argument about the nature of the Church. Lumen gentium 8 begins with an affirmation that Christ established and continually sustains His Church as a society that has both hierarchical organs and is the Mystical Body of Christ. These two elements are not to be separated but rather form “one complex reality that coalesces from a divine and a human element.” In the second paragraph of article 8, the council then likens the union of these two elements to “the mystery of the Word Incarnate.”

The third paragraph of Lumen gentium 8 states that “This sole (unica) Church of Christ is” the one professed in the creed with the four marks and with Peter as its shepherd. There are three things to note about this passage. First, the Church which Christ established is identical with the Church with the four notes, which is indicated by the demonstrative pronoun “haec”. Second it is this church and this church alone which is the Church that Christ founded, indicated by the important word “sole” (unica). Unicus in Latin means “one and only, sole,” “having no match, singular, or unique.”⁷⁹ Third, one should note immediately the use of the term estrather than subsistit. This expresses the identity between the one Church of Christ that Christ established and the concrete church with the four marks and with a Petrine primacy and apostolic college.

Finally, in the fourth paragraph of Lumen gentium 8, the council notes that “this church (haec ecclesia) which is constituted and organized as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church.” The council makes it clear that Christ’s Church subsists in the church “governed by the successors of St. Peter.” The antecedent to the demonstrative pronoun “haec” in the fourth paragraph is the” haec est unica Christi Ecclesiam” of the third paragraph.

We are now in a position to draw several conclusions. First, the term subsistit in does tell one something significant about the Catholic Church, i.e. that it is a concrete and complete instantiation of the Church of Christ. Second, the term subsistit in in itself tells one nothing about what is outside of the Church. If subststtt in simply has the sense of “to remain” or “to continue to exist,” then the council would simply be affirming that the Church of Christ continues to exist in the Catholic Church. Strictly speaking this would tell one nothing at all about whether the Church of Christ also exists in some other Christian body. If, on the other hand, subsistit in is used in a technical sense of suggesting a concrete existence of an integral thing, then the council would be affirming that the Church of Christ exists as a selfcontained and complete subject in the Catholic Church. One would not, however, have to conclude necessarily on the basis of this term alone that the Church of Christ is not found anywhere else in its completeness. In either case, the term simply does not say anything about whether the Church of Christ is present outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church.

Lastly, one must recall that the final document still contains the concessive clause introduced by the concessive particle, ficet, from Philips’ schema. If one were to argue that the introduction of subsistit in was a move away from a nonexclusive identity, then two fundamental changes in the concessive clause should have occurred. First, there should have been a shift from a concessive conjunction (licet) to an additive conjunction, such as et, rendering the clause no longer concessive. This also would have entailed a shift from a subordinating conjunction to a coordinating conjunction. No such changes took place, however, and the affirmation of the existence of elements outside the boundaries of the visible body is still contrasted with the Church of Christ subsisting in the Catholic Church.

Ironically, then, the amount of ink that has flowed as a result of subsistit in has been largely in vain, since unless one charges subsistit with a signification beyond what we have already considered, it does not tell one anything at all about whether the Church of Christ subsists in other ecclesial Communities and Churches.

Instead, the decisive element in Lumen gentium 8 is the series of predicates attributed to the Church of Christ. The sole church which was established by Christ “is governed hy the successor of Peter” and has the four marks of the Church. Since no other ecclesial community or “Church” is or claims to be governed “by the successor of Peter,” the council has therefore drawn a strict and exclusive identity between the church which Christ established of the first paragraph, with the church that has the four marks and was led by Peter and the apostles in the third paragraph, and the Catholic Church governed by the successors of Peter.⁸⁰ Moreover, the exclusive Integral nature of the Catholic Church is affirmed elsewhere in Unitatis redintegratio: “... it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone (solam), which is the general means of salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.”⁸¹ Therefore, the Church of Christ cannot be said to subsist in any other “eccIesial Communities or Churches.”

Footnote 10

Part of determining the meaning of any conciliar text is to look at the context in which it occurs. More important than the various proposals offered on the council floor for determining precisely what the council intended to say are the footnotes of conciliar documents, since these fonn a part of the final document approved by the council. Now in the case of Lumen gentium 8, the council attached footnote 10 to the sentence containing the subsistit in phrase.

If one examines the development of the various schemata with reference to footnote 10, one notices something quite interesting. Aeternus unigeniti has a footnote 49 which begins with the explanatory sentence indicating precisely what is intended by the footnote: “On the Identity of the Catholic Church and the Mystical Body.”⁸² What is peculiar is that this footnote is not attached to the sentence affirming the exclusive identity. This footnote remains unchanged in the second schema (though now number 20) and is still unattached to the sentence affirming exclusive identity.⁸³ In the third schema, the footnote (now numbered 10) is not attached to the sentence containing subsistit in, and the explanatory sentence is dropped.⁸⁴ Finally, in the approved text of Lumen gentium, this footnote, still footnote 10, has been moved from its previous location and attached to the sentence containing subsistit in.⁸⁵

The two references following the explanatory sentence in footnote 10 also make it clear what was intended by this footnote. In this footnote, the council ref erences two documents by Pius XII: Mystici corporis Christi (1943) and Humani generis (1950). Pius XII, as is well known, affirmed the identity between the Mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church with the term est in both these documents.⁸⁶ In footnote 10, the council references that part of Humani generis in which Pius XII took up the issue of those denying the exclusive identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. Here Pius XII wrote,

Some say 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. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of the Christian faith.⁸⁷

There are two things to note about this passage. First, the council references a document in which Pius XII magisterially rejected the views of those who say they are not bound to this doctrine of exclusive identity. So the intention of including this footnote must be to make it clear that this identification is still in force. Second, if Sullivan is correct that subststit in rejects exclusive identity, it would be very strange indeed if the footnote to the subsistit in sentence should cite the very texts of Pius XII that affirm exactly the opposite of what Sullivan and others contend. It is a sound rule of conciliar hermeneutics that, barring a statement to the contrary, footnotes should be read as supporting material and not as contradictory material.

The reference to Mystici corporis Christi is striking as well. One would have expected the citation of the famous 13th article:

If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christwhich is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Churchwe shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression “the Mystical Body of Christ”an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.⁸⁸

Surprisingly the footnote does not refer to article 13 but rather to articles 60-61, where the identification again occurs and, as commentators have failed to point out, so does the term “subsistence.”⁸⁹ Here Pius XII used the term in its technical signification.⁹⁰ So what we have, then, in footnote 10 are references to two texts which both assert the identity of the Catholic Church with the Mystical Body and where the first text uses the term “subsistence” in a technical sense.

Intertextuality and subsistit in Lumen gentium was not the only document of the Second Vatican Council to address the issue of whether the Church of Christ could be exclusively identified with the Catholic Church, and so the argument in favor of the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church does not rest solely on the famous subsistit in. During the third session (1964) this topic was broached with both Ortentalium ecclesiarum and Unitatis redintegratio. First, and perhaps most tellingly, the Second Vatican Council affirms in Orientaiium ecclesiarum the identity of the Mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church: “The holy and Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ. . .”⁹¹ Orientaiium ecclesiarum was promulgated on the same day as Lumen gentium, and it expressly affirms full identity and exclusive identity. This should have given scholars pause when evaluating what subsistit in means too.

On November 10, 1964, the secretary general, Pericle Felici (1911-1982), gave on behalf of the Secretariat a series of responses to objections by council fathers regarding Unitatis redintegratio. One of the first interventions objected to the second sentence of the decree’s introduction: “One and only one Church was founded by Christ the Lord, but many Christian communions present themselves as the true inheritance of Jesus Christ.”⁹² At least one council father objected that this seemed to imply falsely that the Catholic Church is included among those communions. The response given was: “Here only a fact, as seen by all, is to be described. Later on it is clearly affirmed that only the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ.”⁹³ Other bishops wanted it to say “more clearly” that only the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ. The reply to this intervention was: “The text presupposes the doctrine expounded in the constitution De Ecclesia.”⁹⁴ Felici responded to another bishop who desired that the unicity of the Church should be more clearly expressed, stating: “From the whole text there clearly appears the identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, although, as is right, the ecclesial elements of other communities are brought out.”⁹⁵

There are several things to conclude from this exchange. First, even though this exchange took place almost a year after the insertion of subsistit in by the doctrinal commission and almost a month after the presentation of Lumen gentium to the bishops, nevertheless Cardinal Felici still presented the material of [fnitatis redintegratio as if exclusive identity was still an established fact and not contrary to the “changed” doctrine contained in the constitution on the Church. If one maintains that Lumen gentium 8 ushered in a revolutionary doctrine on what the Church of Christ is, one would have to argue that Cardinal Felici was either ignorant of what had transpired with respect to Lumen gentium 8 or was deliberately trying to thwart the position taken by the council. Second, bishops were still asking that exclusive identity be affirmed. Again one would have to argue that these bishops were either ignorant of what had transpired or were deliberately trying to thwart the position already taken by the council in Lumen gentium.

