The Church has repeatedly clarified the authentic meaning of the term subsists

The Church Has Repeatedly Clarified The Authentic Meaning Of The Term Subsists.

 

Robert J. Siscoe

July 2026

  

In March 1985, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) issued a Notification concerning a book by Fr. Leonardo Boff, a Marxist and liberation theologian. Among the teachings the CDF judged to “endanger the sound doctrine of the faith” was Boff’s interpretation of the term subsistit in (Lumen gentium 8). Boff claimed that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church and also outside her visible structure in non‑Catholic sects. The CDF declared this interpretation to be exactly contrary to the authentic meaning of the Council’s text.

The Notification states:

“In order to justify it [his erroneous view of the Church], L. Boff appeals to the constitution Lumen gentium (No. 8) of the Second Vatican Council. From the Council’s famous statement, ‘Haec ecclesia… subsistit in Ecclesia Catholica’ (‘this Church,’ that is, the sole Church of Christ… subsists in the Catholic Church’), he derives a thesis which is exactly the contrary to the authentic meaning of the Council text, for he affirms: ‘In fact it (the sole Church of Christ) may also be present in other Christian Churches’ (p. 75). But the Council had chosen the word subsistit—subsists—precisely to make clear that one sole ‘subsistence’ of the true Church exists, whereas outside her visible structure only elementa Ecclesiae—elements of the Church—exist… Turning upside down the meaning of the Council text on the Church’s subsistence lies at the base of L. Boff’s ecclesiological relativism…”

Thus, the Church has clarified that subsists means that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church alone. To interpret it as meaning the Church of Christ alsosubsists outside of her visible boundaries – as the SSPX has done for 50 years – is contrary to the authentic meaning of the Council’s teaching.

This clarification was reaffirmed in Dominus Iesus (August 6, 2000). Footnote 56 states:

“The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non‑Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen gentium.”

The footnote then cites the CDF’s 1985 Notification against Boff.

Further clarification was provided on June 29, 2007, when the CDF explained that subsists is to be understood diachronically rather than synchronically—that is, as a perduring, historical continuity. In other words, the Church “constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him” (Lumen gentium 8), and will always subsist in that Church:

“In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity… the word ‘subsists’ can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess…” (CDF, Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church, June 29, 2007)

This diachronic understanding of subsistsis consistent with its general theological usage. For example, Cardinal Billot, in Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi, writes:

“Either by divine law antecedently… the primacy would subsist in [the Roman See] perpetually. Or by consequent divine law… whatever Peter determined regarding the conditions of succession would remain firm and ratified, to be retained inviolably until the end.” (Tractus De Ecclesia Christi, 1909)

Billot clearly understands subsistsas referring to a perpetual, historical subsistence: the Primacy will subsist perpetually in the Diocese of Rome alone—not simultaneously in Rome and in other dioceses.

Nevertheless, despite repeated clarifications from the Magisterium, the SSPX and its apologists continue to misinterpret “subsist” and accuse the Church of error or even heresy for allegedly teaching that the Church of Christ “subsists” in non‑Catholic communities—a claim the CDF has explicitly rejected as “exactly contrary to the authentic meaning” of the Council’s text.

When one’s only argument for legitimacy is the “crisis in the Church,” making that crisis appear as bad as possible becomes paramount. For the Society and its apologists, that includes interpreting texts in the worst possible light, rejecting authoritative clarifications from the CDF, and in the end, accusing the Church of error and heresy for teaching what she does not teach. “Subsists” is one example of many.

For example out of many, I will end with a quote from Fr. Bourmaud (SSPX), taken from his book:  One Hundred Years of Modernism: 

 “To Congar, friend of Rahner, do we owe the schema of Lumen Gentium, which, with its famous ‘subsistit,’ claims that the separate Churches belong to the Church of Christ — pure heresy.” (Fr. Dominique Bourmaud, One Hundred Years of Modernism)