Perhaps because of the availability of (bad) sedevacantist and traditionalist literature on this "problem" in Vatican II teaching, you have decided to focus your sedevacantist ire at a pseudo-problem. (I speak as a former "traditionalist" Catholic myself.)

Mr. Richert has repeatedly located your error. "Partial subsistence" is not what Lumen Gentium and the Church "post-Vatican II" teach. "Partial subsistence" is, in fact, a contradiction in terms, speaking philosophically and theologically. @60, you identify "exist" with "subsist," thereby revealing your complete misunderstanding of the entire POINT of "Responses." Ironically, the point you are not understanding is the traditional understanding of "subsist."

Accidents ("elements") EXIST only in something (= depend upon substances for their existence); only substances SUBSIST (= exist independently, on their own). Therefore, to subsist partially is impossible: something either subsists or it exists. There is no middle ground.

This is the traditional understanding, laid out in the philosophical and theological writings of the Scholastic theologians (especially St. Thomas) and used in the explications of Church teaching in various official Church documents (Trent, for example). Lumen Gentium used this traditional understanding of the distinction between substance and accidents (and their respective modes of being) in developing Catholic ecclesiology, along these lines:

(1) The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.

(2) There are elements/accidents of the Church of Christ that are present even in heretical and schismatic communities (and therefore outside the visible Catholic Church), e.g., baptism, and sometimes other sacraments (depending on several factors). Therefore, elements of the Church of Christ EXIST (but do not SUBSIST) in communities that are separated from the Catholic Church. (Surely, Mr. Meng, you will not deny that some non-Catholic communities have valid sacraments? And you would of course agree that whatever valid sacraments they do have, they can only have these sacraments in virtue of the Catholic Church, i.e., the valid sacraments present there derive their efficacy from the Catholic Church that Christ instituted. Therefore there are elements of the Catholic Church, i.e., of the Church of Christ, present in non-Catholic communities.)

(3) Therefore it is most appropriate to say that there are elements/accidents of the Church of Christ existing (but not subsisting) in non-Catholic communities, whereas the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church alone.

An anticipated objection: Why not just say that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church? Why "deviate" from strict identification? The answer, in short, is this: strict identification is, by itself, true but requires clarification to make sense ecclesiologically. If you merely identify the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church by saying the former IS the latter, you are of course true and correct, but unless you clarify what that identification means or entails, you are unable sufficiently to account for the presence of elements of the Church of Christ in non-Catholic communities. Therefore, to account for the presence of these elements in non-Catholic communities, the Church at Vatican II adopted the traditional distinction between substance and accident: accidents/elements of the Church of Christ exist in non-Catholic communities (in spite of their heresy and/or schism), but they exist only by the efficacious power of the Church of Christ that subsists in the Catholic Church alone.

Therefore, the teaching of Lumen Gentium is a clarification and development of, NOT a turning away from, prior Catholic teaching.

Do you believe that it is only through and by Christ that we are saved?

Do you believe that Christ has willed that salvation be accomplished through the instrumentality of His Church?

Do you believe that one of the effects of baptism is incorporation into Christ?

Do you believe that to be incorporated into Christ is to be a part of His Mystical Body, the Church?

Do you believe that it is possible for non-Catholic Christians to have valid baptisms?

Do you believe that the non-Catholic Churches (i.e. Orthodox, Oriental) have valid orders and sacraments? And that these sacraments may confer grace if the recipients are suitably disposed?

Do you recognize there is a difference between a formal heretic/schimastic and a material heretic/schimastic? If so, do you believe that someone who has been incorporated into Christ remains united to Him unless he commits a sin? On the other hand, being a material schimastic or heretic is not a sin?

You have repeatedly made a claim that I have repeatedly shown to be untrue—that the Catholic Church currently teaches a doctrine of "partial subsistence" (your words), in which "'The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church', as well as in all other non-Catholic churches" (your words). It appears that you finally realize that you cannot convince others of your lie in light of the plain words of "Responses" ("the word 'subsists' can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone"), so you've now dropped your explicit claim in your latest response—without, however, admitting that you were lying or even pleading confusion that led you into error.

Until you do so, however, I have no reason to believe that you have entered this discussion in good faith. Show us a sign that you have—admit that several times you made a very specific claim that was (intentionally or unintentionally) wrong—and we can move on to other matters. Unless you are willing to do so, however, I'm not wasting any more of my time on you.

"Worshipping at the altar of laissez faire captitalism is a mistake that both libertarians and neoconservatives make. "

I'm not sure I can agree, Father David. There is a marked difference between laissez faire capitalism as preferred by libertarians and the mercantilist, or corporate capitalism promoted by neoconservatives. There really is no form of laissez faire capitalism in operation today. Maybe the words "worshipping at the altar" were rather hyperbolic on your part.

Neoconservatives are usually apostate Jews or Christians if indeed any of them ever actually had any religious beliefs. It's rather hard to find areas of agreement between neocons and libertarians. Maybe you meant to refer to objectivists who pass themselves off as libertarians.

You also wrote, "Vladimir Solovyov, in tune with Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII, countered Bastiat by observing that men are not a colony of ants. They must know that they are doing good and desire to do good. Social justice will not occur automatically or accidentally."

Though I believe that I myself must do good out of a sincere desire to do good in order to follow the teachings of Christ, I can't see any reason to conclude that I should follow these teachings of my Savior in order to bring about "social justice". What those who believe in the concept of social justice seem to mean by the term is a set of consequences that occur, not "automatically or accidentally", but spontaneously. That spontaneity is, I believe, the hand of God, and is not dependent upon my imperfect attempts to do good.

The apparent belief of some who use the term, "social justice", seems that it is something that must be compelled by secular rulers. That is a view which runs counter to my own beliefs. I haven't seen the term "social justice" in the Scriptures, but have seen it used by socialists and other collectivists.

Amen.

Always the Luther. Cain't you Catholics just fight amongst yourselves? Besides, Luther didn't do THAT in 1517.

Scott, I appreciate the response that I encouraged from you. Yet your noblest, most thoughtful efforts do little to clear the miasma to which I referred @63.

To a great extent, the teachings of V-II and the intentions behind them remain clear as mud some four-plus decades later. How much of that is due to benighted perception vs. besmirched reality vs. evil intentions vs. sheer ineptitude is matter for endless, inconclusive debate.

What is clear to me, at least, is that these troubled times in the Church are God's judgment being visited upon us. As to the reasons for that visitation, we would all do well to ponder them deeply and prayerfully.