Sullivan argues simply that the relator was essentially incorrect, since the text of Unitatis redintegratio nowhere asserts what the relator claims the text of Unitatis redintegratio is asserting.⁹⁶ If Sullivan is right that Lumen gentium rejects an exclusive identity, then one must argue that the text of Orientatium ecctesiarum and the official explanation of Unitatis redintegratio are both contradictory to Lumen gentium and that this went unnoticed by both the council fathers and the pope himself.On the other hand, if one concludes that Lumen genium 8 was an affirmation of exclusive identity, then both Orientalium ecclesiarum and Unitatis redintegratio’s relationes are perfectly intelligible. Moreover, both of these events occurred after the discussion of Lumen gentium was completed, so there was still time to correct either set of texts. Instead, Lumen gentium, Orientalium ecclesiarum, and Unitatis redintegratio were promulgated on exactly the same day, November 21, 1964, by a Votethat was nearly numerically unanimous.⁹⁷

Finally, after the vote, Pope Paul VI, in an allocution on the promulgation of the constitution, stated that: “The best commentary that can be made on this promulgation seems to be that the traditional doctrine has in no way been changed by it. What Christ wanted is what we want. That which was remains. What the church has taught for centuries is what we teach.”⁹⁸

Ecumenical Considerations and subsistit in

Many who oppose the exclusive identification of the Catholic Church with the Church of Christ do so on the basis of the council’s affirmation of two facts. First they argue that the acknowledgement of the “elements of sanctification and of truth” in other ecclesial communities necessarily entails that these communities as such are part of the Church of Christ.⁹⁹ Second they argue that when the council referred to some separated communities as “churches”, it was acknowledging that at least some of these communities as such are part of the Church of Christ. I will respond to these two arguments in turn.

There are a number of reasons why the conciliar acknowledgement ofthe existence of “ecclesial elements” outside the Church does not entail that non-Catholic communions as such are part of the Church of Christ. First, the mere presence of ecclesial elements does not entail that a particular communion as such is the Church of Christ or even Christian. The sacred scriptures, for example, are identified by Unitatis redintegratto as an authentic and ecc1esial element of sanctification and truth. This element is present and used outside the Catholic Church in other ecclesial Communities and Churches; however, it is also found outside Christianity entirely. Both Mormonism and [slam, for example, acknowledge the Old and New Testaments, and I do not think that Sullivan, let alone the Second Vatican Council, would want to argue that therefore either Mormonism or Islam is the Church of Christ. So having an element is not sufficient for being the Church of Christ or even Christian.

Second, one must remember that one can draw exactly the same conclusion from est that one can from subsistit in with respect to the existence of elements of sanctification and of truth outside the visible boundaries of the Church. Recall that the exclusive identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church was consistently and explicitly taught for at least 1,700 years prior to the council, and yet the Church simultaneously taught that there were elements outside her visible boundaries. Thus, the dogmatic and theological tradition since at least the 3^rd century has affirmed that baptisms performed hy heretics are validly conferred.¹⁰⁰ On these grounds, the Council of Nicaea forbade the rebaptism of heretics, a doctrine reconfirmed by the Council of Trent in the 16^th century.¹⁰¹ Augustine held both that the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ and that there are elements of the church outside the bounds of the Catholic Church.¹⁰² The great controversial theoiogian of the sixteenth century, St. Robert Bellarmine, maintained a strict and exclusive identification between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church and simultaneously taught that Protestant ecclesial bodies all have elements of sanctification and truth, such as the sacred scriptures, valid baptisms, etc.¹⁰³ Moreover, the preeonciliar papal magisterium in the hundred years prior to the council acknowledged the existence of elements beyond the Catholic Church. Pope Leo XIII, forexample, wrote a letter to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York reaffirming the content of Apostolicae Curae and praising the Anglicans for those good elements to be found amongst them. Thus Leo acknowledged the “religious zeal” and other positive qualities among both Anglican and nonAnglican alike in Britain. He alsospecified those “splendid qualities, moral virtue, and Catholic traditions” which still “flourished” amongst them.¹⁰⁴ Pius XI, speaking of the Eastern communities, rather cleverly said that “pieces broken off from goldbearing rock, themselves bear gold.”¹⁰⁵ Preconciliar theologians and popes would have been, of course, less inclined to speak in this positive way, given the polemical orientation of their work andthe theological exigencies of the day; nevertheless, they affirmed both exclusive identity and the existence of elements of sanctification and truth outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church.

It should then be of no surprise that in the initial schema on the Church, Schema constitutionis Dogmaticae de Ecclesia, one finds an affirmation that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church and a simultaneous affirmation that there are elements outside the Catholic Church’s visible boundaries. Thus in article 7 of Aeternus unigenitt, entitled “The Roman Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ,” we read: “The sacred synod, therefore, teaches and solemnly proclaims that there is only one true church of Jesus Christ, namely that which we celebrate in the Creed asthe one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church ... and so she alone is called by right the Roman Catholic Church.”¹⁰⁶ Later in chapter 9, article 51 of this schema, entitled “The Relationship of the Catholic Church to Separated Christian Communities” we read that in these communities “there are certain of the elements of the Church, especially the Sacred Scriptures and the sacraments, which, as efficacious means and signs of unity, can produce mutual union in Christ and by their very nature, as realitiesproper to Christ’s Church, impel towards unity.”¹⁰⁷ So here we have already in the first schema the simultaneous affirmation of these two propositions that had characterized the Catholic tradition for at least the previous 1,700 years.

So from a doctrinal perspective this was hardly the novelty that some contemporary theologians make it out to be. The council simply advanced the way that the Church speaks about our separated brethren by bringing her language more in conformiry with the doctrine she has always espoused. Catholics are now encouraged to focus on those elements of sanctification and truth outside the visible boundaries of the Church that had always been affirmed by the Church rather than focus on their errors. At the same time the council also acknowledged the serious errors of those communities separated from the Church; but again it advanced the Church’s language on how to refer to those difficulties by employing the terms “imperfect communion” and “defect.”¹⁰⁸

The second argument some scholars make to oppose an exclusive identification of the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ is that the doctrinal commission changed est to subsistit in because this exclusive identification “contradicted” Lumen gentium 15, which recognizes some non-Catholic communions as “churches.”¹⁰⁹ Moreover, they argue that this recognition was necessary to bring the council’s teaching about the Church into conformiry with the papal and conciliar magisterium, which frequently referred to Eastern communities as churches. This, too, is an absolutely unwarranted conclusion for two basic reasons.

First, as noted, the reason that such an affirmation was made by the council was precisely because preconciliar popes had with some frequency referred to non-Catholic Christians in this way. The council’s designation of church to Eastern communities first appeared in Aeternus unigeniti, the first schema on the Church, which as we saw maintained the exclusive identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church and at the same time acknowledged other “churches.” The origin of this use of “churches” with reference to non-Catholic Eastern Christians was Jan Witte, a professor of the Gregorian University, who had been assigned as relator for the chapter on ecumerusm on July 14, 1961 and turned in this final draft on May 29, 1962.¹¹⁰

Witte added a lengthy footnote justifying his use of “church” for separated Eastern churches, which listed 18 conciliar and papal documents from 1074 to 1953. His note included the following references: Gregory VII (1074-1075), Urban II (1095), the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second Council of Lyon (1274), the Council of Florence (1439), Pius IX (1848), Pius IX (1867), Pius IX (1868), Leo XIII (1894), Leo XIII (1898), St. Pius X (1912), Benedict XV (1920), Pius XI (1924), Pius XI (1928), Pius XII (1944), Pius XII (1945), Pius XII (1953).¹¹¹ One is immediately struck by the fact that many of these popes were perfectly willing to make an exclusive identification between the Church of Christ and the Cathoiic Church and simultaneously to refer to separated eastern communities as “churches”. So there is absolutely no reason to suppose that at the council the affirmation of other bodies as church in some sense entailed that est be changed to subsistit. Unfortunately for Suliivan and others, this iist is a witness to the very thing they seek to disprove.¹¹²

