If you believe the modernists that they did not intend change Catholic doctrine, you have missed the the last boat off of the island.

.
Those are two examples on the same topic. In both cases the traditional doctrine is supported.
.
Removing "subsists in" and replacing it with "is" would make the text more in line with tradition.
Also, in the explanation, using "vestiges" instead of "elements" would make it more traditional.
.
The liberals choose "subsists in" for the docuмent and "elements" to explain it, as if that makes it in accord with tradition, when in fact, they're sneaking in a word that doesn't belong (elements in place of vestiges).
.

.
Certainly LG was written with the intent to deceive -- and their scheme of deception included imprecise language that would hide their real objective. One way of attempting to make the best of it (which is really a waste of time, but anyway...) is to accuse this "seemingly awkward text" of being ambiguous, and then endeavoring to clear it up by using more traditional vocabulary.
.
That's a nice intention, but it amounts to making a silk purse of a sow's ear. The authors deliberately chose awkward vocabulary in order to deceive, and in order to drag novelties into the Church right in the open for all to see.
.
It seems to me that the only way of overcoming its defects and error is to trash the whole thing, not to attempt to fix it.
..
quote author=JPaul link=topic=46893.msg580451#msg580451 date=1511393299

I hope you can expand on this some time when it is convenient.  I am trying to understand the implications of the distinction you made so more examples would be helpful.  

A reminder about my question:

Well, if P6 hadn't replaced the sacraments with pseudo-sacraments there would be no traditional Catholic movement.  The only guy to publicly resist V2 prior to 1968 was Francis Shuckhardt who formed a traditional religious congregation and publicly declared his belief that the Holy See was vacant.  It was only after they started messing with the sacraments that a significant movement began.

I am a revert to the faith since around 2010. I came into the church under pope Benedict 16. I have studied as much of the faith as I am able to comprehend. I am certainly no theologian and actually more of a tradesman. A couple of things have been persuading me that the sedevecantist are correct. Comparing the church we have now to what it was before V2 it seems clear that a defacto new religion was created. I know that dogma has remained the same however the actual teaching of priests and bishops ignores much pre v2 morality. There is no preaching on sɛҳuąƖ morality including contraception or adultery, no preaching on confession or sin, no preaching on our duty as Catholics to obey church teaching. I don't see how the current church bears any resemblance to what my Catholic ancestors experienced. Now we have a pope that is sort of just rolling out policy after policy that seems to diminish the churches teachings for example Amoris Lateticia. Any thought on why you don't flee the church are welcome. God Bless!