Second, the simultaneous affirmation of the exclusive identity of the Cathoiic Church with the Church of Christ with reference to other non-Catholic churches was not only made by pontiffs; it was also frequently made by theologians in the hundred years before the council. Even if one were to look at the now much maligned conservative “neoscholastic” manuals, one immediately finds this simultaneous recognition of the exclusive identity of the Cathoiic Church with the Church of Christ alongside references to other non-Catholic communions as “Churches”. In the context of the manuals, the term church (when not referring to the Cathoiic Church) is appiied most frequently to the schismatic Eastern churches who are variously called the Greek churches, oriental churches, schismatic churches, and autocephalous churches. The tenm church is also applied, albeit less frequently, to churches stemming from the Reformation. One finds the manuals, for example, referring to Protestant communities as Protestant churches, reformation churches, or the Anglican Church; however, more frequently one finds them applying the terms groups (coetus) or sects.¹¹³ Many of the important theological manuals made such references well before the council.¹¹⁴

Sullivan has further argued that Lumen gentium’s affirmation that outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church there are “true particular churches” “obviously” contradicts the assertion that outside the boundaries of the Catholic Church there are “only elements of church.”¹¹⁵ This is not the case for the following two reasons. First, Sullivan seems to assume that the term church was used univocally, though it clearly was not, as the above testifies and Christopher]. Malloy has shown.¹¹⁶ Second, the elementa are simply those iodividual goods which go to make up the Church of Christ, the total sum of which are, however, still insufficient to constitute these communities as the Church of Christ. Thus, there is no contradiction between the affirmation that there are “churches”, i.e. local churches outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, and the fact that these consist only of elements. These non-Catholic local churches are in part a sum of these individual elements, and the more these local churches maintain the totality of the elements, the more they can, as such, be considered part of the universal Church. In so far as they lack these elements, amongst which is communion with Peter their head, they cannot be considered to be even part of the universal Church. This is made particularlyclear since the council never once referred to these “churches” as part of the Church of Christ.

Conclusion

The now standard explanation that est was replaced by subsistit in in order to signal that the Church no longer held to the doctrine of Pope Pius XII on the full and exclusive identification of the Catholic Church with the Church of Christ cannot be maintained. The preceding study makes several things clear. First, it is evident that Tromp used the term in a technical theological sense to mean “that which has both a concrete existence and has all that is proper to its nature”, so that the Church of Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church in a concrete and whole manner. It is only this sense which can express the intent of the council in Lumen gentium 8. Moreover, if the magisterium intended a change in doctrine, none of the terms proposed during the council, such as inuenire tn.adest in,or subsistit in, are contradictory to the est formula anyway. As the relatio on Lumen gentium 8 makes clear,the term subsistit in was chosen not as a repudiation of est but rather to express better (melius) the fact that there are elementa present outside the Church. This is confirmed by footnote 10. Therefore, the consistent interpretation that the CDF has given to subsistit in is not only theologically sound but also historically sound. Second, it is also clear that the term “subsistere” does not by itself give exclusivity; one must look to other aspects of the council’s teaching to show that the Church of Christ cannot subsist in other bodies precisely because they lack a whole series of perfections, particularly Perrine governance, which is an essential feature of the Church of Christ, as pointed out in Lumen gentium 8. Third, the term subsistit in was not chosen in order to permit one to recognize that there are ecclesial elements and “ecclesial Communities and Churches” outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church. These two facts were constantly acknowledged by Catholic theologians from the Patristic period to Pius XII, who at the same time affirmed the exclusive identity of the Catholic Church with the Church of Christ.

1.      “11est a presumer que !’expression Iatine: subsistit in (I’Eglise du Christ se trouue dans la Catholica) fera couler des flots d’encre.” Gerard Philips, L’Eglise et son mystere au IIe Concile du Vatican: Histoire, texte, et commentaire de la constitution “Lumen gentium” (Paris: Desclee, 1967), 1:119.

2.      Leonardo Boff Manifest Jur die Okumene: im Streit mit Kardinal Ratzinger (Dusseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 2001), 96. M. GarijoGuembe, Communion of the Saints: Foundation, Nature, and Structure afthe Church (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1994), lOB. Richard Mcbrien, “Dominus Iesus: An Ecclesiological Critique,” Centro Pro Unione SemiAnnual Bulletin 59 (Spring 2(01),1920. Gerald O’Collins, Tbe ,\’enmd Vatican Council: Message and Meaning (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, ZOI4), 44. Francis A. Sullivan, “The Significance of the Vatican II Declaration that the < .hurch of Christ “subsists in’ the Roman Catholic Church,” in Rene Latourelle, Vatican 11:Assessment lind Perspectives: TwentyFive Years After 09621987) (New York: Paulist Press, 19HH), 2: 274. Sullivan, “The Meaning of Subsistit in as Explained hy the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” Theological Studies 69 (Z008): 124. Sullivan, “Quaestio Dixputata: A Response to Karl Becker, S.]., on the Meaning of Subsisttt in,” Tbeotugtcat Studies 67 (2006): 395. “I have already published two articles in this journal defending the: view that it does mean a change from that doctrine.” Sullivan, “Quaestio Disputata: Further Thoughts on the Meaning of Subsistit in,” Theological Studies 71 (ZOIO): I:’7. “Vatican II also did not continue the doctrine of Pope Pius XII, which it changed hy introducing new formulations. t.e. ‘subsists in’ and ‘Churches and ecclesial communities. ‘“ jared Wicks, S. j., “Questions and Answers on the New ‘Responses’ of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” Ecumenical Trends 36, no 7 (luly 2(07): 103.

3.      Karl josef Becker, S. I. “An Examination of Subsislit in: A Profound Theological Perspective,” L’Osservatore Romano 14 December 2005, pp. ] 1]4. Becker, s.j., “The Church and Vatican II’s ‘Subsistit In” Terminology,” Origins 35 (2006): 515C518B. Stephen A. Hipp. “Est’, ‘Adest’, and ‘Subsistit in’ at Vatican II,” Angelicum 91 (2014): 727794. Christopher J. Malloy, “Subsistit In: Nonexclusive Identity or Full Identity?” The Tbomist (Z008): 144. Fernando Ocariz, “Christ’s Church Subsists in the Catholic Church: Forty Years after the Close ofthe Vatican Council II,” L’Osservatore Romano, 21 December 2005, page 9. Alexandra von Teuffenbach, Die Bedeutung des ‘subsistit in’ (LG 8): Zum Selbstverstiindnis der Kathollschen Kirche (Munich: Herbert Utz Verlag, 20(2). Lawrence J Welch and Guy Mansini, O.S.B., “Lumen Gentium No.8 and Subslslit in Again,” New Btackfriars 90 (2009): 60217. Becker and von Teuffenbach are often accused of holding that the doctrine remained exactly the same in such a way that no development at all occurred. I think that this is not fair to either of their positions. It is true that they hold to full and exclusive identity of the Catholic Church with the Church of Christ, hut this does not entail that they do not see subslstit in as a development. I think it is more just to argue that they have only dealt with one aspect of the problem, i.e. the problem of the exclusive identity. The CDF states, “The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended HI change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.” CDF, Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church.

4.      P. G. W. Glare, cd.. ()~lo,.d Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2(02), 1850.

5.      E. A. Andrews, William Freund, Charlton Thomas Lewis, and Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary! Founded OIt Andrews’ Edition uf Freund’s Latin Dictionary (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 1782. James Houston Baxter, Charles Johnson, and Phyllis Abrahams, Medieval Latin WordList from British and Irish Sources (London: Oxford University Press, Humphrey Milford, 1934), 408. W. H, Maigne d’Arnis, and JP. Migne, Lexicon manu.ale ad scriptures media: et infimce latinitatis, ex glossariis Caroli Duf resne, D. Ducangii, D.P. Carpentarit. Adelungii, et aliorum, in compendium accurattsstme redactum; ou, Recueil de mots de Labasse tauntte, aresse pour seroir it l’intetligence des auteurs, soft sucres, soit profanes, du moyen age (Paris: JP. Migne, 1866), 2130.

6.      Walter Kasper, That Ibey May All Be One: The Call to Unity (London: Burns & Oates, 2004), 65. Sullivan, “The Meaning of Subsistit in as Explained by the Congregation for the Doctrine oftbe Faith,” 118. Sullivan, “Quaestio Disputata: A Response to Karl Becker, S.J, On the Meaning of Subsistit In,” 397. Becker, S. J., “An Examination of Subsistit in: A Profound Theological Perspective,” 13. Von Teuffenbach, Die Bedeutung des ‘subsistit in’ (LG 8). 110 Edward Schillebeeckx, Church: the Human Story of God (New York: Crossroad, 1990), 193. Schillebeeckx, The Language of Faith: Essays on]esus, Theolop’y, and the Church (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1995),56. Donato Valentini, “The Unicity and the Unity of the Church,” in Declaration Dominus lesus (Washington, D.C.: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011), 76. Sullivan, “The Significance of the Vatican II Declaration that the Church of Christ “Subsists in” the Roman Catholic Church,” 276. Some of these scholars who object to the philosophical or technical use of subsistere in lumen gentium apparently unknowingly introduce elements of the technical definition into their definition. Boff, for example, does not just hold to a definition of “continues to exist”. hut argues that this existence is a “concrete” existence Leonardo Boff, Manifest [tir die (jkumene: im Streit mit Kardtnat Ratzinger, 96.

7.      Roy J Deferran, A Lexicon of St. Thomas Aquinas (Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto Publications, 2004), 1063.

8.      Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 29, a. 2.

9.      Rubber balls, of course, are artifacts and do not have natures in 111(‘proper sense. I have used this example simply for expediency. For a detailed treatment of tilt’ philosophical notion of subsistence, see Stephen A. Hipp, “Person” in Christian Tradition and the Conception of Saint Albert the Great: A Systematic Study oftts Concept as Illuminated by the Mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation, lJ~il;iiKezur Gescbtchte del’ Philosopbie und Tbeclogie des Mittelalters, Neue Polgc Band ‘57 (Munster: Aschendorff, 2001). Stephen A. Hipp, The Doctrine of Personal Subsistence: Historical and Systematic Synthesis, Studia Friburgensia 114 (Fribourg: Academic Press Frihourg, 2(12).

10.  Becker, S.]., “An Examination of Subsistu in: A Profound Theological Perspective,” 13Von Teuffenbach barely treats of the philosophical use of the term in her analysis of the term. Alexandra von Teuffenbach, Die Bedeutung des ‘subsistit In’ (IG 8),85114.

11.  Index Thomisticus, accessed http://www.corpusthomisticum,orglit/index.age. See also for example Domingo Banez, Scbotasttca commentaria in prlmam partem angelici doctoris S. Thomae. Usque ad LXI/II quaestionem. Tomus primus (Douai: Ex typographia Petri Borremans, 1614), (subsistit in) 89, 159, 160; (subsistere in) 119, 400. Francisco Suarez, R. P. D. Francisci Suarez ... commentarii ac distributiones In primam partem Summae Theologiae D, Thomae. De Deo uno et trino In tres praectpuos tractatus distributate. Accesserunt varii et locupletissimi Indices (Venice: Apud Bemardum Iunctam, loan. Bapt. Ciotturn, & Socios, 1608), (subsistere in) 429, 443.

12.  Peter Hunermann, Helmut Hoping, Robert L. Fastiggi, Anne Englund Nash, and Heinrich Denzinger, Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals, 43n1 edition (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2(12) (hereafter DII), 114/253. 148/302, 20l/40l, 216/424, 217/426, 219/428, 220/429, 226/4Y” 254/501, 288/548. 292/558, 302/601, 3931750, 468/870, 480/9tXl, 691/1300, 710/1334, 1084/1986, 1423/2473, 1425/2475 (these two ecclesiological), 1843/3121, 1844/3122, 189913209, 1911/3221,1916/3226,1927/3237.

13.  Pius XII, Mystici corporis Christi, 61. Sempiternus Rex Osristus. 22, 31, 44.

14.  Some have argued that when an explicit meaning is not given to a term, then the usual meaning of the term should be employed. Leonardo Boff, Manifest fur die Okumene: tm Streit mit Kardinal Ratzinp,er, 9’). Francis A. Sullivan, The Church We Believe in: One, Ho(V, Catboltc. anti Apostolic (New York: Paulist Press, 1988), 26.

15.  Malloy, “Subststtt 111: Nonexclusive Identity or Full Identity?” 31. Joseph Ratzinger, “The Ecclesiology of the Constitution Lumen Gentium,” in Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion, ed. Stephan Otto Horn and Vinzenz Pfnur (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005), 123•52, at 147. Cardinal Avery Dulles, “Letter to the Editor,” America 197.9 (October 1, 20(7): 43. Heim,joseph Ratzinger: Life in the Church and Living Theology, 315. Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder & Herder, 19671969), 1:150. F. Rieken, “Ecclesia . . universale salutis sacramentum,” Scholastik 40 (1965): 373. Hipp. “Bst’, ‘Adest,’ and ‘Subsistit in’ at Vatican II,” Angelicum 91 (2014): 727•794. BenoitDominique de La Soujeole, Introduction to the Mystery afthe Church (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2014), 127129. Lawrence). Welch and Guy Mansini, O.S.B., “Lumen Gentium NO.8 and Subsistit in Again,” New Blachfriars 90 (2009): 612613. Lawrence J Welch, Tbe Presence of Christ in the Church: Explorations in Theology (Ave Maria, FL: Sapientia Press of Ave Maria University, 2012), 100. Robert Fastiggi, “The Petrine Ministry and the Indefectibility of the Church,” in Steven C. Boguslawski and Robert L. Fastiggi, Called to Holiness and Communion: Vatican II an the Church (Scranton: University of Scranton Press, 2009), 175•176.

16.  Nostra aetate 3. Gaudium et spes 10. Unitatis redintegratio 4, 13. Dtgnttutis hwnanae 1. lumen gentium 8. See Philippe Delhaye. Michel Gueret, and Paul Tombeur, Conctlimn Vattcanu m 1/: concordance. index, listes de frequence, tables comparatives (Louvain: Publications du CETEDOC, 1974),632. Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from the documents of Second Vatican Council are from the Vatican website http://www. vatican. va/archive/hist , councils/ii_ vatican_counciVindex. htm accessed June 1, 2016.

17.  “Quinarn est sensus doloris, mali, mortis, quae, quamquam rant us progressus factus est, subsistere pergunri” Gaudtum et spes 10.

18.  “Ecclesia cum aestimatione quoque Muslimos respicit qui unicum Deum adorant, viventem et suhsistentem, misericordem et omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae, homines allocutum, cuius occultis etiam decretis toto animo se submittere student, sicut Deo se submisit Abraham ad quem fides islamica libenter sese refert. ~ Nostra aetate 3.

19.  Thus Cardinal Kasper is quite wrong when he asserts that the council documents contain no indication that the term subsistit in is used in its scholastic sense. Kasper, That They May All Be One: Tbe Call to Unity, 65.

20.  “Quae omnia, cum a fidelibus Ecclesiae catholicae sub pastorum vigilantia prudenter et patienter perficiuntur, ad bonum aequitatis et veritatis. concordiae et collaboraticnts, fraterni animi et union is conferunt; lit hac via paulatim, supcratis ohstaculis perfectam communionem ecclesiasticarn impedientibus, omnes Christiani. in una Eucharistiae celebratione, in unius unlcaeque Ecclesiae unitatern congregentur quam Christus ab initio Ecclesiae suae largitus est, quamque inamissibilem in Ecclesia catholica subststerc credimus et usque ad consummationem saeculi in dies crescere speramus. ~ Unttatis redtntegratio 4.

21.  Kasper, That They May Alt Be One:The Callto Unity,65.

22.  Urutatis redintegratio 13.

23.  “Altae dein, post amplius quattuor saecula, in Occidente ortae sunt ex eventibus qui sub nomine Reformationis communiter veniunt. Exinde a Sede Romana plures Communiones sive nationales sive confessionales seiunctae sunt. Inter eas, in quibus traditiones et structurae catholicae ex parte subsistere pergunt. locum specialem tenet Communio anglicana.” Unitatis redintegratio 13.

24.  Tavard has argued that the sense in which communities are church cannot be understood as one being “more or less Church”, which is suggested by the use of “ex parte” in Unitatis redintegratio 13. George H. Tavard, Vatican IJ and the Ecumenical Way (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2006), 139. A similar view was expressed in the ARCIC document, Authority in the Church, citing Unitatis redintegratio 13 where it states that “The Second Vatican Council allows it to be said that a church out of communion with the Roman see may lack nothing from the viewpoint of the Roman Catholic Church except that it does not belong to the visible manifestation of full Christian communion which is maintained in the Roman Catholic Church.” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstunVanglcommdocs/rc_pc_ c hrstunt , doc_1981_authoritychurchii jen.htrnl accessed 10/22/2015. Both these views are completely at odds with the intent of Unitatts redintegratio 13. Ratzinger has simply noted that Unitatis reatntegratto 13 does not “say anything of the kind.” Ratzinger. Cburcb, Ecumenism, and Politics: New Essays in Bcclesiology (New York: Crossroad, 1988), 77.

25.  “Primum itaque profitetur Sacra Synodus Deurn Ipsurn viarn generi humano notam fectsse per quam, Ipsi inserviendo, homines in Christo salvi et beati fieri possint. Hanc unicam veram Religionem subsistere credimus in cathoJica et apostoJica Bcclesia, cui Dominus Iesus munus concredidit earn ad universes homines diffundcndi. dicens ApostoliS: Euntes ergo docete ornnes gentes baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii er SpirituS Sancti, docentes eos servare omnia quaeeumque mandavi vobis» (Mt. 28, 1920). Homines vero cuncti tenentur veritatem, praesertim in lis quae Deum Eiusque Ecc1esiam respiciunt, quaerere eamque cognitam arnplecti ac servare.” Dignitatis humanae 1.

26.  Ralph M. Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber; The Unknown Council (New York City: Hawthorn Books, 1967), 162.

27.  Acta synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II (Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1971) (hereafter AS),IV/5, 77.

28.  ASIV/5, 99.

29.  Leo XIII, Affari !’Os,S.

30.  Franc. X. De Abarzuza, O.F.M. Cap., Manuale Tbeologtae Dogmaticae, 2nd ed. (Madri(l Ediciones Studium, 1956). volume 1. .l. M. Herve, Manuale Theologtae Dogmaticae. 16111 ed. (Westminster, MD: The Newman Bookshop, 1943), volume 1 Camillo Mazzella. De reltglone et ecclesia praelectiones scbolasticodogmaticae (Romae: Officina TypogiJphica Forzani et Socii, 1896),224225. Salaverri, Sacrae Tbeologtae Summa, 4th ed. (Matriti: Bihlioteca De Autores Cristianos, 1967), volume 1. Adolphe Tanquery, Synop. sis Theologtcae Dogmaticae (Paris: Desclee et Socii, 1953), volume I. Valentin Zubizarreta, Theologia dogmaticoscholdstica ad mentem S Thomae Aquinatis (Bilbao: Ed. Elexpuru, 1948), volume I.

31.  Nostra aetate 3.

32.  Schemata constitutionurn et decretorurn de quibus aisceptaottur in Concilii sessioni: bus, Series prima (Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1962),5.

33.  AS, Indices 75. This schema can be found in: Schemata constitutionum et decretorum de quibus disceptabitur in Concutc sessionibus, Series secunda (Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1962),990. AS V4, 1291. Francisco Gil HeUin, Constitutio dogmatica de ecclestu. Concilii Vaticani II synopsis in ordinem. redigens schemata cum relationibus necnon patrnm orationes atque animadversiones (Citta del Vaticano: Libr. Ed. Vaticana. 1995),2619

34.  The Preparatory Theological Commission’s and Central Preparatory Commission’s work is treated by Jared Wicks, S.J., “LutheranCatholic Dialogue. On Foundations Laid in 19621964,” Concordia Journal 39 (2013): 296309.

35.  AS 1/4, 12, note 1.

36.  AS 1/4, 12.

37.  “Docet igitur Sacra Synodus et sollemniter profitetur non esse nisi unlearn veram lest! Christi Ecclesiam, earn nempe quam in Symbolo, unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam celebramus, quam Salvator sihi in Cruce acquisivit sibique ramquam corpus capiti et sponsam sponso coniunxit, quam que post resurrectionem suam S. Petro et Successoribus, qui sunt Romani Pontinces, tradidit gubernandam; ideoque sola iure Catholica Rornana nuncupatur Ecclesia.” AS 1/4, 15. Schemata constitutionum et decretorum de quibus disceptabitur ill Concilii sessionibus, Series secunda, 12. Hellin, Constltutio dogmattca de ecclesia, 62. English translation from Joseph Komonchak accessed June 2, 2016 https.ZIjak()monchak.files.wordpress.com/2013/07 /draftofdeecc1esia..ehsl11.pdf.

38.  “In Usenim elementa quaedam Ecclesiae exsistunt lit potissimum Scriptura Sacra er Sacramenta, quae, ut media et signa unitatis cfficacia unionem mutuam in Christo producere possum et natura sua, ut res Ecclesiae Christi propriae, ad unitatern catholicam impellunt.” Schemata constitutionurn et decretorurn de quibus disceptabitur in Concilii sesstontbus, Series secunda, 81.

39.  Giuseppe AJberigo and Joseph Komonchak, History of Vatican II (Maryknoll, NY:Orbis: Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 2: 332340.

40.  Karim Schelkens, “Lumen Gentium’s Subsistit in Revisited. The Catholic Church and Christian Unity after Vatican II,” Theological Studies 69/4 (2008): 875893884.

41.  Hellin, Constitutio dogmatica de ecclesia, 694715. “Docet autern Sacra synodus et sollemniter profitetur non esse nisi unicam lesu Christi Ecclesiam, quam in Symbolo unam, sanctam, catho!icam et apostolicam celebramus, quam Salvator redivivus Petro er Apostolis pascendarn tradidit.” Hellin. Constttutio dogmatica de ecclesta, 697. Becker. S.]., “An Examination of Subsist it in: A Profound Theological Perspective,” 1112.

42.  “Haec igitur Ecclesia, vera omnium Mater et Magtstra, in hoc mundo ut societas constituta et ordmata, est Ecclesla catholica, a Romano Pontific et Episcopis in eius communion directa, licet elementu quuedam sanctificationis extra totalem compaginem inveniri possinr.” Hellin, COllstitutio dogmatica de eajesia, 697. Translation mine.

43.  Thomas Kerchever Arnold, George Granville Bradley, and]. F. Mountford, Bradley’s Arnold: Latin Prose Composition (London: Longmans, 1938),263.

44.  L Hellin. Constttutto dogmatica de ecclesia, xxii. This schema can be found in: Acta synodalia Sacrosanct! Concilii Oecumentci Vaticani II, 11/1, 215280. Hellin, Constttutw aogmanca de ecdesia, 2619.

45.  “Docet autem Sacra Synodus et sollemniter profitetur non esse nisi unlearn lesu Christi Ecclcsiam, quam in Symbolo unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam celebrarruoquam Salvator post resurrectlonem suam Petro et Apostolis eorurnque successoribus pascendam tradidit. et super iIIos in salutis sacramentum, ‘columnam et firmamentum veritatis’ crexit. Haec igitur Ecclesia. vera omnium Mater et Magistra. in hoc mundo ut societas constituta e[ ordinata. est Ecclesia catholica. a Romano Pontifice et Episcopis in eius communione directa, licet extra totalem compaginem elementa plura sanctificationis inveniri possinr. quae ut res Ecclesiae Christi propriae, ad unitatem Cathiolicam irnpellunt.” AS II/I. 219220; AS III/I. 167. Hellin, Constitutio dogmatica de ecclesia, 64.

46.  “Haec Ecclesia, in hoc mundo ut societas constituta et ordinata, adest in Ecclesia Catholica, a successore Petri et Episcopis in eius communion gubernata, licet extra eius compaginern elementa plura sanctificationis inveniantur.” Schelkens, “Lumen Gentium’s ‘Subsistit in’ Revisited,” 888 n. 44.

47.  AS 111143335. Schelkens, “Lumen Gentium’s ‘Subsistit in’ Revisited,” 888.

48.  Schelkens, “Lumen Gentium’s ‘Subsistit in’ Revisited,” 888.

49.  Hipp, “Bst’, ‘Adest, and ‘Subsistit in’ at Vatican Il,” Angeticum 91 (2014); 727794

50.  Vnn Teuffenbach, Die Bedeutung des ‘subsistit in’ (LG R), 375378

51.  “POssumus dicere: itaque subsistit in Ecc!esia catholica, et hoc est exclusnnnn. in quantum dicitur: alibi non sunt nisi elementa. Explicatur in textu.” Cited in Becker, S, .J”

“An Examination of Subsistit in: A Profound Theological Perspective,” 12. We know what Tromp thought about the relationship between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church. Congar recounts a story in which, during a meeting of the preliminary commission, Fr. Tromp pounded his fist on the table, insisting that it had alreadv been decided that the Body of Christ is identified with the Catholic Church and that Protestants and Orthodox do not participate in it. William Henn, “Yves Congar and Lumen Genttum: Gregorianum 86 (ZOOS): 582 n. 69. Jean Puyo and Yves Congar,jeall Puyo interroge Ie pere Congar: une nie pour ta verite (Paris: Le Centurion, 1975), 126127

52.  Von Teuffenbach, Die Bedeutung des ‘subsistit in’ (1.(; H), 57)j7H

53.  Sullivan, “The Meaning of Subsistit in as explained by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” 122. What is curious about Sullivan’s argument is that he argued rather that we did not know the reason for the introduction of subsistit in and that, barring its discovery, we were left to draw certain conclusions; however, when this was discovered by Becker and von Teuffenbach, he began to argue that the origin was irrelevant.

54.  Von Teuffenbach, Die Bedeutung des ‘subsistit in’ (IG 8), 379. The members of the doctrinal commission were made up of both elected members and appointed members. John XXIII appointed 9, instead of the 8 originally foreseen, to give 25 members plus the President. ASl/L, 225ff, 269f(elected members), 55962(appointed members).

55.  AS 2/1:340. See also Browne, “De unitate ecclesiae” in Symposium theologicum de ecclesia Christi (Rome: Divinitas, 1962), 2324.

56.  Pietro Parente, 1heologia fundamentalis: Apologetica, de Ecclesia. [De fontibus revet« ttonis (Torino: Marietti, 1962), 172173. See also his schema on the church: Hellin, Constitutto dogmatica de ecclesia, 681,684. Von Teuffenbach, Die Bedeutung des ‘subststit in,’ 329. A bibliography of Parente’s works can be found in: Michele Di Ruberto, Bibliografill del cardinale Pietro Parente (Citta del Vaticano: Librcria Bditrice Vaticana, 1991).

57.  Joseph Clifford Fenton, “The Mystici Corporis and the Definitions of the Church,” American Ecclesiastical Review 128 (1953): 448459. Fenton, “Pope Pius XII and the Theological Treatise on the Church,” American Ecclesiastical Review 139 ( 1958): 407419.

58.  Ratzinger was quite clear: “Unfortunately once again I cannot follow the reasoning of my esteemed colleague, jungel. 1 was there at the Second Vatican Council when the term “subsistit” was chosen and I can say I know it well.” Ratzinger. “Cardinal Ratzinger Answers the Main Objections against Dominus Jesus,” L’Osseriiatore Romano 14 December 200;, p. 10. See also Maximilian Heinrich Heim,joseph Ratzinger: Life in the Church and LiliinK 111eol0K,Y:Fundamentals (?f Ecclestology with Reference to Lumen Gentium (San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2(07), j 12330.

59.  Sebastian Tromp, S. J, “De ecclesiae membris.” in Symposium tbeologicum de ecclesia Christi, 2’)•26. Sebastian Tromp, S. J., Pius papa Xli De mystico Iesu Christi corpore deque nostru in eo curn Christo coniunctione; “Mysttci corporis Christi” 29 iun. 1943, 3rt!ed. (Roruae: Apud At’ll~s Pont. Universitatis Gregorianae, 1958), 15. The fourth edition, published in 196.~, maintains the same unchanged position. Pius Papa XII De mystico Iesu Christi corpore deque nastra in eo cum Christo coniunctione; “Mystici corporis Christi” 29 tun. 1943, ,rll eel. (Romae: Apud Aedes Pont. Universitatis Gregorianae, 1%3), 15.

60.  Salaverri defended the thesis, “Sola RornanoCatholica est vera Christi Ecclesia.” Salaverri, “De Ecclesia Christi,” in Sacrae Theologiae Summa, 4th ed. (Matriti: Biblioteca De Autores Cristianos, 19(7), 1: 651.

61.  Heribert Schauf, De Corpore Christi Mystico, siue de ecclesia Christi; Theses die Ekklesiologie des Konzilstheologen Clemens Schrader SJ. (Freiburg im Bresgau: Herder, 1959), 152, 159

62.  Becker,S.]., “An Examination of Subsistit in: A Profound Theological Perspective,” 13. von Tcuttenbach, Die Bedeutung des ‘subsistit in’ (LG 8), 110. Von Teuffenbach, “The History of the Word ‘Subsistit’ in Lumen Gentium,” Faith Magazine (luly  August 2004): 20.

63.  Kevin McCarthy, “Where Father Sebastian Tromp, S.]. Got “Subsistit in” for Lumen gentium,” accesed http://www.catholicIegate.com/wpeontent/uploads/2012/03/subsist. pdf. McCarthy intriguingly argues that Tromp was aware of Gregory the Great’s usage through Fr. John Hardon’s dissertation which Tromp directed. McCarthy, who is a lawyer by profession, shows the parallel use of language between Lumen gentium 8 and Gregory the Great.

64.  Heim,joseph Ratzinger: Life in the Church and Living Theology, 315. Vorgrimler suggests that this has a scholastic meaning. Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder & Herder, 196719(9), 1:150.

65.  Sebastian Tromp, S. J., De reoetattone christiana (Romae: Apud Aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1945). Tromp, S. J., De sacrae scripturae inspiratione (Romae: Apud aedes Universitatis Greg()rianae, 1956).

66.  Sebastian Tromp, S. )., “De Manuscriptis Prae1ectionum Lovaniensiurn S. Roberti Bellarmini S. l. Chronologia et problemata annexa,” Arcbiuurn Historicum Societatis Iesu 2 (1933): 185199. R. de Le Court, “S. Robert Bellannin a Louvain,” Revue d’histoire ecdesiastique 28 (1932): 74.

67.  Ignatius and George E. Ganss, The Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius: A Translation and Commentary (St. Louis: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1992), 135. The Constitutions of the Society of Kesus, trans. George E. Ganss, S.J. (St. Louis: The Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1970).219.

68.  Sebastian Tromp, S. )., De corpore Christi mystico et actione catholica: ad mentem S. Joannis Chrysostomi (Romae: Apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1933). Tromp, S. )., De Sptritu Sando anima corporis mystyci testimonia selecta e jJatribus (Rornacapud aedes Pont. Universitates Gregorianae, 1932). Tromp, S.)., Corpus Christi, Quod Est Ecdesia (New York: Vantage Press, 1960).

69.  Fora fuller treatment of the notion of elementa, see my forthcoming article:ChristianD. Washburn, “TheEcclesiological Statusof Non-CatholicEcclesialCommunitiesStemming from the Reformation.”

70.  “Nous serions tcntcs de traduire:c’est la que nous trouvons l’Eglise du Christdans route sa plenitude et route sa force.” GerardPhilips, I’Eglise et Son Mystere au lIe Concile du Vatican, 1:119. See also Charles Boyer, Le mouvement oecumentque: les faits, Ie dialogue (Rome: Umverstre gregorienne, 1976), 1718.

71.  This reading of subsistit in as plenitude was not uncommon immediatelyafterthe council. Thus Robert E. Hunt in a paper entitled “TheSeparatedChristianChurchesand Communities in the Mystery of Salvation,”given in 1966 as part of the Proceedings uf the Catholic rneotogtcat Society uf America noted that in Lumen gentium, subsist meant not only plenitude, but also implied that other ecclesial communities are not subsistent. ‘The Separated Christian Churches and Communities in the Mysteryof Salvation,”Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America (1966), 31.

72.  Hellin, Constitutio dogmatica de ecclesta, XXIX.

73.  AS, Indices 76. This schema can be found in: Acta synod alta Sacrosanct! Concilii Uecumenici Vatican; II, III/I, 158233. Hellin, Constuutto dogmatica de ecclesto, 2619. See also Christian D. Washburn, “The Theological Priority of Lumen gentium and Dei verbum for the Interpretation of the Second Vatican Council,” The Thomist 78 (2014): 112113.

74.  “Haec Ecclesia, in hoc mundo ut societas constituta et ordinata, subsistit in Ecclesia catholica, a successore Petri et Episcopis in eius communione gubernata. Iicet extra eius compaginem elementa plura sanctificationis et veritatis inveniantur, quae ut dona Ecclesiae Christi propria, ad unitatern catholicam impellunt.” AS III/I, 167. Hellin, Const/tut/v dogmatica de eccles/a, 65.

75.  AS 111/1, 176.). O’Connor, “The Church of Christ and the Catholic Church”, in The Battle for the Catholic Mind, ed. W. May, K. Whitehead (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’S Press. 20(1),254.

76.  “Mysterium Ecclestae adest et manifestatur in concreta societate. Coetus autem visibilis et elementurm spirituale non sunt duae res, sed una realitas complexa, complectens divina et humana, media salutis et fructus salutis. Quod per analogi am cum vcrbo incarnato iIlustratur.” AS III/I, 176. J. O’Connor, “The Church of Christ and the Catholic Church,” 254

77.   “Ecclesia est unica, et his in terris adest in Ecclesia catholica, licet extra earn inveniantur elementa ecclesialia.” AS IIIIl, 176. j. O’Connor, “The Church of Christ and the Catholic Church”, 254. This part of the relatio has proven difficult for various commentators. Some, like Becker, have concluded that it was a mistake by the redactor who did not notice that the text had changed. Becker, S. .l., “An Examination of Subsistit in: A Profound Theological Perspective,” 12. Others have argued that the relatio was attempting to show that adest was essentially a synonym for subsistit in. Both Becker and others seem to assume that adest is being given (either mistakenly or intentionally) as an explanation of subsisut in, but this is incorrect. Adest (not a contradictory of subsistit) is simply being used to explain the general sense of the passage, and very little can be concluded from it eitherway.

78.  Quaedam verba mutantur: loco “est”, I. 21, dicitur “suhsistit in”, tit expressio melius l’onu)rl!ct cum affirmatione de elemcntts ecclestalibus quae alibi adsunr.” AS III/I, 177. Translation is my own.

79.  “I. one and only, sole .... 2. having no match, singular, or unique.” P. G. W. Glare, ed., Oxford Latin Dictionary” 2093. “One and no more, only, sole, single.” Deferrari, A Lexicon of Sf. Thomas Aquinas, 1123,

80.  It is frequently alleged that while the CDF has offered one possible interpretation of the subststit in, its interpretation lacks historical grounding. It is precisely this notion of Wholeness that results from reading subsistit in as a technical term that is specified in every intervention of the CDF on the issue of subsistir in. What should be clear by now is that the CDF’s position must be said to be historically grounded.

81.  “Per solam enim catholicam Christi Ecclesiam, quae generate auxilium salutis est, omnis salurarium mediorum plenitude attingi potest.” Unitatts redintegratio 3.

82.  AS 1/4. I”‘

83.  2nd Schema. AS II/L 225. The footnote begins, “De identitate Ecclesiae Catholicae et Corporis ~lysti(:i”.

84.  AS 11111.169.

85.  AS III/X, “‘H9 footnote 10. The footnote reads: “Cfr. Pius XII, Litt. Encycl. Mystic; Corporis. l. c .. p. 221 ss. Id .. Lin. Encj’cl. Human; generis, 12 Aug. 1950: AAS 42 (1950) p. 0” I.”

86.  On Pius XII’s ccctcstologv. see Joseph Clifford Fenton. “Pope Pius XII and the Theological Treatise on the Church.” AnU!rictlll Ecclesiastical Review 139 (1958): 407419.

87.  “Quidam censent se non devinciri doctrina paucis ante annis in Encyclicis Nostris Litteris exposita. ac fontibus “revelationis” innixa, quae quidem docet corpus Christi mystlcurn et Ecclesiam Catholicam Romanam unum idemque esse. Aliqui necesstratem pertinendi ad veram Ecclesiam, ut sempiterna attingatur salus, ad vanam formularn reducunt. Alii denique rationali indoli “credibilitatis” fidei christianae iniuriam inferunt.” Humani generis, 27. AAS 42, 571. What is curious is that this material was contained in older editions of Denztnger (DS 2319). It is now removed from the 43n.ledition of Denzinger (DH 38913892). This is one of the many curious acts of the 43rd edition of Denzinger. See Christian D. Washburn, Review of Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations (Hi Matters of Faith and Morals, by Hunnermann, Nova et Vetera 12 (2014): S97600

88.   “Iamvero ad definiendam describendamque hanc veracem Christi Ecclcsiarncquac sancta, catholic a, apostolica, Romana Ecclesia estnihil nobilius. nihil pracstantius. nihil denique divinius invenitur sententia ilia, qua eadem nuncupatur “rnysticum Iesu Christi Corpus”; quae quidem sententia ex iis effluit ac veluti efflorescat. quae et in Sacrts Littcris et in sanctorum Patrum scriptis crebro proponuntur.” AAS 31. 199.

89.  AS1II/8,789 footnote 10.

90.  “Dum enim in naturali corpore unitatis principium ita panes iungit. lit propria. quam \”1)cant, substsrenrta singulae prorsus careant; contra in mystico Corpore mutuae coniunctionis vis, etiamsi intima, membra ita inter se copulat, ut singula om nino fruantur persona propria.” AAS 35, 221.

91.   “Sanna et catholica Ecclesia, quae est Corpus Christi Mysticum.” Orientalium Ecclesiarum 2.

92.  “Una enim atque unica a Christo Domino condita est/Ecclesiae plures tamen chnsrtaneac Communi ones sese ut Iesu Christi, veram haercditatcm homlnibus proponunt.” UR l. Francisco Gil HeIlin, Concilii Vaticani II synopsis in ordinem redigens schemata cum relationibus necnon patrum orauones atque animadversiones (Citta del Vaticana: Libr. Ed. Varicano, 2005), 9.

93.  “Hie tantum factum, prout ab omnibus conspicitur, describendum est. Postea clare affirmatur solam Ecclesiam catholicam esse veram Ecclesiam Christi.” AS IJII7, 12.

94.  “Textlls supponit doctrinam in constitutione “De Ecclesia” expositam, ut pag. 5, lin. 2425 affirmatur.” ASIIII7, 15.

95.  “Ex toto textu clare apparet identification Ecclesiae Christi cum Ecclesia catholica, quamvis, lit oportet, efferantur elementa ecclesialia aliarum communitatum.” AS IlV7, 17. Becker, S.)., “An Examination of Subsistit in: A Profound Theological Perspective,” 13.

96.  Sullivan, “Quaestio Disputata: A Response to Karl Becker, S. j., On the Meaning of Subsistit In,” 403. This conclusion is inherently problematic. The function of the relatio is to explain officially the meaning of the decree, and clearly the relator thought that the decree did do this. Instead Sullivan seems to argue that the decree cannot mean this because he cannot find the relator’s meaning in the decree.

97.  Roberto De Mattei, The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story (Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto, 2(12) 421.

98.  “Minime dubitemus, dicimus, auxiliante Deo, hanc de Ecclesia Constituionem promulgare. Huius vero promulgationis potissimum commentarium illud esse videtur, quod per earn doctrina traditia nullo modo immutata est. Quod Christus voluit, id ipsum nosmetipsi volumus. Quod erat, permansit. Quae volventibus saecuus Ecclesia docuit. edadem et nos doccmus.” AS III/8, 911. English translation from Paul VI, “Exploring the Mystery of the Church,” 77)e Pope Speaks 10 (1964): 133. The principal context for this statement is a discussion of episcopal collegiality, but the subject of these statements concerns the constitution as such.

99.  Sullivan, “Quaestio Disputata: A Response to Karl Becker, S. .l.. On the Meaning of Subsistit In,” 401.

100.                      DH 110.

101.                      DH 127,1617.

102.                       “ltaquc una est ecclesia quae sola catholica nominator, er quidquid suum habet in communionibus diversorum a sua unitate separatis, per hoc quod suum in eis habet ipsa uttque generat, non ilIae. Ne que enim sepratio earum generat sed quod secum de ista tenuerunt; quodsi et hoc dimittant, omnino non generant.” Augustine, De baptisrno, 1.10.14 (BA 29: 14). Augustine, In Iohannis evangelium tractatus, Vl, 17 (CCL 36, 62). O’Connor, “The Church of Christ and the Catholic Church,” 261.

103.                      Bellarmine, S. J., Disputationes Roberti Bellarmini Politiani Societatisjesu, de Controterstis Christianae Fidei, adversus hujus temporis Haereticos (Paris: Triadelphorum, 1613), I.IllX, vol. 1, 158; 1I.1I.19, vol. 1,342; IX.LVII, vel. 3, 236.

104.                      Cited in Ernest C. Messenger, Rome and Reunion; A Collection of Papal Pronouncements (London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne, 1934), 129•130.

105.                      Cited in Bernard Leeming, The Churches and the Church;A Study OfEcumenisnt with a New Postscript (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1963), 255. Yves Congar, Divided Christendom; A Catholic Study of the Problem of Reunion (London:G. Bles,1939).245.

106.                      [Ecclesia Catholica Romana est Mysticium Christi Corpus] “Docet igitur sacra synod us et sollemniter profitetur non esse nisi unicam veram jesu Christi Ecclesiam, earn nempe quam Symbolo, unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam celebramus ... idoque sola iure Catholica Romana nuncupatur Ecclesia.” Schemata constitutionum et decretorum de quibus disceptabitur in Concilii sessionibus, Series secunda (Rome: Typis Polyglottts Vaticanis,1962), 12.

107.                       “In iis enim elementa quaedam Ecclesiae exsistunt ut potissimum Scriptura Sacra et Sacramenta, quae, ut media et signa unitatis efficacia unionem mutuum in Christo producere possum et natura sua, ut res Ecclesiae Christi propriae, ad unitatem catholic am impeltum.” Schemata constitutionum et decretorum de quibus disceptabitur in Conciln sessicrubus. Series secunda, 81. (English translation, J. Komonchak, available at jakumonchak.wordpress.com accessed October 13, 2015).

108.                      Unttatis redintegratio 3.

109.                      Sullivan, “The Significance of the Vatican II Declaration that the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Roman Catholic Church,” 281. Sullivan, “Quaestio Disputata: A Response to Karl Becker, S.)., On the Meaning of 5ubsistit 1n,” 400401. Sullivan, “Quaestio Disputata: Further Thoughts on the Meaning of Subsistit in,” 134. Jared Wicks, S. J, “The Significance of the “Ecclesial Communities” of the Reformation,” Ecumenical Trends (2001): 173.

110.                      Alexandra von Teuffenbach, Diarium/Konzilstagebuch Sebastian Tromp 5j, mit Erlduterungen und Akten aus der Arbeit der Theologischen Kommission II Vatlcanisches Konzil, Band 1/1 (19601962) (Rome: Editrice Pont. Universita Gregoriana, 2(06). 245, 447

111.                      Schemata constitutionurn et decretorum de quihus disceptabitur in Concilii sesstoni: bus, Series secunda, 8789. On the use of the term “churches” and “ecclesial communities” in the debates leading to the development of Decreeon Bcumenism, see jared Wicks, S.)., “The Significance of the “Ecclesial Communities” of the Reformation,” 170173,

112.                      Some scholars argue that while the doctrinal commission did accept the term that Tromp suggested, i.e., subs/slit in, it did not accept the meaning that he assigned to it. Sullivan, “Quaestio Disputata: Further thoughts on the meaning of subsistit in,” 136, They argue that the doctrinal commission implicitly denied Tromp’s assertion when it acknowledged in the )rtl schema of lumen gentium those who “receive baptism and other sacraments in their churches or ccclesial communities”. First, this could only be true if the acknowledgment of other ecclcsial communities as church in some sense was contradictory to a claim of exclusive identity; as shown above these two claims were never considered contradictory. Second, such a claim suggests that Tromp was unwilling to refer to separated Eastern communities as “ccclesial communities or churches.” Jared Wicks, S. J., “Questions and Answers on the New “Responses” of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” 10 I. There is absolutely no evidence for such a claim, and given everything we know about Tromp, he most certainly adhered to the teaching of Pius XII. The only thing for which there is evidence is that Tromp did not think that the separated Eastern churches and other Christian communities as such (i.e. that by which they are other than the Catholic Church) are part of the Church of Christ.

113.                      The goal of such expressions is not to deny that they are churches in some sense of the term but always that they do not constitute the Church of Christ as such. The term foetus is also applied frequently to Protestant communions, in part because Protestants often spoke of their own church as a coetus sanctorum or jidelium, although they also used commuruo sanctorum. Thus Me1anchthon held that the visible church is the coetus sanctorum. “Ecclesia visibilis est coetus sanctorum, cui multi hypocritae admixti sunt, de vera doctrina tamen consentientes, habens exrernas notas, professionem purae doctrinae Evangelii et legitimum ususm sacramentorum.” WA 39/2, 146. Luther, WA 40/3, 133. The Latin of the Belgic Confession reads, “Credimus unicam ecclesiam catholicam sen universalem, quae est congregatio saneta sen coetus omnium vere fidelium christianorum, ‘lui rotam suam salutem in uno jesu Christo exspectant. sanguine ipsius abluti er per spiritum ejus sanctificati atque obsignati.” Sylloge confessionum sub tempus refonnanaae ecclesiae edttarum, Professio fidei Trtdentina. Confessto Helretica. Augustana. Saxontca. Belgica. Subficturuur Catecbismus Heidelbergensis et Canones Synodt Dordrechtanae (Oxonii: e typographeo Clarendoniano, 1804), 309. The 39 Articles also speak of the Church in this way. “Ecclesia Christi visibilis. est coetus fidelium, in quo uerbum Dei pumm praedicatur, et sacramenta, quoad ea quae necessaria exiguntur, iuxta Christi institutum recte administrantur.” Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Cbristendom: with a History and Critical Notes (New York: Harper, 1877),3: 499.

114.                      Franc. X. De Abarzuza, O.F.M. Cap., Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, 2nd ed. (Madrid: Ediciones Studium, 1956), 1: 390, 391, 394. R. P. Hermann, Theologia Generalis, vol. 1 of lnstitutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, 7th ed. (Paris, Lyons: Emmanue1em Vitte, 1937), 426,432. ). M. Herve, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, 161h ed. (Westminster, MD: The Newman Bookshop, 1943), 1: 374, 403. H. Hurter, S. J, Tbeologiae Dogmalicae Compendium, 121h ed. (Oeniponte: Libraria Academica Wagneriana: 19(8), 1: 179, 180, 184. Camillo Mazzella, De religione et ecdesia praelectiunes scholasticodogmaticae (Romae: Officina Typographica Forzani et Socii, 1896), 531, 639, 647; Salaverri, Sacrae Tbeologtae Summa, 4th ed, (Matriti: Biblioteca De Autores Cristianos, 1967), 1: 651, 945. Franciscus Xaverius Schouppe, Blementa theologiae dogmaticae e probatis auctoriaus collecta et Dioini Verbi ministerio accummodata opera Pranctsci Xauerii Schouppe26th ed. (Lyon [etc]: Delhomme et Briguet, 1901), I: 20 I, 202, 4H 1. Reginald Maria Schultes, De ecclesia Catholica praelecuones apologeticae (Paris: Lethielleux, 1931), 244,255. Francis A. Sullivan, De ecclesia: Tractatus Dogmaticus (Romac: Pont Univ. Gregoriana, 1962), 145. Francis A. Sullivan, De ecclesia, I: quaestiones theologiae fundamen• talis (Romae: Apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1963), 1;6157. Adolphe Tanquery, Brevior Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, 9lh ed. (Paris: Desclcc & Socii, 1949), 118 Adolphe Tanquery, Synopsis Theologicae Dogmaticae (Paris: Desclce et Socii, 1953),1: 399, 545, 550. G. Van Noort, Christ’s Church, vol. 2 of Dogmatic Theology, trans. John Castelot and William Murphy (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1961), 169, 171, 136, 190, Timotheus Zapelena, De ecclesia Christi: summarium; ad usum auditorum Universitatis Gregorianae (Romae: Univ. Gregoriana, 1932), 135, 206, 211. Valentin Zubizarreta, Theologia dogmaticoscbolastica ad mentem S. Thomae Aquinatis (Bilbao: Ed. Elexpuru, 1948), 384, 386.

115.                      Sullivan, “The Meaning of Subsistit in as Explained by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” 123.

116.                      Malloy writes. “We can reconcile Tromp’s opinion with the tradition and with Aeternus Unigeniti, both of which acknowledge the title “church” for some non-Catholic communions. This reconciliation may be possible in one or both of two ways, We could suggest (a) that Tromp (or the authors of Aeternus Unigeniti 7) was denying the existence of more than one Church on the universal level but not the applicability of the title “church” to every particular non-Catholic communion. Or (b), we could understand the term “church” of particular communions in three senses: improper, proper but analogous, and proper and univocal. An “improper” use of the term “church” would involve an extension beyond the bounds of analogy, a use not proper to theology qua scientific. (Such, for instance, would be its use with respect to those communions that do not have valid Orders and a valid Eucharist.) Now, the Acta of Vatican II show the Secretariat for Christian Unity firmly defending the “proper” use of the term “church” for some non-Catholic communions (i.e .. those of the “East”),. Malloy, “Subsistit In: Nonexclusive Identity or Full Identity?” 23.